docetl2/example_data/debates/data.json

[
  {
    "year": 2024,
    "date": "June 27, 2024",
    "title": "The Biden-Trump Presidential Debate",
    "content": "JAKE TAPPER, CNN MODERATOR: We’re live from Georgia, a key battleground state in the race for the White House. In just moments, the current U.S. president will debate the former U.S. president as their parties’ presumptive nominees, a first in American history.\n\nWe want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world to our studios in Atlanta.\n\nThis is the CNN presidential debate.\n\nDANA BASH, CNN MODERATOR: This debate is being produced by CNN and it’s coming to you live on CNN, CNN International, CNN.com, CNN Max, and CNN Espanol.\n\nThis is a pivotal moment between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in their rematch for the nation’s highest office. Each will make his case to the American people with just over four months until Election Day.\n\nGood evening. I’m Dana Bash, anchor of CNN’s “Inside Politics” and co-anchor of “State Of The Union.”\n\nTAPPER:  I’m Jake Tapper, anchor of CNN’s “The Lead” and co-anchor of “State Of The Union.”\n\nDana and I will co-moderate this evening. Our job is to facilitate a debate between the two candidates tonight.\n\nBefore we introduce them, we want to share the rules of the debate with the audience at home.\n\nFormer President Trump will be on the left side of the screen. President Biden will be appearing on the right. A coin toss determined their positions.\n\nEach candidate will have two minutes to answer a question, and one minute each for responses and rebuttals. An additional minute for follow-up, clarification or response is at the moderators’ discretion.\n\nBASH:  When it’s time for a candidate to speak, his microphone will be turned on and his opponent’s microphone will be turned off. Should a candidate interrupt when his microphone is muted, he will be difficult to understand for viewers at home.\n\nAt the end of the debate, each candidate will get two minutes for closing statements.\n\nThere is no studio audience tonight. Pre-written notes, props or contact with campaign staff are not permitted during the debate.\n\nBy accepting our invitation to debate, both candidates and their campaigns agreed to accept these rules.\n\nTAPPER:  Now please welcome the 46th president of the United States, Joe Biden.\n\nJOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: How are you? Good to be here. Thank you.\n\nTAPPER:  And please welcome the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump.\n\nGentlemen, thanks so much for being here. Let’s begin the debate. And let’s start with the issue that voters consistently say is their top concern, the economy.\n\nPresident Biden, inflation has slowed, but prices remain high. Since you took office, the price of essentials has increased. For example, a basket of groceries that cost $100 then, now costs more than $12; and typical home prices have jumped more than 30 percent.\n\nWhat do you say to voters who feel they are worse off under your presidency than they were under President Trump?\n\nBIDEN:  You have to take a look at what I was left when I became president, what Mr. Trump left me.\n\nWe had an economy that was in freefall. The pandemic are so badly handled, many people were dying. All he said was, it’s not that serious. Just inject a little bleach in your arm. It’d be all right.\n\nThe economy collapsed. There were no jobs. Unemployment rate rose to 15 percent. It was terrible.\n\nAnd so, what we had to do is try to put things back together again. That’s exactly what we began to do. We created 15,000 new jobs. We brought on – in a position where we have 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.\n\nBut there’s more to be done. There’s more to be done. Working class people are still in trouble.\n\nI come from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I come from a household where the kitchen table – if things weren’t able to be met during the month was a problem. Price of eggs, the price of gas, the price of housing, the price of a whole range of things.\n\nThat’s why I’m working so hard to make sure I deal with those problems. And we’re going to make sure that we reduce the price of housing. We’re going to make sure we build 2 million new units. We’re going to make sure we cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over.\n\nThe combination of what I was left and then corporate greed are the reason why we’re in this problem right now.\n\nIn addition to that, we’re in a situation where if you had – take a look at all that was done in his administration, he didn’t do much at all. By the time he left, there’s – things had been in chaos. There was (ph) literally chaos.\n\nAnd so, we put things back together. We created, as I said, those (ph) jobs. We made sure we had a situation where we now – we brought down the price of prescription drugs, which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for – for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400. No senior has to pay more than $200 for any drug – all the drugs they (inaudible) beginning next year.\n\nAnd the situation is making – and we’re going to make that available to everybody, to all Americans. So we’re working to bring down the prices around the kitchen table. And that’s what we’re going to get done.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you.\n\nPresident Trump?\n\nDONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had the greatest economy in the history of our country. We had never done so well. Every – everybody was amazed by it. Other countries were copying us.\n\nWe got hit with COVID. And when we did, we spent the money necessary so we wouldn’t end up in a Great Depression the likes of which we had in 1929. By the time we finished – so we did a great job. We got a lot of credit for the economy, a lot of credit for the military, and no wars and so many other things. Everything was rocking good.\n\nBut the thing we never got the credit for, and we should have, is getting us out of that COVID mess. He created mandates; that was a disaster for our country.\n\nBut other than that, we had – we had given them back a – a country where the stock market actually was higher than pre-COVID, and nobody thought that was even possible. The only jobs he created are for illegal immigrants and bounceback jobs; they’re bounced back from the COVID.\n\nHe has not done a good job. He’s done a poor job. And inflation’s killing our country. It is absolutely killing us.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you.\n\nPresident Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  Well, look, the greatest economy in the world, he’s the only one who thinks that, I think. I don’t know anybody else who thinks it was great – he had the greatest economy in the world.\n\nAnd, you know, the fact of the matter is that we found ourselves in a situation where his economy – he rewarded the wealthy. He had the largest tax cut in American history, $2 trillion. He raised the deficit larger than any president has in any one term. He’s the only president other than Herbert Hoover who has lost more jobs than he had when he began, since Herbert Hoover. The idea that he did something that was significant.\n\nAnd the military – you know, when he was president, they were still killing people in Afghanistan. He didn’t do anything about that. When he was president, we still found ourselves in a position where you had a notion that we were this safe country. The truth is, I’m the only president this century that doesn’t have any – this – this decade – doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world, like he did.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump, I want to follow up, if I can. You wanted…\n\nTRUMP:  Am I allowed to respond to him?\n\nTAPPER:  Well, I’m going to ask you a follow-up. You can do whatever you want with the minute that we give you.\n\nI want to follow up. You want to impose a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the U.S. How will you ensure that that doesn’t drive prices even higher?\n\nTRUMP:  Not going to drive them higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China and many others, in all fairness to China – it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things.\n\nBut he – he made a statement. The only thing he was right about is I gave you the largest tax cut in history. I also gave you the largest regulation cut in history. That’s why we had all the jobs. And the jobs went down and then they bounced back and he’s taking credit for bounceback jobs. You can’t do that.\n\nHe also said he inherited 9 percent inflation. No, he inherited almost no inflation and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership, because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn’t know what they were doing. And they don’t know what they were doing. It was the worst – probably the worst administration in history. There’s never been.\n\nAnd as far as Afghanistan is concerned, I was getting out of Afghanistan, but we were getting out with dignity, with strength, with power. He got out, it was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country’s life.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump, over the last eight years, under both of your administrations, the national debt soared to record highs. And according to a new non-partisan analysis, President Trump, your administration approved $8.4 trillion in new debt. While so far, President Biden, you’ve approved $4.3 trillion in new debt.\n\nSo former President Trump, many of the tax cuts that you signed into law are set to expire next year. You want to extend them and go even further, you say. With the U.S. facing trillion-dollar deficits and record debt, why should top earners and corporations pay even less in taxes than they do now?\n\nTRUMP:  Because the tax cuts spurred the greatest economy that we’ve ever seen just prior to COVID, and even after COVID. It was so strong that we were able to get through COVID much better than just about any other country. But we spurred – that tax spurred.\n\nNow, when we cut the taxes – as an example, the corporate tax was cut down to 21 percent from 39 percent, plus beyond that – we took in more revenue with much less tax and companies were bringing back trillions of dollars back into our country.\n\nThe country was going like never before. And we were ready to start paying down debt. We were ready to start using the liquid gold right under our feet, the oil and gas right under our feet. We were going to have something that nobody else has had. We got hit with COVID. We did a lot to fix it. I gave him an unbelievable situation, with all of the therapeutics and all of the things that we came up with. We – we gave him something great.\n\nRemember, more people died under his administration, even though we had largely fixed it. More people died under his administration than our administration, and we were right in the middle of it. Something which a lot of people don’t like to talk about, but he had far more people dying in his administration.\n\nHe did the mandate, which is a disaster. Mandating it. The vaccine went out. He did a mandate on the vaccine, which is the thing that people most objected to about the vaccine. And he did a very poor job, just a very poor job.\n\nAnd I will tell you, not only poor there, but throughout the entire world, we’re no longer respected as a country. They don’t respect our leadership. They don’t respect the United States anymore.\n\nWe’re like a Third World nation. Between weaponization of his election, trying to go after his political opponent, all of the things he’s done, we’ve become like a Third World nation. And it’s a shame the damage he’s done to our country.\n\nAnd I’d love to ask him, and will, why he allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails and mental institutions to come into our country and destroy our country.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump, we will get to immigration later in this block.\n\nPresident Biden, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to this question about the national debt.\n\nBIDEN:  He had the largest national debt of any president four-year period, number one.\n\nNumber two, he got $2 trillion tax cut, benefited the very wealthy.\n\nWhat I’m going to do is fix the taxes.\n\nFor example, we have a thousand trillionaires in America – I mean, billionaires in America. And what’s happening? They’re in a situation where they, in fact, pay 8.2 percent in taxes. If they just paid 24 percent or 25 percent, either one of those numbers, they’d raised $500 million – billion dollars, I should say, in a 10-year period.\n\nWe’d be able to right – wipe out his debt. We’d be able to help make sure that – all those things we need to do, childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the COVID – excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with.\n\nLook, if – we finally beat Medicare.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden.\n\nPresident Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, he’s right: He did beat Medicaid (ph). He beat it to death. And he’s destroying Medicare, because all of these people are coming in, they’re putting them on Medicare, they’re putting them on Social Security. They’re going to destroy Social Security.\n\nThis man is going to single-handedly destroy Social Security. These millions and millions of people coming in, they’re trying to put them on Social Security. He will wipe out Social Security. He will wipe out Medicare. So he was right in the way he finished that sentence, and it’s a shame.\n\nWhat’s happened to our country in the last four years is not to be believed. Foreign countries – I’m friends with a lot of people. They cannot believe what happened to the United States of America. We’re no longer respected. They don’t like us. We give them everything they want, and they – they think we’re stupid. They think we’re very stupid people.\n\nWhat we’re doing for other countries, and they do nothing for us. What this man has done is absolutely criminal.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nDana?\n\nBASH:  This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. This morning, the court ruled on yet another abortion case, temporarily allowing emergency abortions to continue in Idaho despite that state’s restrictive ban.\n\nFormer President Trump, you take credit for the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which returned the issue of abortion to the states.\n\nTRUMP:  Correct.\n\nBASH:  However, the federal government still plays a role in whether or not women have access to abortion pills. They’re used in about two-thirds of all abortions.\n\nAs president, would you block abortion medication?\n\nTRUMP:  First of all, the Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it.\n\nAnd if you look at this whole question that you’re asking, a complex, but not really complex – 51 years ago, you had Roe v. Wade, and everybody wanted to get it back to the states, everybody, without exception. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, everybody wanted it back. Religious leaders.\n\nAnd what I did is I put three great Supreme Court justices on the court, and they happened to vote in favor of killing Roe v. Wade and moving it back to the states. This is something that everybody wanted.\n\nNow, 10 years ago or so, they started talking about how many weeks and how many of this – getting into other things, But every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it brought back to the states. I did that.\n\nNow the states are working it out. If you look at Ohio, it was a decision that was – that was an end result that was a little bit more liberal than you would have thought. Kansas I would say the same thing. Texas is different. Florida is different. But they’re all making their own decisions right now. And right now, the states control it. That’s the vote of the people.\n\nLike Ronald Reagan, I believe in the exceptions. I am a person that believes. And frankly, I think it’s important to believe in the exceptions. Some people – you have to follow your heart. Some people don’t believe in that. But I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I think it’s very important. Some people don’t. Follow your heart.\n\nBut you have to get elected also and – because that has to do with other things. You got to get elected.\n\nThe problem they have is they’re radical, because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth – after birth.\n\nIf you look at the former governor of Virginia, he was willing to do this. He said, we’ll put the baby aside and we’ll determine what we do with the baby. Meaning, we’ll kill the baby.\n\nWhat happened is we brought it back to the states and the country is now coming together on this issue. It’s been a great thing.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nPresident Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  It’s been a terrible thing what you’ve done.\n\nThe fact is that the vast majority of constitutional scholars supported Roe when it was decided, supported Roe. And I was – that’s – this idea that they were all against it is just ridiculous.\n\nAnd this is the guy who says the states should be able to have it. We’re in a state where in six weeks you don’t even know whether you’re pregnant or not, but you cannot see a doctor, have your – and have him decide on what your circumstances are, whether you need help.\n\nThe idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.\n\nLook, there’s so many young women who have been – including a young woman who just was murdered and he went to the funeral. The idea that she was murdered by – by – by an immigrant coming in and (inaudible) talk about that.\n\nBut here’s the deal, there’s a lot of young women who are being raped by their – by their in-laws, by their – by their spouses, brothers and sisters, by – just – it’s just – it’s just ridiculous. And they can do nothing about it. And they try to arrest them when they cross state lines.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nTRUMP:  There have been many young women murdered by the same people he allows to come across our border. We have a border that’s the most dangerous place anywhere in the world – considered the most dangerous place anywhere in the world. And he opened it up, and these killers are coming into our country, and they are raping and killing women. And it’s a terrible thing.\n\nAs far as the abortion’s concerned, it is now back with the states. The states are voting and in many cases, they – it’s, frankly, a very liberal decision. In many cases, it’s the opposite.\n\nBut they’re voting and it’s bringing it back to the vote of the people, which is what everybody wanted, including the founders, if they knew about this issue, which frankly they didn’t, but they would have – everybody want it brought back.\n\nRonald Reagan wanted it brought back. He wasn’t able to get it.\n\nEverybody wanted it brought back and many presidents had tried to get it back. I was the one to do it.\n\nAnd again, this gives it the vote of the people. And that’s where they wanted it. Every legal scholar wanted it that way.\n\nBASH:  Staying on the topic of abortion, President Biden, seven states – I’ll let you do that. This is the same topic.\n\nSeven states have no legal restrictions on how far into a pregnancy a woman can obtain an abortion. Do you support any legal limits on how late a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy?\n\nBIDEN:  I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters.\n\nFirst time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between a doctor and an extreme situation. A third time is between the doctor – I mean, it’d be between the woman and the state.\n\nThe idea that the politicians – that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about a woman’s health is ridiculous. That’s the last – no politician should be making that decision. A doctor should be making those decisions. That’s how it should be run. That’s what you’re going to do.\n\nAnd if I’m elected, I’m going to restore Roe v. Wade.\n\nTRUMP:  So that means he can take the life of the baby in the ninth month and even after birth, because some states, Democrat-run, take it after birth. Again, the governor – former governor of Virginia:  put the baby down, then we decide what to do with it.\n\nSo he’s in – he’s willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby.\n\nNobody wants that to happen. Democrat or Republican, nobody wants it to happen.\n\nBIDEN:  He’s lying. That is simply not true.\n\nThat – Roe v. Wade does not provide for that. That’s not the circumstance. Only when the woman’s life is in danger, she’s going to die, that’s the only circumstance in which that can happen.\n\nBut we are not for late-term abortion, period, period, period.\n\nTRUMP:  Under Roe v. Wade, you have late-term abortion. You can do whatever you want. Depending on the state, you can do whatever you want.\n\nWe don’t think that’s a good thing. We think it’s a radical thing. We think the Democrats are the radicals, not the Republicans.\n\nBIDEN:  For 51 years, that was the law. 51 years, constitutional scholarship said it was the right way to go. 51 years. And it was taken away because this guy put very conservative members on the Supreme Court. Takes credit for taking it away.\n\nWhat’s he going to do? What’s he going to do, in fact, if – if the MAGA Republicans – he gets elected, and the MAGA Republicans control the Congress and they pass a universal ban on abortion, period, across the board at six weeks or seven or eight or 10 weeks, something very, very conservative? Is he going to sign that bill? I’ll veto it. He’ll sign it.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nTAPPER:  Let’s turn now to the issue of immigration and border security.\n\nPresident Biden, a record number of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border on your watch, overwhelming border states and overburdening cities such as New York and Chicago, and in some cases causing real safety and security concerns. Given that, why should voters trust you to solve this crisis?\n\nBIDEN:  Because we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement that not only changed all of that, it made sure that we are in a situation where you had no circumstance where they could come across the border with the number of border police there are now. We significantly increased the number of asylum officers. Significantly – by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position.\n\nIn addition to that, we found ourselves in a situation where, when he was president, he was taking – separating babies from their mothers, putting them in cages, making sure the families were separated. That’s not the right way to go.\n\nWhat I’ve done – since I’ve changed the law, what’s happened? I’ve changed it in a way that now you’re in a situation where there are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally. It’s better than when he left office. And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the – the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either.\n\nLook, we had the safest border in the history of our country. The border – all he had to do was leave it. All he had to do was leave it.\n\nHe decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists. We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world – not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in. And this guy just left it open.\n\nAnd he didn’t need legislation because I didn’t have legislation. I said, close the border. We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had, according to Border Patrol – who is great, and, by the way, who endorsed me for president. But I won’t say that. But they endorsed me for president.\n\nBrandon, just speak to him.\n\nBut, look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nPresident Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  The only terrorist who has done anything crossing the border is one who came along and killed three in his administration, killed – an al-Qaida person in his administration killed three American soldiers, killed three American soldiers. That’s the only terrorist that’s there.\n\nI’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.\n\nOnce again, he’s exaggerating. He’s lying.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump, staying on the topic of immigration, you’ve said that you’re going to carry out, quote, “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” unquote. Does that mean that you will deport every undocumented immigrant in America, including those who have jobs, including those whose spouses are citizens, and including those who have lived here for decades? And if so, how will you do it?\n\nTRUMP:  Can I get one second?\n\nHe said we killed three people. The people we killed are al-Baghdadi and Salamani (sic), the two greatest terrorists, biggest terrorists anywhere in the world. And it had a huge impact on everything; not just border, on everything.\n\nHe’s the one that killed people with the bad border, including hundreds of thousands of people dying, and also killing our citizens when they come in. We – we are living right now in a rat’s nest. They’re killing our people in New York, in California, in every state in the union, because we don’t have borders anymore. Every state is now a border.\n\nAnd because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen. We call it migrant crime. I call it Biden migrant crime.\n\nThey’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen before. And you’re reading it like these three incredible young girls over the last few days. One of them, I just spoke to the mother, and we just had the funeral for this girl, 12 years old.\n\nThis is horrible what’s taken place. What’s taken place in our country, we’re literally an uncivilized country now.\n\nHe doesn’t want it to be. He just doesn’t know. He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like. And we have to get a lot of these people out and we have to get them out fast, because they’re going to destroy our country.\n\nJust take a look at where they’re living. They’re living in luxury hotels in New York City and other places. Our veterans are on the street, they’re dying, because he doesn’t care about our veterans. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t like the military at all. And he doesn’t care about our veterans.\n\nNobody’s been worse. I had the highest approval rating for veterans, taking care of the V.A. He has the worst. He’s gotten rid of all the things that I approved, choice, that I got through Congress. All of the different things I approved, they abandoned.\n\nWe had, by far, the highest, and now it’s down in less than half because he’s done – all these great things that we did – and I think he did it just because I approved it, which is crazy. But he has killed so many people at our border by allowing…\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nTRUMP:  … all of these people to come in.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden…\n\nTRUMP:  And it’s a very sad day in America.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden, you have the mic.\n\nBIDEN:  Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.\n\nFor example, veterans are a hell of a lot better off since I passed the PACT Act. One million of them now have insurance, and their families have it – and their families have it. Because what happened, whether was Agent Orange or burn pits, they’re all being covered now. And he opposed – his group opposed that.\n\nWe’re also in a situation where we have great respect for veterans. My – my son spent a year in Iraq living next to one of those burn pits. Came back with stage four glioblastoma.\n\nI was recently in – in – in France for D-Day, and I spoke to all – about those heroes that died. I went to the World War II cemetery – World War I cemetery he refused to go to. He was standing with his four-star general, and he told him – he said, I don’t want to go in there because they’re a bunch of losers and suckers.\n\nMy son was not a loser. He was not a sucker. You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  First of all, that was a made-up quote, suckers and losers. They made it up. It was in a third-rate magazine that’s failing, like many of these magazines. He made that up. He put it in commercials. We’ve notified them. We had 19 people that said I didn’t say it.\n\nAnd think of this, who would say – I’m at a cemetery, or I’m talking about our veterans – because nobody’s taken better care – I’m so glad this came up, and he brought it up. There’s nobody that’s taken better care of our soldiers than I have.\n\nTo think that I would, in front of generals and others, say suckers and losers – we have 19 people that said it was never said by me. It was made up by him, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was made up, just like the 51 intelligence agents are made up, just like the new thing with the 16 economists are talking.\n\nIt’s the same thing. Fifty-one intelligence agents said that the laptop was Russia disinformation. It wasn’t. That came from his son Hunter. It wasn’t Russia disinformation. He made up the suckers and losers, so he should apologize to me right now.\n\nBIDEN:  You had a four-star general stand at your side, who was on your staff, who said you said it, period. That’s number one.\n\nAnd, number two, the idea – the idea that I have to apologize to you for anything along the lines. We’ve done more for veterans than any president has in American history – American history. And they now – and their family. The only sacred obligation we have as a country is to care for our veterans when they come home, and their families, and equip them when they go to war.\n\nThat’s what we’re doing. That’s what the V.A. is doing now. They’re doing more for veterans than ever before in our history.\n\nTAPPER:  All right. Thank you so much.\n\nBASH:  Let’s move to the topic of foreign policy. I want to begin with Russia’s war against Ukraine, which is now in its third year.\n\nFormer President Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin says he’ll only end this war if Russia keeps the Ukrainian territory it has already claimed and Ukraine abandons its bid to join NATO.\n\nAre Putin’s terms acceptable to you?\n\nTRUMP:  First of all, our veterans and our soldiers can’t stand this guy. They can’t stand him. They think he’s the worst commander in chief, if that’s what you call him, that we’ve ever had. They can’t stand him. So let’s get that straight.\n\nAnd they like me more than just about any of them. And that’s based on every single bit of information.\n\nAs far as Russia and Ukraine, if we had a real president, a president that knew – that was respected by Putin, he would have never – he would have never invaded Ukraine.\n\nA lot of people are dead right now, much more than people know. You know, they talk about numbers. You can double those numbers, maybe triple those numbers. He did nothing to stop it. In fact, I think he encouraged Russia from going in.\n\nI’ll tell you what happened, he was so bad with Afghanistan, it was such a horrible embarrassment, most embarrassing moment in the history of our country, that when Putin watched that and he saw the incompetence that he should – he should have fired those generals like I fired the one that you mentioned, and so he’s got no love lost. But he should have fired those generals.\n\nNo general got fired for the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country, Afghanistan, where we left billions of dollars of equipment behind, we lost 13 beautiful soldiers and 38 soldiers were obliterated. And by the way, we left people behind too. We left American citizens behind.\n\nWhen Putin saw that, he said, you know what? I think we’re going to go in and maybe take my – this was his dream. I talked to him about it, his dream. The difference is he never would have invaded Ukraine. Never.\n\nJust like Israel would have never been invaded, in a million years, by Hamas. You know why? Because Iran was broke with me. I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke. They had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything. No money for terror.\n\nThat’s why you had no terror at all during my administration. This place, the whole world is blowing up under him.\n\nBASH:  President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  I’ve never heard so much malarkey in my whole life.\n\nLook, the fact of the matter is that we’re in a situation where – let’s take the last point first.  Iran attacked American troops, killed, caused brain damage for a number of these troops, and he did nothing about it. Recently – when he was president, they attacked. He said they’re just having headaches. That’s all it is. We didn’t do a thing when the attack took place, number one.\n\nNumber two, we got over 100,000 Americans and others out of Afghanistan during that airlift.\n\nNumber three, we found ourselves in a situation where, if you take a look at what Trump did in Ukraine, he’s – this guy told Ukraine – told Trump, do whatever you want. Do whatever you want. And that’s exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want. And he went in.\n\nAnd listen to what he said when he went in, he was going to take Kyiv in five days, remember? Because it’s part of the old Soviet Union. That’s what he wanted to re-establish, Kyiv. And he, in fact, didn’t do it at all. He didn’t – wasn’t able to get it done. And they’ve lost over – they’ve lost thousands and thousands of troops, 500,000 troops.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nPresident Trump…\n\nTRUMP:  I never said that.\n\nBASH:  … I’m going to come back to you for one minute. I just want to go back to my original question, which is, are Putin’s terms acceptable to you, keeping the territory in Ukraine?\n\nTRUMP:  No, they’re not acceptable. No, they’re not acceptable.\n\nBut look, this is a war that never should have started. If we had a leader in this war – he led everybody along. He’s given $200 billion now or more to Ukraine. He’s given $200 billion. That’s a lot of money. I don’t think there’s ever been anything like it. Every time that Zelenskyy comes to this country, he walks away with $60 billion. He’s the greatest salesman ever.\n\nAnd I’m not knocking him, I’m not knocking anything. I’m only saying, the money that we’re spending on this war, and we shouldn’t be spending, it should have never happened.\n\nI will have that war settled between Putin and Zelenskyy as president-elect before I take office on January 20th. I’ll have that war settled.\n\nPeople being killed so needlessly, so stupidly, and I will get it settled and I’ll get it settled fast, before I take office.\n\nBASH:  President Biden, you have a minute.\n\nBIDEN:  The fact is that Putin is a war criminal. He’s killed thousands and thousands of people. And he has made one thing clear: He wants to re-establish what was part of the Soviet Empire. Not just a piece, he wants all of Ukraine. That’s what he wants.\n\nAnd then do you think he’ll stop there? Do you think he’ll stop when he – if he takes Ukraine? What do you think happens to Poland? What do you think of Belarus? What do you think happens to those NATO countries?\n\nAnd so, if you want a war, you ought to find out what he’s going to do. Because if, in fact, he does what he says and walks away – by the way, all that money we give Ukraine and weapons we make here in the United States. We give them the weapons, not the money at this point. And our NATO allies have produced as much funding for Ukraine as we have. That’s why it’s – that’s why we’re strong.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nMoving on to the Middle East, in October, Hamas attacked Israel, killing more than a thousand people and taking hundreds of hostages. Among those held and thought to still be alive are five Americans. Israel’s response has killed thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.\n\nPresident Biden, you’ve put forward a proposal to resolve this conflict. But so far, Hamas has not released the remaining hostages and Israel is continuing its military offensive in Gaza.\n\nSo what additional leverage will you use to get Hamas and Israel to end the war? You have two minutes.\n\nBIDEN:  Number one, everyone from the United Nations Security Council straight through to the G7 to the Israelis and Netanyahu himself have endorsed the plan I put forward, endorsed the plan I put forward, which has three stages to it.\n\nThe first stage is trade the hostages for a ceasefire. Second phase is a ceasefire with additional conditions. The third phase is know – the end of the war.\n\nThe only one who wants the war to continue is Hamas, number one. They’re the only ones standing out (ph). We’re still pushing hard from – to get them to accept.\n\nIn the meantime, what’s happened in Israel? We’re finally – the only thing I’ve denied Israel was 2,000-pound bombs. They don’t work very well in populated areas. They kill a lot of innocent people. We are providing Israel with all the weapons they need and when they need them.\n\nAnd by the way, I’m the guy that organized the world against Iran when they had a full-blown kind of ballistic – ballistic missile attack on Israel. No one was hurt. No – one Israeli was accidentally killed. And it stopped. We saved Israel.\n\nWe are the biggest producer of support for Israel than anyone in the world. And so, that’s – there’re two different things.\n\nHamas cannot be allowed to be continued. We continue to send our experts and our intelligence people to how they can get Hamas like we did Bin Laden. You don’t have to do it.\n\nAnd by the way, they’ve been greatly weakened, Hamas, greatly weakened. And they should be. They should be eliminated.\n\nBut you got to be careful for what you use these certain weapons among population centers.\n\nTRUMP:  Just going back to Ukraine for one second, we have an ocean separating us. The European nations together have spent $100 billion, or maybe more than that, less than us. Why doesn’t he call them so you got to put up your money like I did with NATO? I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. The secretary general of NATO said Trump did the most incredible job I’ve ever seen. You wouldn’t – they wouldn’t have any – they were going out of business. We were spending – almost 100 percent of the money was – it was paid by us.\n\nHe didn’t do that. He is getting all – you got to ask these people to put up the money. We’re over $100 billion more spent, and it has a bigger impact on them, because of location, because we have an ocean in between. You got to ask them.\n\nAs far as Israel and Hamas, Israel’s the one that wants to go – he said the only one who wants to keep going is Hamas. Actually, Israel is the one. And you should them go and let them finish the job.\n\nHe doesn’t want to do it. He’s become like a Palestinian. But they don’t like him, because he’s a very bad Palestinian. He’s a weak one.\n\nBASH:  President Biden, you have a minute.\n\nBIDEN:  I’ve never heard so much foolishness.\n\nThis is a guy who wants to get out of NATO. You’re going to stay in NATO or you’re going to pull out of NATO?\n\nThe idea that we have – our strength lies in our alliances as well. It may be a big ocean, but we’re – (inaudible) able to avoid a war in Europe, a major war in Europe. What happens if, in fact, you have Putin continue to go into NATO? We have an Article Five agreement, attack on one is attack on all. You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine and then move on to Poland and other places. See what happens then.\n\nHe has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.\n\nAnd by the way, I got 50 other nations around the world to support Ukraine, including Japan and South Korea, because they understand that this was – this – this kind of dislocation has a serious threat to the whole world peace. No – no major war in Europe has ever been able to be contained just to Europe.\n\nBASH:  President Trump, just to follow up, would you support the creation of an independent Palestinian state in order to achieve peace in the region?\n\nTRUMP:  I’d have to see.\n\nBut before we do that, the problem we have is that we spend all the money. So they kill us on trade. I made great trade deals with the European nations, because if you add them up, they’re about the same size economically. Their economy is about the same size as the United States. And they were – no cars. No – they don’t want anything that we have. But we’re supposed to take their cars, their food, their everything, their agriculture. I changed that.\n\nBut the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.\n\nBut now, we’re in the same position. We’re paying everybody’s bills.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nTAPPER:  Let’s turn to the issue of democracy. Former President Trump, I want to ask you about January 6, 2021.\n\nAfter you rallied your supporters that day, some of them stormed the Capitol to stop the constitutionally mandated counting of electoral votes. As president, you swore an oath to, quote, “preserve, protect and defend,” unquote, the Constitution. What do you say to voters who believe that you violated that oath through your actions and inaction on January 6th and worry that you’ll do it again?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, I don’t think too many believe that.\n\nAnd let me tell you about January 6th, on January 6th, we had a great border, nobody coming through, very few. On January 6th, we were energy independent. On January 6th, we had the lowest taxes ever, we had the lowest regulations ever. On January 6th, we were respected all over the world.\n\nAll over the world we were respected, and then he comes in, and we’re now laughed at, we’re like a bunch of stupid people. What happened to the United States’ reputation under this man’s leadership is horrible, including weaponization, which I’m sure at some point you’ll be talking about, where he goes after his political opponent because he can’t beat him fair and square.\n\nTAPPER:  You have 80 seconds left. My question was: What do you say to those voters who believe that you violated your constitutional oath through your actions, inaction on January 6th, 2021, and worry that you’ll do it again?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, I didn’t say that to anybody. I said peacefully and patriotically.\n\nAnd Nancy Pelosi, if you just watch the news from two days ago, on tape to her daughter, who’s a documentary filmmaker, as they say, what she’s saying, oh, no, it’s my responsibility, I was responsible for this. Because I offered her 10,000 soldiers or National Guard, and she turned them down. And the mayor of – in writing, by the way, the mayor. In writing turned it down, the mayor of D.C. They turned it down.\n\nI offered 10,000 because I could see – I had virtually nothing to do. They asked me to go make a speech. I could see what was happening. Everybody was saying they’re going to be there on January 6th. They’re going to be there. And I said, you know what? There’s a lot of people coming, you could feel it. You could feel it too. And you could feel it. And I said, they ought to have some National Guard or whatever. And I offered it to her. And she now admits that she turned it down. And it was the same day. She was – I don’t know, you can’t be very happy with her daughter because it made her into a liar. She said, I take full responsibility for January 6th.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  Look, he encouraged those folks to go up on Capitol Hill, number one.\n\nI sat in that dining room off the Oval Office – he sat there for three hours, three hours, watching, begging – being begged by his vice president and a number of his colleagues and Republicans as well to do something, to call for a stop, to end it. Instead, he talked – they’ve talked about these people being patriots and – and great patrons of America. In fact, he says he’ll now forgive them for what they’ve done. They’ve been convicted. He says he wants to commute their sentences and say that – no.\n\nHe went to every single court in the nation, I don’t know how many cases, scores of cases, including the Supreme Court, and they said they said – they said, no, no, this guy, this guy is responsible for doing what is being – was done.\n\nHe didn’t do a damn thing. And these people should be in jail. And they should be the ones who are being held accountable. And he wants to let them all out.\n\nAnd now he says if he loses again, such a whiner that he is, that there could be a bloodbath.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden.\n\nPresident Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  What they’ve done to some people that are so innocent, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, what you have done, how you’ve destroyed the lives of so many people.\n\nWhen they ripped down Portland, when they ripped down many other cities – you go to Minnesota, Minneapolis, what they’ve done there with the fires all over the city. If I didn’t bring in the National Guard, that city would have been destroyed.\n\nWhen you look at all of the – they took over big chunks of Seattle. I was all set to bring in the National Guard. They heard that, they saw them coming and they left immediately.\n\nWhat he said about this whole subject is so off. Peacefully patriotic.\n\nOne other thing, the unselect committee, which is basically two horrible Republicans that are all gone now, out of office, and Democrats, all Democrats, they destroyed and deleted all of the information they found, because they found out we were right. We were right. And they deleted and destroyed all of the information.\n\nThey should go to jail for that. If a Republican did that, they’d go to jail.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nPresident Biden, I want to give you a minute.\n\nBIDEN:  The only person on this stage that is a convicted felon is the man I’m looking at right now. And the fact of the matter is he is – what he’s telling you is simply not true.\n\nThe fact is that there was no effort on his part to stop what was going on up on Capitol Hill. And all those people, every one of those who were convicted, deserves to be convicted. The idea that they didn’t kill somebody, just went in and broke down doors, broke the windows, occupied offices, turned over desks, turned them over, statues – the idea that those people are patriots? Come on.\n\nWhen I asked him, the first of two debates we had – debates we had the first time around, I said, will you denounce the Proud Boys? He said, no, I’ll tell them to stand by. The idea he’s refusing – will you denounce these guys? Will you denounce the people we’re talking about now? Will you denounce the people who attacked that Capitol? What are you going to do?\n\nTAPPER:  I’m going to give you a – a minute, President Trump, for a follow-up question I have.\n\nAfter a jury convicted you of 34 felonies last month, you said if re-elected you would, quote, “have every right to go after,” unquote, your political opponents. You just talked about members of the Select Committee on January 6th going to jail.\n\nYour main political opponent is standing on stage with you tonight. Can you clarify exactly what it means about you feeling you have every right to go after your political opponents?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, I said my retribution is going to be success. We’re going to make this country successful again, because right now it’s a failing nation. My retribution’s going to be success.\n\nBut when he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon at a very high level. His son is convicted. Going to be convicted probably numerous other times. He should have been convicted before, but his Justice Department let the statute of limitations lapse on the most important things.\n\nBut he could be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office. Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor, otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars.\n\nIf I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That – we’re not going to do anything, we’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son.\n\nThis man is a criminal. This man – you’re lucky. You’re lucky.\n\nI did nothing wrong. We’d have a system that was rigged and disgusting. I did nothing wrong.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nPresident Biden, you have said – I’m coming right to you, sir. You – well, you want to respond? Go ahead. I’ll give you a minute to respond.\n\nBIDEN:  The idea that I did anything wrong relative to what you’re talking about is outrageous. It’s simply a lie, number one.\n\nNumber two, the idea that you have a right to seek retribution against any American just because you’re a president is wrong, is simply wrong. No president’s ever spoken like that before. No president in our history has spoken like that before.\n\nNumber three, the crimes that you are still charged with – and think of all the civil penalties you have. How many billions of dollars do you owe in civil penalties for molesting a woman in public, for doing a whole range of things, of having sex with a porn star on the night – and – while your wife was pregnant?\n\nI mean, what are you talking about? You have the morals of an alley cat.\n\nTAPPER:  Give you a minute, sir.\n\nTRUMP:  I didn’t have sex with a porn star, number one.\n\nNumber two, that was a case that was started and moved – they moved a high-ranking official, a DOJ, into the Manhattan D.A.’s office to start that case. That case is going to be appealed in one.\n\nWe had a very terrible judge, a horrible judge, Democrat. The prosecutor were all high-ranking Democrats, appointed people. And the – both the civil and the criminal.\n\nHe basically went after his political opponent because he thought it was going to damage me. But when the public found out about these cases – because they understand it better than he does, he has no idea what these cases are. But when he – they – when they found out about these cases, you know what they did? My poll numbers went up way up. You know that because you’re reporting it. And we took in more money in the last two weeks than we’ve ever taken in in the history of any campaign, I don’t think any campaign has ever taken.\n\nHundreds of millions of dollars came pouring in because the public knows it’s a scam and it’s a guy that’s after his political opponent because he can’t win fair and square.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nPresident Biden, you have said, quote, “Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy.”\n\nDo you believe that the tens of millions of Americans who are likely to vote for President Trump will be voting against American democracy?\n\nBIDEN:  The more they know about what he’s done, yes. The more they know about what he’s done.\n\nAnd there’s a lot more coming. He’s got a lot of cases around the road coming around. He’s got – he’s got a whole range of issues he has to face. I don’t know what the juries will do, but I do know – I do know he has a real problem.\n\nAnd so the fact that – could you ever think you’re hearing any president say that, I’m going to seek retribution? Do you ever hear any president say that he thought it might be a good idea?\n\nWhat got me involved to run in the first place after my son had died, I decided – in Iraq – because of Iraq, I said, I wasn’t going to run again. Until I saw what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia, people coming out of the woods carrying swastikas on torches – torches and singing the same antisemitic bile they sang when – back in Germany.\n\nAnd what did – and the young woman got killed. I spoke to the mother. And she – they asked him, they said, what – well, what do you think of those people, the people who – the one who – the ones who tried to stop it and the ones who said, I think there’s fine people on both sides?\n\nWhat American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?\n\nThis is a guy who says Hitler’s done some good things. I’d like to know what they are, the good things Hitler’s done. That’s what he said.\n\nThis guy has no sense of American democracy.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  Jake, both of you know that story’s been totally wiped out. Because when you see the sentence, it said 100 percent exoneration on there. So he just keeps it going.\n\nHe says he ran because of Charlottesville. He didn’t run because of Charlottesville. He ran because it was his last chance at – he’s not equipped to be president. You know it and I know it.\n\nIt’s ridiculous. We have a debate. We’re trying to justify his presidency.\n\nHis presidency, his – without question, the worst president, the worst presidency in the history of our country. We shouldn’t be having a debate about it. There’s nothing to debate.\n\nHe made up the Charlottesville story and you’ll see it’s debunked all over the place. Every anchor has – every reasonable anchor has debunked it.\n\nAnd just the other day it came out where it was fully debunked. It’s a nonsense story. He knows that.\n\nAnd he didn’t run because of Charlottesville. He used that as an excuse to run.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  And debunk. It happened. All you have to do is listen to what was said at the time.\n\nAnd the idea that somehow that’s the only reason I ran. I ran because I was worried a guy like this guy can get elected.\n\nIf he thought they were good people coming out of that all – that forest, carrying those – those woods, carrying those torches, then he didn’t deserve to be president, didn’t deserve to be president at all.\n\nAnd the idea that he’s talking about all of this being fabricated, we saw it with our own eyes. We saw what happened on January 6. We saw the people breaking through the windows. We saw people occupying there.\n\nHis own vice president – look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. His vice president hasn’t endorsed him this time.\n\nSo, why? Why? They know him well. They serve with them. Why are they not endorsing him?\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden.\n\nWe’re going to be right back with more from the CNN presidential debate.\n\n(COMMERCIAL BREAK)\n\nBASH:  Welcome back to the CNN Presidential Debate live from Georgia.\n\nLet’s talk about persistent challenges you both faced in your first terms, and you’d certainly face again in a second term. President Biden, while black unemployment dropped to a record low under your presidency, black families still earn far less than white families.\n\nBlack mothers are still three times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes. And black Americans are imprisoned at five times the rate of white Americans. What do you say to black voters who are disappointed that you haven’t made more progress?\n\nBIDEN:  They acknowledge he made a lot of progress, number one. The facts of the matter is more small black businesses that have been started in any time in history. Number two, the wages of black – black unemployment is the lowest level it has been in a long, long time. Number three, we find them – they’re trying to provide housing for black Americans and dealing with segregation that exists among these corporate – these corporate operations that collude to keep people out of their houses.\n\nAnd in addition to that, we find that the impact of, on the – the choice that black families have to make relative to childcare is incredibly difficult. When we did the first major piece of legislation in the past, I was able to reduce black childcare costs. I cut them in half, in half. We’ve got to make sure we provide for childcare costs. We’ve got to make sure – because when you provide that childcare protections, you increase economic growth because more people can be in the – in the job market.\n\nSo there’s more to be done, considerably more to be done, but we’ve done a great deal so far and I’m not letting up and they know it.\n\nBASH:  You have 49 seconds left. What do you say to black voters who are disappointed with the progress so far?\n\nBIDEN:  I say, I don’t blame them for being disappointed. Inflation is still hurting them badly. For example, I provided for the idea that any black family, first time home buyer should get a $10,000 tax credit to be able to buy their first home so they can get started.\n\nI made sure that we’re in a situation where all those black families and those black individuals who provided had to take out student loans that were ballooning, that if they were engaged in nursing and anything having to do with volunteerism, if they paid their bills for 10 years on their student debt, all the rest was forgiven after 10 years. Millions have benefited from that and we’re going to do a whole lot more for black families.\n\nBASH:  Thank you. President Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  And he caused the inflation. He’s blaming inflation. And he’s right, it’s been very bad. He caused the inflation and it’s killing black families and Hispanic families and just about everybody. It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore. They can’t.\n\nYou look at the cost of food where it’s doubled and tripled and quadrupled. They can’t live. They’re not living anymore. He caused this inflation.\n\nI gave him a country with no, essentially no inflation. It was perfect. It was so good. All he had to do is leave it alone. He destroyed it with his green new scam and all of the other – all this money that’s being thrown out the window.\n\nHe caused inflation. As sure as you’re sitting there, the fact is that his big kill on the black people is the millions of people that he’s allowed to come in through the border. They’re taking black jobs now and it could be 18. It could be 19 and even 20 million people. They’re taking black jobs and they’re taking Hispanic jobs and you haven’t seen it yet, but you’re going to see something that’s going to be the worst in our history.\n\nBASH:  Thank you. President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  There was no inflation when I became president. You know why? The economy was flat on its back. 15 percent unemployment, he decimated the economy, absolutely decimated the economy. That’s why there was no inflation at the time.\n\nThere were no jobs. We provided thousands of millions of jobs for individuals who were involved in communities, including minority communities. We made sure that they have health insurance. We have covered with – the ACA has increased. I made sure that they’re $8,000 per person in the family to get written off in health care, but this guy wants to eliminate that. They tried 50 times. He wants to get rid of the ACA again, and they’re going to try again if they win.\n\nYou find ourselves in a position where the idea that we’re not doing it. I put more – we put more police on the street than any administration has. He wants to cut the cops. We’re providing for equity, equity, and making sure people have a shot to make it. There is a lot going on. But, on inflation, he caused it by his tremendous malfeasance in the way he handled the pandemic.\n\nBASH:  Thank you. Another persistent challenge is the climate crisis. 2023 was the hottest year in recorded history, and communities across the country are confronting the devastating effects of extreme heat, intensifying wildfires, stronger hurricanes, and rising sea levels.\n\nFormer President Trump, you’ve vowed to end your opponent’s climate initiatives. But, will you take any action as President to slow the climate crisis?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, let me just go back to what he said about the police, how close the police are to him. Almost every police group in the nation from every state is supporting Donald J. Trump, almost every police group. And what he has done to the black population is horrible, including the fact that for 10 years he called them super predators. We can’t, in the 1990s (ph), we can’t forget that. Super predators was his name. And he called it to them for 10, and they’ve taken great offense at it, and now they see it happening.\n\nBut, when they see what I did for criminal justice reform and for the historically black colleges and universities, where I funded them and got them all funded, and the opportunity zones with Tim. As you know, Tim Scott was - incredible, he did a great job, a great Senator from South Carolina. He came to me with the idea and it was a great idea. It’s one of the most successful economic development acts ever in the country, opportunity zones. And the biggest beneficiary are blacks. And that’s why we have the best numbers with them in maybe ever, they’re saying ever, I read this morning, wherever, the best numbers, he has lost much of the black population because he has done a horrible job for black people. He has also done a horrible job for Hispanics.\n\nBut, why do you see these millions of people pouring into our country and they’re going to take the jobs? And it’s already started. And you haven’t seen anything yet. It’s a disaster.\n\nBASH:  38 seconds left, President Trump. Will you take any action as President to slow the climate crisis?\n\nTRUMP:  So, I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O. We had the best numbers ever. And we did – we were using all forms of energy, all forms, everything. And yet, during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever. And my top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage, actually.\n\nBIDEN:  I don’t know where the hell he has been. The idea that, Dana, he said is true. I’ve passed the most extensive, it was the most extensive climate change legislation in history, in history. We find ourselves – and by the way, black colleges, I came up with $50 billion for HBCUs, historic black universities and colleges, because they don’t have the kind of contributors that they have to build these laboratories and the like. Any black student is capable in college in doing what any white student can do. They just have the money. But now, they’ll be able to get those jobs in high tech.\n\nWe’re in a situation where the idea that he kind of is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water, the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. He – out of the Paris Peace Accord – Climate Accord, I immediately joined it, because if we reach for 1.5 degrees Celsius at any one point, well, there is no way back. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it. He wants to undo all that I’ve done.\n\nTRUMP:  The Paris Accord was going to cost us a trillion dollars, and China nothing, and Russia nothing, and India nothing. It was a ripoff of the United States. And I ended it because I didn’t want to waste that money because they treat us horribly. We were the only ones – it was costing us money. Nobody else was paying into it. And it was a disaster.\n\nBut, everything that he said just now, I’ll give you an example. I heard him say before insulin, I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors. I took care of the seniors. What he is doing is destroying all of our medical programs because the migrants coming in. They want everybody. And look, I have the biggest heart on the stage. I guarantee you that. And I want to take care of people. But, we’re destroying our country. They’re taking over our schools, our hospitals, and they’re going to be taking over Social Security. He is destroying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.\n\nBIDEN:  Where does that come from? The idea is that we, in fact – we were the only ones of consequence or not who are not members of the Paris Accord. How can we do anything when (ph) we’re not able to – the United States can’t get it’s pollution under control? One of the largest polluters in the world, number one. We’re making significant progress. By 2035, we will have cut pollution in half. We have – we have made significant progress. And we’re continuing to make progress.\n\nWe set up a Climate Corps for thousands of young people will learn how to deal with climate, just like the Peace Corps. And we’re going to – we’re moving in directions that are going to significantly change the elements of the cause of pollution.\n\nBut the idea that he claims that he has the biggest heart up here and he’s really concerned about – about pollution and about climate, I’ve not seen any indication of that.\n\nAnd, by the way, with regard to prescription drugs, one company agreed that they would reduce the price to $35, which I was calling for – one, voluntarily. I made sure every company in the world, every pharmaceutical company, cannot have to pay.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nBIDEN:  And, by the way…\n\nTAPPER:  So every day millions of Americans struggle just to make ends meet. For many older Americans, Social Security provides a critical lifeline.\n\nPresident Biden, if nothing is done to Social Security, seniors will see their benefits cut in just over 10 years. Will you name tonight one specific step that you’re willing to take to keep Social Security solvent?\n\nBIDEN:  Yes, make the very wealthy begin to pay their fair share. Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6 percent of their income, of their paycheck, every single time they get a paycheck, from the time of the first one they get when they’re 18 years old.\n\nThe idea that they’re going to – I’m not – I’ve been proposing that everybody, they pay – millionaires pay 1 percent – 1 percent. So no one after – I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000. After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share, by increasing from 1 percent beyond, to be able to guarantee the program for life.\n\nTAPPER:  So you still have 82 seconds left. Are there any other measures that you think that would be able to help keep Social Security solvent, or is just – is that one enough?\n\nBIDEN:  Well, that one enough will keep it solvent. But the biggest thing I’ll do, if we defeat this man, because he wants to get rid of Social Security; he thinks that there’s plenty to cut in Social Security. He’s wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare, both times. And that’s with – and if you look at the program put forward by the House Republican Caucus that he, I believe, supports, is in fact wanting to cut it as well.\n\nThe idea that we don’t need to protect our seniors is ridiculous. We put – and, by the way, the American public has greater health care coverage today than ever before. And under the ACA, as I said, you’re in a circumstance where 400,000 people – I mean, 40 million people – would not have insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. The only thing that allows them to have that insurance is the fact that they in fact are part of the ACA.\n\nAnd, by the way, the other thing is we’re in a situation where I talk about education for black communities. I’ve raised the number, the amount of money for Pell grants by other $8,000 for anybody making under $70,000 a year, are going to be able to get $15,000 towards their tuition.\n\nIt’s just – he – he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden.\n\nPresident Trump?\n\nTRUMP:  So I’ve dealt with politicians all my life. I’ve been on this side of the equation for the last eight years. I’ve never seen anybody lie like this guy. He lies – I’ve never seen it. He could look you in the face. So – and about so many other things, too.\n\nAnd we mentioned the laptop, We mentioned “Russia, Russia, Russia,” “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.” And everything he does is a lie. It’s misinformation and disinformation. The “losers and suckers” story that he made up is a total lie on the military. It’s a disgrace.\n\nBut Social Security, he’s destroying it. Because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them on to Social Security; they’re putting them on to Medicare, Medicaid. They’re putting them in our hospitals. They’re taking the place of our citizens.\n\nThey’re – what they’re doing to the V.A., to our veterans, is unbelievable. Our veterans are living in the street and these people are living in luxury hotels. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. And it – it’s really coming back. I’ve never seen such anger in our country before.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  The idea that veterans are not being taken care of, I told you before – and, by the way, when I said “suckers and losers,” he said – he acknowledged after it that he fired that general. That general got fired because he’s the one that acknowledged that that’s what he said. He was the one standing with Trump when he said it, number one.\n\nNumber two, the idea that we’re going to be in a situation where all these millions and millions, the way he talks about it, illegal aliens are coming into the country and taking away our jobs, there’s a reason why we have the fastest-growing economy in the world, a reason why we have the most successful economy in the world. We’re doing better than any other nation in the world.\n\nAnd, by the way, those 15 Nobel laureates he talked about being phony, those 15 Nobel laureates, economists, they all said that, if Trump is re-elected, we’re likely to have a recession, and inflation is going to increasingly go up.\n\nAnd by the way, worst president in history – 159 presidential scholars voted him the worst president in the history of the United States of America.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden, thank you so much. Let’s turn to the cost of childcare, which many American families struggle to afford.\n\nPresident Trump, both you and President Biden have tried to address this issue, but the average cost of childcare in this country has risen to more than $11,000 a year per child. For many families, the cost of childcare for two children is more than their rent. In your second term, what would you do to make childcare more affordable?\n\nTRUMP:  Just to go back. The general got fired because he was no good. And if he said that, that’s why he made it up. But we have 19 people that said I didn’t say it, and they’re very highly respected, much more so than him.\n\nThe other thing is, he doesn’t fire people. He never fired people. I’ve never seen him fire anybody. I did fire a lot. I fired Comey because he was no good. I fired a lot of the top people at the FBI, drained the swamp. They were no good. Not easy to fire people. You’d pay a price for it, but they were no good. I inherited these people. I didn’t put him there. I didn’t put Comey there. He was no good. I fired him.\n\nThis guy hasn’t fired anybody. He never fires. He should have fired every military man that was involved with that Afghan – the Afghanistan horror show. The most embarrassing moment in the history of our country. He didn’t fire?\n\nDid you fire anybody? Did you fire anybody that’s on the border, that’s allowed us to have the worst border in the history of the world? Did anybody get fired for allowing 18 million people, many from prisons, many from mental institutions? Did you fire anybody that allowed our country to be destroyed? Joe, our country is being destroyed as you and I sit up here and waste a lot of time on this debate. This shouldn’t be a debate.\n\nHe is the worst president. He just said it about me because I said it. But look, he’s the worst president in the history of our country. He’s destroyed our country. Now, all of a sudden, he’s trying to get a little tough on the border. He come out – came out with a nothing deal, and it reduced it a little bit. A little bit, like this much. It’s insignificant.\n\nHe wants open borders. He wants our country to either be destroyed or he wants to pick up those people as voters. And I don’t think – we just can’t let it happen. If he wins this election, our country doesn’t have a chance. Not even a chance of coming out of this rut. We probably won’t have a country left anymore. That’s how bad it is. He is the worst in history by far.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump. President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  We are the most admired country in the world. We’re the United States of America. There’s nothing beyond our capacity. We have the finest military in the history of the world. The finest in the history of the world. No one thinks we’re weak. No one wants to screw around with us. Nobody. Number one.\n\nNumber two, the idea that we’re talking about worst presidents. I wasn’t joking. Look it up. Go online. 159 or 58, don’t hold me to the exact number, presidential historians. They’ve had meetings and they voted who’s the worst president in American history. One through best to worst. They said he was the worst in all of American history. That’s a fact. That’s not conjecture. He can argue they are wrong, but that’s what they voted.\n\nThe idea that he is knowing (ph) – doing anything to deal with child care. He did very – virtually nothing to child care. We should significantly increase the child care tax credit. We should significantly increase the availability of women and men for child or single parents to be able to go back to work, and we should encourage businesses to hold – to have child care facilities.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden. President Trump, the question was about what would you do to make child care more affordable? If you want to take your minute.\n\nTRUMP:  Just you understand, we have polling. We have other things that do – they rate him the worst because what he’s done is so bad. And they rate me – yes, I’ll show you. I will show you. And they rate me one of the best. OK.\n\nAnd if I’m given another four years, I will be the best. I think I’ll be the best. Nobody’s ever created an economy like us. Nobody ever cut taxes like us. He’s the only one I know. He wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times. He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire so everybody, including the two of you are going to pay four to five times. Nobody ever heard of this before.\n\nAll my life I’d grow up and I’d see politicians talking about cutting taxes. When we cut taxes, as I said, we did more business. Apple and all these companies, they were bringing money back into our country. The worst president in history by far, and everybody knows it.\n\nTAPPER:  President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  Look, the fact of the matter is that he’s dead wrong about it. He’s increased the tariff – he’s increased – he will increase the taxes on middle class people. I said I’d never raise a tax on anybody making less than $400,000. I didn’t.\n\nBut this tariff, this 10 percent tariffs. Everything coming into the country, you know what the economists say? That’s going to cost the average American $2,500 a year and more, because they’re going to have to pay the difference in food and all the things that are very important.\n\nNumber two, he’s in a situation where he talks about how he has not raised – he somehow helped the middle class. The middle class has been devastated by you. Now you want a new tax cut of $5 trillion over the next ten years, which is going to fundamentally bankrupt the country. You had the largest deficit of any president in American history, number one.\n\nNumber two, you have not, in fact, made any contact, any progress with China. We are the lowest trade deficit with China since 2010.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden. Thank you, President Biden.\n\nLet’s discuss an epidemic impacting millions of Americans that both of you have made a top priority in your first term, the opioid crisis. And for both of you, the number of overdose deaths in this country has gone up. Under your term, it went up. Under your term, it has gone up.\n\nFormer President Trump, despite the efforts that both of you have made, more than 100,000 Americans are dying from overdoses every year, primarily from fentanyl and other opioids. What will you do to help Americans right now in the throes of addiction, who are struggling to get the treatment they need?\n\nTRUMP:  To finish up, we now have the largest deficit in the history of our country under this guy, we have the largest deficit with China. He gets paid by China. He’s a Manchurian candidate. He gets money from China. So I think he’s afraid to deal with him or something.\n\nBut do you notice? He never took out my tariffs because we bring in so much money with the tariffs that I imposed on China. He never took them away. He can’t because it’s too much money. It’s tremendous. And we saved our steel industries. And there was more to come, but he hasn’t done that.\n\nBut he hasn’t cut the tariffs because he can’t, because it’s too much money. But he’s got the largest deficit in the history of our country and he’s got the worst situation with China. China is going to own us if you keep allowing them to do what they’re doing to us as a country. They are killing us as a country, Joe, and you can’t let that happen. You’re destroying our country.\n\nTAPPER:  So, President Trump, you have 67 seconds left. The question was, what are you going to do to help Americans in the throes of addiction right now who are struggling to get the treatment they need?\n\nTRUMP:  Jake, we’re doing very well at addiction until the COVID came along. We had the two-and-a-half, almost three years of like nobody’s ever had before, any country in every way. And then we had to get tough. And it was – the drugs pouring across the border, we’re – it started to increase.\n\nWe got great equipment. We bought the certain dog. That’s the most incredible thing that you’ve ever seen, the way they can spot it. We did a lot. And we had – we were getting very low numbers. Very, very low numbers.\n\nThen he came along. The numbers – have you seen the numbers now? It’s not only the 18 million people that I believe is even low, because the gotaways, they don’t even talk about gotaways. But the numbers of – the amount of drugs and human trafficking in women coming across our border, the worst thing I’ve ever seen at numbers – nobody’s ever seen under him because the border is so bad. But the number of drugs coming across our border now is the largest we’ve ever had by far.\n\nTAPPER:  President Trump, thank you. President Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  Fentanyl and the byproducts of fentanyl went down for a while. And I wanted to make sure we use the machinery that can detect fentanyl, these big machines that roll over everything that comes across the border, and it costs a lot of money. That was part of this deal we put together, this bipartisan deal.\n\nMore fentanyl machines, were able to detect drugs, more numbers of agents, more numbers of all the people at the border. And when we had that deal done, he went – he called his Republican colleagues said don’t do it. It’s going to hurt me politically.\n\nHe never argued it’s not a good bill. It’s a really good bill. We need those machines. We need those machines. And we’re coming down very hard in every country in Asia in terms of precursors for fentanyl. And Mexico is working with us to make sure they don’t have the technology to be able to put it together. That’s what we have to do. We need those machines.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden. President Trump, and again, the question is about Americans in the throes of addiction right now struggling to get the treatment they need.\n\nTRUMP:  Because this does pertain to it. He ended remain in Mexico, he ended catch and release. I made it catch and release in Mexico, not catch and release here. We had so many things that we had done, hard negotiations with Mexico, and I got it all for nothing.\n\nIt’s just like when you have a hostage, we always pay $6 billion for a – every time we sees hostage. Now we have a hostage. A Wall Street Journal reporter, I think a good guy, and he’s over there because Putin is laughing at this guy, probably asking for billions of dollars for the reporter.\n\nI will have him out very quickly, as soon as I take office, before I take office. I said by literally as soon as I win the election, I will have that reporter out. He should have had him out a long time ago. But Putin is probably asking for billions and billions of dollars because this guy pays it every time.\n\nWe had two cases where we paid $6 billion for five people. I got 58 people out and I paid essentially nothing.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Trump.\n\nDana.\n\nBASH:  Let’s turn to concerns that voters have about each of you.\n\nPresident Biden, you would be 86 at the end of your second term. How do you address concerns about your capability to handle the toughest job in the world well into your 80s?\n\nBIDEN:  Well, first of all, I spent half my career being – being criticized being the youngest person in politics. I was the second-youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate. And now I’m the oldest. This guy’s three years younger and a lot less competent. I think that just look at the record. Look what I’ve done. Look how I’ve turned around the horrible situation he left me.\n\nAs I said, 50 million new jobs, 800,000 manufacturing jobs, more investment in America, over millions – billions of dollars in private investment and – and enterprises that we are growing. We’ve – by the way, we brought an awful a lot of people – the whole idea of computer chips. We used to have 40 percent of the market. We invented those chips. And we lost it because he was sending people to cheap – to find the cheapest jobs overseas and to bring home a product.\n\nSo I went – I went to South Korea. I convinced Samsung to invest billions of dollars here in the United States. And then guess what? Those fabs, they call them, to – to build these chips, those fabs pay over $100,000. You don’t need a college degree for them. And there’s billions, about $40 billion already being invested and being built right now in the United States, creating significant jobs for Americans all over – from all over the world.\n\nBASH:  President Biden, you have 40 seconds left. Would you like to add anything?\n\nBIDEN:  Yeah, I would. The idea that somehow we are this failing country, I never heard a president talk like this before. We – we’re the envy of the world. Name me a single major country president who wouldn’t trade places with the United States of America. For all our problems and all our opportunities, we’re the most progressive country in the world in getting things done. We’re the strongest country in the world. We’re a country in the world who keeps our word and everybody trusts us, all of our allies.\n\nAnd our – those who he cuddles up to, from Kim Jong-un who he sends love letters to, or Putin, et cetera, they don’t want to screw around with us.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nFormer President Trump, to follow up, you would be 82 at the end of your second term. What do you say to voters who have concerns about your capabilities to serve?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, I took two tests, cognitive tests. I aced them, both of them, as you know. We made it public. He took none. I’d like to see him take one, just one, a real easy one. Like go through the first five questions, he couldn’t do it. But I took two cognitive tests. I took physical exams every year. And, you know, we knock on wood, wherever we may have wood, that I’m in very good health. I just won two club championships, not even senior, two regular club championships. To do that, you have to be quite smart and you have to be able to hit the ball a long way. And I do it. He doesn’t do it. He can’t hit a ball 50 yards. He challenged me to a golf match. He can’t hit a ball 50 yards.\n\nI think I’m a very good shape. I feel that I’m in as good a shape as I was 25, 30 years ago. Actually, I’m probably a little bit lighter. But I’m in as good a shape as I was years ago. I feel very good. I feel the same.\n\nBut I took – I was willing to take a cognitive test. And you know what, if I didn’t do well – I aced them. Dr. Ronny Jackson, who’s a great guy, when he was White House doctor. And then I took another one, a similar one, and both – one of them said they’d never seen anybody ace them.\n\nBASH:  Thank you.\n\nPresident Biden?\n\nBIDEN:  You’re going to see he’s six-foot-five and only 225 pounds – or 235 pounds.\n\nTRUMP:  (inaudible).\n\nBIDEN:  Well, you said six-four, 200.\n\nTRUMP:  (inaudible).\n\nBIDEN:  Well, anyway, that’s – anyway, just take a look at what he says he is and take a look at what he is.\n\nLook, I’d be happy to have a driving contest with him. I got my handicap, which, when I was vice president, down to a 6.\n\nAnd by the way, I told you before I’m happy to play golf if you carry your own bag. Think you can do it?\n\nTRUMP:  That’s the biggest lie that he’s a 6 handicap, of all.\n\nBIDEN:  I was 8 handicap.\n\nTRUMP:  Yeah.\n\nBIDEN:  Eight, but I have – you know how many…\n\nTRUMP:  I’ve seen your swing, I know your swing.\n\n(CROSSTALK)\n\nBASH:  President Trump, we’re going to…\n\n(CROSSTALK)\n\nTRUMP:  Let’s not act like children.\n\nBIDEN:  You are a child.\n\nBASH:  To you, a specific concern that voters have about you. Will you pledge tonight that once all legal challenges have been exhausted that you will accept the results of this election regardless of who wins and you will say right now that political violence in any form is unacceptable?\n\nTRUMP:  Well, I shouldn’t have to say that, but, of course, I believe that. It’s totally unacceptable.\n\nTRUMP:  And if you would see my statements that I made on Twitter at the time, and also my statement that I made in the Rose Garden, you would say it’s one of the strongest statements you’ve ever seen.\n\nIn addition to the speech I made, in front of, I believe, the largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to, and I will tell you, nobody ever talks about that. They talk about a relatively small number of people that went to the Capitol. And in many cases were ushered in by the police.\n\nAnd as Nancy Pelosi said, it was her responsibility, not mine. She said that loud and clear.\n\nBut the answer is, if the election is fair free, and I want that more than anybody.\n\nAnd I’ll tell you something – I wish he was a great president because I wouldn’t be here right now. I’d be at one of my many places enjoying myself. I wouldn’t be under indictment because I wouldn’t have been his political appoint – you know, opponent. Because he indicted me because I was his opponent.\n\nI wish he was a great president. I would rather have that.\n\nI wouldn’t be here. I don’t mind being here, but the only reason I’m here is he’s so bad as a president that I’m going to make America great again. We’re going to make America great again.\n\nWe’re a failing nation right now. We’re a seriously failing nation. And we’re a failing nation because of him.\n\nHis policies are so bad. His military policies are insane. They’re insane.\n\nThese are wars that will never end with him. He will drive us into World War Three and we’re closer to World War Three than anybody can imagine. We are very, very close to World War Three, and he’s driving us there.\n\nAnd Kim Jong-Un, and President Xi of China – Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, all of these – Putin – they don’t respect him. They don’t fear him. They have nothing going with this gentleman and he’s going to drive us into World War Three.\n\nBIDEN:  If you want a World War Three, let him follow (ph) and win, and let Putin say, do what you want to NATO – just do what you want.\n\nThere’s a thing called Article Five, an attack on one is attack on all, a required response.\n\nThe idea – the idea – I can’t think of a single major leader in the world who wouldn’t trade places with what job I’ve done and what they’ve done because we are a powerful nation, we have wonderful piece (ph), because of the people, not me, because of the American people. They’re capable of anything and they step up when they’re needed.\n\nAnd right now, we’re needed. We’re needed to protect the world because our own safety is at stake.\n\nAnd again, you want to have war, just let Putin go ahead and take Kyiv, make sure they move on, see what happens in Poland, Hungary, and other places along that border. Then you have a war.\n\nBASH:  President Trump, as I come back to you for a follow-up. The question was, will you accept the results of this election regardless of who wins?\n\nTRUMP:  Just to finish what he said, if I might, Russia – they took a lot of land from Bush. They took a lot of land from Obama and Biden. They took no land, nothing from Trump, nothing.\n\nHe knew not to do it. He’s not going to play games with me. He knew that. I got along with him very well, but he knew not to play games.\n\nHe took nothing from me, but now, he’s going to take the whole thing from this man right here.\n\nThat’s a war that should have never started. It would’ve never started ever with me. And he’s going to take Ukraine and, you know, you asked me a question before, would you do this with – he’s got us in such a bad position right now with Ukraine and Russia because Ukraine’s not winning that war.\n\nHe said, I will never settle until such time – they’re running out of people, they’re running out of soldiers, they’ve lost so many people. It’s so sad.\n\nThey’ve lost so many people and they’ve lost those gorgeous cities with the golden domes that are 1,000-years-old, all because of him and stupid decisions.\n\nRussia would’ve never attacked if I were president.\n\nBASH:  President Trump, the question was, will you accept the results of the election regardless of who wins? Yes or no, please?\n\nTRUMP:  If it’s a fair and legal and good election – absolutely. I would have much rather accepted these but the fraud and everything else was ridiculous that if you want, we’ll have a news conference on it in a week or we’ll have another one of these on – in a week.\n\nBut I will absolutely – there’s nothing I’d rather do. It would be much easier for me to do that than I’m running again. I wasn’t really going to run until I saw the horrible job he did. He’s destroying our country.\n\nI would be very happy to be someplace else, in a nice location someplace. And again, no indictments, no political opponent’s stuff, because it’s the only way he thinks he can win.\n\nBut unfortunately, it’s driven up by numbers and driven it up to a very high level, because the people understand it.\n\nBIDEN:  Let’s see what your numbers are when this election is over.\n\nTRUMP:  We’ll see.\n\nBIDEN:  Let’s see. You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country.\n\nNot one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit, state or local, none.\n\nBut you continue to promote this lie about somehow there’s all this misrepresentation, all the stealing. There’s no evidence of that at all.\n\nAnd I tell you what? I doubt whether you’ll accept it because you’re such a whiner. The idea if you lose again, you’re accepting anything, you can’t stand the loss. Something snapped in you when you lost the last time.\n\nBASH:  We’ll be right back with more from the CNN presidential debate live from Georgia.\n\n(COMMERCIAL BREAK)\n\nTAPPER:  It is now time for the candidates to deliver their closing statements.\n\nAs predetermined by a coin toss, we’re going to begin with you, President Biden. You have two minutes.\n\nBIDEN:  We’ve made significant progress from the debacle that was left by President Trump in his – in his last term.\n\nWe find ourselves in a situation where, number one, we have to make sure that we have a fair tax system. I ask anyone out there in the audience, or anyone out watching this debate, do you think the tax system is fair?\n\nThe fact is that I said, nobody even making under $400,000 had a single penny increasing their taxes and it will not. And if I’m reelected, that’ll be the case again.\n\nBut this guy is – has increased your taxes because of the deficit. Number one, he’s increased inflation because of the debacle he left after – when he handled the pandemic. And he finds himself in a position where he now wants to tax you more by putting a 10 percent tariff on everything that comes into the United States America.\n\nWhat I did, when, for example, he wants to get away with – and get rid of the ability of Medicare to – for the ability to – for the – us to be able to negotiate drug prices with big pharma companies.\n\nWell, guess what? We got it – we got it down to 15 – excuse me, $35 for insulin instead of $400. No more than $2,000 for every senior no matter what they – how much prescription they need.\n\nYou know what that did? That reduced the federal deficit (ph) – debt by $160 billion over 10 years because the government doesn’t have to pay the exorbitant prices.\n\nI’m going to make that available to every senior, all – or go longer. It’s happening now, and everybody in America. He wants to get rid of that.\n\nWe have – I’m going to make sure we have childcare. We’re going to significantly increase the credit people have for childcare. I’m going to make sure we do something about what we’re doing on lead pipes and all the things that are causing health problems for people across the country.\n\nWe’re going to continue to fight to bring down inflation and give people a break.\n\nTAPPER:  Thank you, President Biden.\n\nPresident Trump, you now have two minutes for your closing statement.\n\nTRUMP:  Like so many politicians, this man is just a complainer. He said we want to do this. We want to do that. We want to get rid of this tax, that tax, but he doesn’t do anything. He doesn’t do.\n\nAll he does is make our country unsafe by allowing millions and millions of people to pour in. Our military doesn’t respect him. We look like fools in Afghanistan.\n\nWe didn’t stop – Israel, it was such a horrible thing that would have never happened. It should have never happened.\n\nIran was broke. Anybody that did business with Iran, including China, they couldn’t do business with the United States. They all passed.\n\nIran was broke. They had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah, for terror, no money whatsoever.\n\nAgain, Ukraine should have never happened.\n\nHe talks about all this stuff, but he didn’t do it. For three-and-a-half years, we’re living in hell. We have the Palestinians and we have everybody else rioting all over the place.\n\nYou talk about Charlottesville. This is 100 times Charlottesville, 1,000 times.\n\nThe whole country is exploding because of you, because they don’t respect you. And they have to respect their president and they don’t respect you throughout the world.\n\nWhat we did was incredible. We re – rebuilt the military. We got the largest tax cut in history, the largest regulation cut in history.\n\nThe reason he’s got jobs is because I cut the regulations that gave jobs, but he’s putting a lot of those regulations back on.\n\nAll of the things that we’ve done, nobody’s ever – never seen anything like – even from a medical standpoint. Right to Try, where we can try Space Age materials instead of going to Asia or going to Europe and trying to get when you’re terminally ill.\n\nNow, you can go and you can get something. You sign a document. They’ve been trying to get it for 42 years.\n\nBut you know what we did for the military was incredible. Choice for our soldiers, where our soldiers, instead of waiting for three months to see a doctor, can go out and get themselves fixed up and readied up, and take care of themselves and they’re living. And that’s why I had the highest approval rating of the history of the V.A.\n\nSo, all of these things – we’re in a failing nation, but it’s not going to be failing anymore. We’re going to make it great again.\n\nBASH:  Thank you, former President Trump, President Biden.",
    "id": "7b3188b7-a1b8-48fa-b0aa-b1959f5f6bba"
  },
  {
    "year": 2024,
    "date": "September 10, 2024",
    "title": "The Harris-Trump Presidential Debate",
    "content": "DAVID MUIR: Tonight, the high-stakes showdown here in Philadelphia between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Their first face-to-face meeting in this presidential election. Their first face-to-face meeting ever.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: A historic race for president upended just weeks ago. President Biden withdrawing after his last debate. Donald Trump is now up against a new opponent.\n\nDAVID MUIR: The candidates separated by the smallest of margins. Essentially tied in the polls nationally. And in the key battlegrounds, including right here in Pennsylvania, all still very much in play. The ABC News Presidential Debate starts right now.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Good evening, I'm David Muir. And thank you for joining us for tonight's ABC News Presidential Debate. We want to welcome viewers watching on ABC and around the world tonight. Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump are just moments away from taking the stage in this unprecedented race for president.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: And I'm Linsey Davis. Tonight's meeting could be the most consequential event of their campaigns, with Election Day now less than two months away. For Vice President Kamala Harris, this is her first debate since President Biden withdrew from the race on July 21st. Of course, that decision followed his debate against President Donald Trump in June. Since then, this race has taken on an entirely new dynamic.\n\nDAVID MUIR: And that brings us to the rules of tonight's debate: 90 minutes with two commercial breaks. No topics or questions have been shared with the campaigns. The candidates will have two minutes to answer questions. And this is the clock. That's what they'll be seeing. Two minutes for rebuttals and one minute for follow-ups, clarifications or responses. Their microphones will only be turned on when it's their turn to speak. No prewritten notes allowed. There is no audience here tonight in this hall at the National Constitution Center. This is an intimate setting for two candidates who have never met.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump won the coin toss. He chose to deliver the final closing statement of the evening. Vice President Harris selected the podium to the right.\n\nDAVID MUIR: So let's now welcome the candidates to the stage. Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Kamala Harris. Let's have a good debate.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nice to see you. Have fun.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Thank you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank you.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Welcome to you both. It's wonderful to have you. It's an honor to have you both here tonight.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Good evening, we are looking forward to a spirited and thoughtful debate.\n\nDAVID MUIR: So let's get started. I want to begin tonight with the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue, and that is the economy and the cost of living in this country. Vice President Harris, you and President Trump were elected four years ago and your opponent on the stage here tonight often asks his supporters, are you better off than you were four years ago? When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy. Because here's the thing. We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children. And I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time. So that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children. My passion, one of them, is small businesses. I was actually -- my mother raised my sister and me but there was a woman who helped raise us. We call her our second mother. She was a small business owner. I love our small businesses. My plan is to give a $50,000 tax deduction to start-up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of America's economy. My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America's deficit. My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month. Economists have said that Trump's sales tax would actually result for middle-class families in about $4,000 more a year because of his policies and his ideas about what should be the backs of middle-class people paying for tax cuts for billionaires.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, I'll give you two minutes.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First of all, I have no sales tax. That's an incorrect statement. She knows that. We're doing tariffs on other countries. Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we've done for the world. And the tariff will be substantial in some cases. I took in billions and billions of dollars, as you know, from China. In fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money, they can't. It would totally destroy everything that they've set out to do. They've taken in billions of dollars from China and other places. They've left the tariffs on. When I had it, I had tariffs and yet I had no inflation. Look, we've had a terrible economy because inflation has -- which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation's history. We were at 21%. But that's being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher than they were just a few years ago. This has been a disaster for people, for the middle class, but for every class. On top of that, we have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. And they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied right now by African Americans and Hispanics and also unions. Unions are going to be affected very soon. And you see what's happening. You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they're destroying our country. They're dangerous. They're at the highest level of criminality. And we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast. I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. I'll do it again and even better.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We are going to get to immigration and border security during this debate. But I would like to let Vice President Harris respond on the economy here.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I would love to. Let's talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War. And what we have done is clean up Donald Trump's mess. What we have done and what I intend to do is build on what we know are the aspirations and the hopes of the American people. But I'm going to tell you all, in this debate tonight, you're going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling. What you're going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again. I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. And I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, I'll give you a minute here to respond.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference. I have nothing to do -- everybody knows I'm an open book. Everybody knows what I'm going to do. Cut taxes very substantially. And create a great economy like I did before. We had the greatest economy. We got hit with a pandemic. And the pandemic was, not since 1917 where 100 million people died has there been anything like it? We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, I'll let you respond.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So, Donald Trump has no plan for you. And when you look at his economic plan, it's all about tax breaks for the richest people. I am offering what I describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economists in our country, if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans for the future of America. What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump's plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy. What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump's plan would actually explode the deficit. Sixteen Nobel laureates have described his economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year would invite a recession. You just have to look at where we are and where we stand on the issues. And I'd invite you to know that Donald Trump actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That's just a sound bite. They gave her that to say. Look, I went to the Wharton School of Finance and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan, it's a great plan. It's a plan that's going to bring up our worth, our value as a country. It's going to make people want to be able to go and work and create jobs and create a lot of good, solid money for our -- for our country. And just to finish off, she doesn't have a plan. She copied Biden's plan. And it's like four sentences, like run-Spot-run. Four sentences that are just oh, we'll try and lower taxes. She doesn't have a plan. Take a look at her plan. She doesn't have a plan.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I do want to drill down on something you both brought up. The vice president brought up your tariffs you responded and let's drill down on this because your plan is what she calls is a essentially a national sales tax. Your proposal calls for tariffs as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board. You recently said that you might double your plan, imposing tariffs up to 20% on good coming into this country. As you know many economists say that with tariffs at that level costs are then passed onto the consumer. Vice President Harris has argued it'll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing medication arguing it costs the typical family nearly four thousand dollars a year. Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They aren't gonna have higher prices what's gonna have and who's gonna have higher prices is China and all of the countries that have been ripping us off for years. I charge, I was the only president ever China was paying us hundreds of billions of dollars and so were other countries and you know if she doesn't like 'em they should have gone out and they should have immediately cut the tariffs but those tariffs are there three and a half years now under their administration. We are gonna take in billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars. I had no inflation, virtually no inflation, they had the highest inflation, perhaps in the history of our country because I've never seen a worse period of time. People can't go out and buy cereal bacon or eggs or anything else. These the people of our country are absolutely dying with what they've done. They've destroyed the economy and all you have to do it look at a poll. The polls say 80 and 85 and even 90% that the Trump economy was great that their economy was terrible.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris I do want to ask for your response and you heard what the president said there because the Biden administration did keep a number of the Trump tariffs in place so how do you respond?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let's be clear that the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we've ever seen in the history of America. He invited trade wars, you wanna talk about his deal with China what he ended up doing is under Donald Trump's presidency he ended up selling American chips to China to help them improve and modernize their military basically sold us out when a policy about China should be in making sure the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century. Which means focusing on the details of what that requires, focusing on relationships with our allies, focusing on investing in American based technology so that we win the race on A.I. and quantum computing, focusing on what we need to do to support America's workforce, so that we don't end up having the on the short end of the stick in terms of workers' rights. But what Donald Trump did let's talk about this with COVID, is he actually thanked President XI for what he did during COVID. Look at his tweet. \"Thank you, President XI,\" exclamation point. When we know that XI was responsible for lacking and not giving us transparency about the origins of COVID.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, I'll let you respond.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First of all, they bought their chips from Taiwan. We hardly make chips anymore because of philosophies like they have and policies like they have. I don't say her because she has no policy. Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. She's going to my philosophy now. In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat. She's gone to my philosophy. But if she ever got elected, she'd change it. And it will be the end of our country. She's a Marxist. Everybody knows she's a Marxist. Her father's a Marxist professor in economics. And he taught her well. But when you look at what she's done to our country and when you look at these millions and millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly where it's I believe 21 million people, not the 15 that people say, and I think it's a lot higher than the 21. That's bigger than New York state. Pouring in. And just look at what they're doing to our country. They're criminals. Many of these people coming in are criminals. And that's bad for our economy too. You mentioned before, we'll talk about immigration later.\n\nWell, bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy. They have and she has destroyed our country with policy that's insane. Almost policy that you'd say they have to hate our country.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. Linsey?\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: I want to turn to the issue of abortion. President Trump, you've often touted that you were able to kill Roe v. Wade. Last year, you said that you were proud to be the most pro-life president in American history. Then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. In your home state of Florida, you surprised many with regard to your six-week abortion ban because you initially had said that it was too short and you said, \"I'm going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.\" But then the very next day, you reversed course and said you would vote to support the six-week ban. Vice President Harris says that women shouldn't trust you on the issue of abortion because you've changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, the reason I'm doing that vote is because the plan is, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month. They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And that's why I did that, because that predominates. Because they're radical. The Democrats are radical in that. And her vice presidential pick, which I think was a horrible pick, by the way for our country, because he is really out of it. But her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. And that's not okay with me. Hence the vote. But what I did is something for 52 years they've been trying to get Roe v. Wade into the states.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And through the genius and heart and strength of six supreme court justices we were able to do that. Now, I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I believe strongly in it. Ronald Reagan did also. 85% of Republicans do. Exceptions. Very important. But we were able to get it. And now states are voting on it. And for the first time you're going to see -- look, this is an issue that's torn our country apart for 52 years. Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that's what happened, happened. Now, Ohio, the vote was somewhat liberal. Kansas the vote was somewhat liberal. Much more liberal than people would have thought. But each individual state is voting. It's the vote of the people now. It's not tied up in the federal government. I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it. And the supreme court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. Madam vice president, I want to get your response to President Trump.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, as I said, you're going to hear a bunch of lies. And that's not actually a surprising fact. Let's understand how we got here. Donald Trump hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade. And they did exactly as he intended. And now in over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I have talked with women around our country. You want to talk about this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn't want that. Her husband didn't want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don't want that. And I pledge to you when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law. But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion -- a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, should not be made by the government.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Thank you, Vice President Harris.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, there she goes again. It's a lie. I'm not signing a ban. And there's no reason to sign a ban. Because we've gotten what everybody wanted. Democrats, Republicans and everybody else and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states. And the states are voting. And it may take a little time, but for 52 years this issue has torn our country apart. And they've wanted it back in the states. And I did something that nobody thought was possible. The states are now voting. What she says is an absolute lie. And as far as the abortion ban, no, I'm not in favor of abortion ban. But it doesn't matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Would you veto a national abortion ban if it came to --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I won't have to because again -- two things. Number one, she said she'll go back to congress. She'll never get the vote. It's impossible for her to get the vote. Especially now with a 50-50 --essentially 50-50 in both senate and the house. She's not going to get the vote. She can't get the vote. She won't even come close to it. So it's just talk. You know what it reminds me of? When they said they're going to get student loans terminated and it ended up being a total catastrophe. The student loans -- and then her I think probably her boss, if you call him a boss, he spends all his time on the beach, but look, her boss went out and said we'll do it again, we'll do it a different way. He went out, got rejected again by the supreme court. So all these students got taunted with this whole thing about -- this whole idea. And how unfair that would have been. Part of the reason they lost. To the millions and millions of people that had to pay off their student loans. They didn't get it for free. But they were saying -- it's the same way that they talked about that, that they talk about abortion.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: But if I could just get a yes or no. Because your running mate JD Vance has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I didn't discuss it with JD In all fairness. JD -- And I don't mind if he has a certain view but I think he was speaking for me but I really didn't. Look, we don't have to discuss it because she'd never be able to get it just like she couldn't get student loans. They couldn't get -- they didn't even come close to getting student loans. They didn't even come close to getting student loans. They taunted young people and a lot of other people that had loans. They can never get this approved. So it doesn't matter what she says about going to congress. Wonderful. Let's go to congress. Do it. But the fact is that for years they wanted to get it out of congress and out of the federal government and we did something that everybody said couldn't be done. And now you have a vote of the people on abortion.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, I want to give you your time to respond. But I do want to ask, would you support any restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade. And as you rightly mentioned, nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening. It's insulting to the women of America. And understand what has been happening under Donald Trump's abortion bans. Couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments. What is happening in our country, working people, working women who are working one or two jobs, who can barely afford childcare as it is, have to travel to another state to get on a plane sitting next to strangers, to go and get the health care she needs. Barely can afford to do it. And what you are putting her through is unconscionable. And the people of America have not -- the majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. And that is why in every state where this issue has been on the ballot, in red and blue states both, the people of America have voted for freedom.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice president Harris --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me, I have to respond. Another lie. It's another lie. I have been a leader on IVF which is fertilization. The IVF -- I have been a leader. In fact, when they got a very negative decision on IVF from the Alabama courts, I saw the people of Alabama and the legislature two days later voted it in. I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF. And the other thing, they -- you should ask, will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Come on.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Would you do that? Why don't you ask her that question --\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Why don't you answer the question would you veto -\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That's the problem. Because under Roe v. Wade.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Answer the question, would you veto--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month -\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That's not true.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And probably after birth. Just look at the governor, former governor of Virginia. The governor of Virginia said we put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We're going to turn now to immigration and border security. We know it's an issue that's important to Republicans, Democrats, voters across the board in this country. Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden with getting to the root causes of migration from Central America. We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And understand, this comes at a time where the people of our country actually need a leader who engages in solutions, who actually addresses the problems at hand. But what we have in the former president is someone who would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And I'll tell you something, he's going to talk about immigration a lot tonight even when it's not the subject that is being raised. And I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your, your desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, on that point I want to get your response.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I would like to respond.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Let me just ask, though, why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That's because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We're a failing nation. And it happened three and a half years ago. And what, what's going on here, you're going to end up in World War 3, just to go into another subject. What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I've seen people on television\n\nDAVID MUIR: Let me just say here this ...\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We'll find out\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, I'll let you respond to the rest of what you heard.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Talk about extreme. Um, you know, this is I think one of the reasons why in this election I actually have the endorsement of 200 Republicans who have formally worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain including the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressmember Liz Cheney. And if you want to really know the inside track on who the former president is, if he didn't make it clear already, just ask people who have worked with him. His former chief of staff, a four-star general, has said he has contempt for the constitution of the United States. His former national security adviser has said he is dangerous and unfit. His former secretary of defense has said the nation, the republic would never survive another Trump term. And when we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues that affect the American people are not being addressed, I think the choice is clear in this election.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, I'll give you a quick minute to respond.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. Thank you. Because when I hear that -- see, I'm a different kind of a person. I fired most of those people. Not so graciously. They did bad things or a bad job. I fired them. They never fired one person. They didn't fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban and the 13 people whose, whose, were just killed viciously and violently killed and I got to know the parents and the family. They should have fired all those generals, all those top people because that was one of the most incompetently handled situations anybody has ever seen. So when somebody does a bad job I fire them. And you take a guy like Esper. He was no good, I fired him. So he writes a book. Another one writes a book. Because with me they can write books. With nobody else can they. But they have done such a poor job. And they never fire anybody. Look at the economy. Look at the inflation. They didn't fire any of their economists. They have the same people. That's a good way not to have books written about you. But just to finish, I got more votes than any Republican in history by far. In fact, I got more votes than any president, sitting president in history by far.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Let me continue on immigration. It was what you wanted to talk about earlier. So let's get back to your deportation proposal that the vice president has reacted to as well. President Trump, you called this the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country. You say you would use the National Guard. You say if things get out of control you'd have no problem using the U.S. military.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: With local police.\n\nDAVID MUIR: You also said you would use local police. How would you deport 11 million undocumented immigrants? I know you believe that number is much higher. Take us through this. What does this look like? Will authorities be going door to door in this country?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. It is much higher because of them. They allowed criminals. Many, many, millions of criminals. They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers, to come into our country, and they're now in the United States. And told by their countries like Venezuela don't ever come back or we're going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they've taken their criminals off the street and they've given them to her to put into our country. And this will be one of the greatest mistakes in history for them to allow -- and I think they probably did it because they think they're going to get votes. But it's not worth it. Because they're destroying the fabric of our country by what they've done. There's never been anything done like this at all. They've destroyed the fabric of our country. Millions of people let in. And all over the world crime is down. All over the world except here. Crime here is up and through the roof. Despite their fraudulent statements that they made. Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime. It's called migrant crime. And it's happening at levels that nobody thought possible.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country, but Vice President the...\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: use me, the FBI -- they were defrauding statements. They didn't include the worst cities. They didn't include the cities with the worst crime. It was a fraud. Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. I'll let you respond, Vice President Harris.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I think this is so rich. Coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in November at his own criminal sentencing. And let's be clear where each person stands on the issue of what is important about respect for the rule of law and respect for law enforcement. The former vice president called for defunding, federal law enforcement, 45,000 agents, get this, on the day after he was arraigned on 34 felony counts. So let's talk about what is important in this race. It is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric. And address the needs of the American people, address what we\n\nneed to do about the housing shortage, which I have a plan for. Address what we must do to support our small businesses. Address bringing down the price of groceries. But frankly, the American people are exhausted with the same old tired playbook.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. Every one of those cases was started by them against their political opponent. And I'm winning most of them and I'll win the rest on appeal. And you saw that with the decision that came down just recently from the Supreme Court. I'm winning most of them. But those are cases, it's called weaponization. Never happened in this country. They weaponized the justice department. Every one of those cases was involved with the DOJ, from Atlanta and Fani Willis -- to the attorney general of New York and the D.A. In New York. Every one of those cases. And then they say oh, he was -- he's a criminal. They're the ones that made them go after me. By the way, Joe Biden was found essentially guilty on the documents case. And what happened in my documents case? They said oh, that's the toughest of them all. A complete and total victory. Two months ago it was thrown out. It's weaponization. And they used it. And it's never happened in this country. They used it to try and win an election. They're fake cases.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. A really quick response here, Vice President Harris, on this notion of weaponization of the justice department.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well let's talk about extreme. And understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the white house again. Understand, this is someone who has openly said he would terminate, I'm quoting, terminate the constitution of the United States. That he would weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. Someone who has openly expressed disdain for members of our military. Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. Because certainly, we know now the court won't stop him. We know JD Vance is not going to stop him. It's up to the American people to stop him.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. Linsey?\n\nLINDSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president...\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is the one that weaponized. Not me. She weaponized. I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about democracy. I'm a threat to democracy. They're the threat to democracy - With the fake Russia Russia Russia investigation that went nowhere.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We have a lot to get to. Linsey?\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So my values have not changed. And I'm going to discuss every one -- at least every point that you've made. But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil. As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager. The values I bring to the importance of home ownership knowing not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times, is a value that I bring to my work to say we are going to work with the private sector and home builders to increase 3 million homes, increase by 3 million homes by the end of my first term. My work that is related to having a friend when I was in high school who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather. And my focus then, on protecting women and children from violent crime, is based on a value that is deeply grounded in the importance of standing up for those who are most vulnerable. My work that is about protecting social security and Medicare is based on long-standing work that I have done. Protecting seniors from scams. My values have not changed. And what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down and name-calling. The true measure of the leader is the leader who actually understands that strength is not in beating people down, it's in lifting people up. I intend to be that president.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, your response.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, first of all, I wasn't given $400 million. I wish I was. My father was a Brooklyn builder. Brooklyn, Queens. And a great father and I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction, and I built it into many, many billions of dollars. Many, many billions. And when people see it, they are even surprised. So, we don't have to talk about that. Fracking? She's been against it for 12 years. Uh, defund the police. She's been against that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very wrongly, very horribly. And everybody's laughing at it, okay? They're all laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different policies. Like, she was big on defund the police.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That's not true. [mouthed, not audible]\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: In Minnesota, she went out -- wait a minute. I'm talking now. If you don't mind. Please. Does that sound familiar?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Don't lie. [lie is audible]\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She went out -- she went out in Minnesota and wanted to let criminals that killed people, that burned down Minneapolis, she went out and raised money to get them out of jail. She did things that nobody would ever think of. Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison. This is a radical left liberal that would do this. She wants to confiscate your guns and she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one. Just to finish one thing, so important in my opinion, so, I got the oil business going like nobody has ever done before. They took, when they took over, they got rid of it, started getting rid of it, and the prices were going up the roof. They immediately let these guys go to where they were. I would have been five times, four times, five times higher because you're talking about 3 1/2 years ago. They got it up to where I was because they had no choice. Because the prices of energy were quadrupling and doubling. You saw what happened to gasoline. So, they said let's go back to Trump. But if she won the election, the day after that election, they'll go back to destroying our country and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead. We'll go back to windmills and we'll go back to solar, where they need a whole desert to get some energy to come out. You ever see a solar plant? By the way, I'm a big fan of solar. But they take 400, 500 acres of desert soil--\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: These are not good things for the environment that she understands.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, we have a lot of issues that we have to get to. We're out of time. Thank you.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Linsey, thank you. We have an election in just 56 days. I want to talk about the peaceful transfer of power, which of course we all know was a cornerstone of our democracy and the role of a president in a moment of crisis. Mr. President, on January 6th you told your supporters to march to the Capitol. You said you would be right there with them. The country and the world saw what played out at the Capitol that day. The officers coming under attack. Aides in the West Wing say you watched it unfold on television off the Oval Office. You did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours before you sent out that video message telling your supporters to go home. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You just said a thing that isn't covered. Peacefully and patriotically, I said during my speech. Not later on. Peacefully and patriotically. And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashli Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. But we didn't do -- this group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people? That she allowed to pour in. She was the border czar. Remember that. She was the border czar. She doesn't want to be called the border czar because she's embarrassed by the border. In fact, she said at the beginning, I'm surprised you're not talking about the border yet. That's because she knows what a bad job they've done. What about those people? What's, when are they going to be prosecuted -- when are these people from countries all over the world, not just South America, they're coming in from all over the world, David, all over the world. And crime rates are down all over the world because of it --\n\nDAVID MUIR: But let me just ask you--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But when are those, David, when are those people going to be prosecuted? When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in Seattle? They went into Seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of Seattle. When are those people going to be prosecuted?\n\nDAVID MUIR: But let me just ask you--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You might ask her that question.\n\nDAVID MUIR: You were the president. You were watching it unfold on television. It's a very simple question as we move forward toward another election. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day? Yes or no.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech. I showed up for a speech. I said, I think it's going to be big. I went to Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C. And the mayor put it back in writing, as you know. I said, you know, this is going to be a very big rally or whatever you want to call it. And again, it wasn't done by me. It was done by others. I said I'd like to give you 10,000 National Guard or soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy Pelosi rejected me. It was just two weeks ago, her daughter has a tape of her saying she is fully responsible for what happened. They want to get rid of that tape. It would have never happened if Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington did their jobs. I wasn't responsible for security. Nancy Pelosi was responsible. She didn't do her job.\n\nDAVID MUIR: The question was about you as president, not about Former Speaker Pelosi. But I do want Vice President Harris to respond here.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And some died. And understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason. But this is not an isolated situation. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. Let's remember that when it came to the Proud Boys, a militia, the president said, the former president said, \"Stand back and stand by.\" So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don't have to go back. Let's not go back. We're not going back. It's time to turn the page. And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you. To stand for country. To stand for our democracy. To stand for rule of law. And to end the chaos. And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if this -- and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. Let's turn the page on this. Let's not go back. Let's chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Let me just follow up here--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have said blood bash, bath. It was a different term, and it was a term that related to energy, because they have destroyed our energy business. That was where bloodbath was. Also, on Charlottesville, that story has been as you would say, debunked. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Jesse -- all of these people, they covered it. If they go an extra sentence, they will see it was perfect. It was debunked in almost every newspaper. But they still bring it up just like they bring 2025 up. They bring all of this stuff up. I ask you this. You talk about the Capitol. Why are we allowing these millions of people to come through on the southern border? How come she's not doing -- and I'll tell you what I would do. And I would be very proud to do it. I would say we would both leave this debate right now, I'd like to see her go down to Washington, D.C. during this debate 'cause we're wasting a lot of time. Go down to -- because she's been so bad, it's so ridiculous. Go down to Washington, D.C. And let her sign a bill to close up the border. Because they have the right to do it. They don't need bills. They have the right to do it. The President of the United States, you'll get him out of bed. You'll wake him up at 4:00 in the afternoon, you'll say come on. Come on down to the office, let's sign a bill. If he ... if he signs a bill that the border is closed, all he has to do is say it to the border patrol, who are phenomenal. If they do that, the border is closed.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Those people are killing many people, unlike J-6.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We talked immigration here tonight. I do want to focus on this next issue to both of you. Because it really brings us, this into focus. Truth in these times that we're living in. Mr. President, for 3 and a half years after you lost the 2020 election you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. In the past couple of weeks leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn't quite make it, that you came up a little bit short.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I said that?\n\nDAVID MUIR: Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, I don't acknowledge that at all.\n\nDAVID MUIR: But you did say that.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I said that sarcastically. You know that. It was said, oh we lost by a whisker. That was said sarcastically. Look, there's so much proof. All you have to do is look at it. And they should have sent it back to the legislatures for approval. I got almost 75 million votes. The most votes any sitting president has ever gotten. I was told if I got 63, which was what I got in 2016, you can't be beaten. The election, people should never be thinking about an election as fraudulent. We need two things. We need walls. We need -- and we have to have it. We have to have borders. And we have to have good elections.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Our elections are bad. And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they're trying to get them to vote. They can't even speak English. They don't even know what country they're in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote. And that's why they're allowing them to come into our country.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I did watch all of these pieces of video. I didn't detect the sarcasm, lost by a whisker, we didn't quite make it, and we should just point out as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies, 60 cases in front of many judges. Many of them --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No judge looked at it.\n\nDAVID MUIR: And said there was no widespread fraud.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They said we didn't have standing. That's the other thing. They said we didn't have standing. A technicality. Can you imagine a system where a person in an election doesn't have standing, the President of the United States doesn't have standing? That's how we lost. If you look at the facts, and I'd love to have you -- you'll do a special on it. I'll show you Georgia and I'll show you Wisconsin and I'll show you Pennsylvania and I'll show you -- we have so many facts and statistics. But you know what? That doesn't matter. Because we have to solve the problem that we have right now. That's old news. And the problem that we have right now is we have a nation in decline and they have put it into decline. We have a nation that is dying, David.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you. Vice President Harris, you heard the president there tonight. He said he didn't say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election. That was won by President Biden and yourself. But I do want to ask you about something that's come up in the last couple of days. This was a post from President Trump about this upcoming election just weeks away. He said, \"When I win, those people who cheated,\" and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says \"Will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.\" One of your campaign's top lawyers responded saying, \"We won't let Donald Trump intimidate us. We won't let him suppress the vote.\" Is that what you believe he's trying to do here?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. So, let's be clear about that. And clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that. But we cannot afford to have a president of the United States who attempts as he did in the past to upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election. And I'm going to tell you that I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States. And world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump. I have talked with military leaders, some of whom worked with you. And they say you're a disgrace. And when you then talk in this way in a presidential debate and deny what over and over again are court cases you have lost, because you did in fact lose that election, it leads one to believe that perhaps we do not have in the candidate to my right the temperament or the ability to not be confused about fact. That's deeply troubling. And the American people deserve better.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I'll give you one minute to respond, Mr. President.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let me just tell you about world leaders. Viktor Orban, one of the most respected men -- they call him a strong man. He's a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago it wasn't. Why is it blowing up? He said because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him. China was afraid. And I don't like to use the word afraid but I'm just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him. Look at what's going on with North Korea, by the way. He said Russia was afraid of him. I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Biden put it back on day one but he ended the XL pipeline. The XL pipeline in our country. He ended that. But he let the Russians build a pipeline going all over Europe and heading into Germany. The biggest pipeline in the world. Look, Viktor Orban said it. He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president. But when this weak pathetic man that you saw at a debate just a few months ago that if he weren't in that debate he'd be running instead of her, she got no votes, he got 14 million votes, what you did, you talk about a threat to democracy. He got 14 million votes and they threw him out of office. And you know what? I'll give you a little secret. He hates her. He can't stand her.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But he had 14 million votes. They threw them out. She got zero votes. And when she ran, she was the first one to leave because she failed. And now she's running. I don't understand it but I'm okay with it - because I think we're going to do pretty well.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President, your time is up. We've got a lot more to get to.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Turning now to the Israel-Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held, Americans among them. Vice President Harris, in December you said, \"Israel has a right to defend itself\" but you added, \"It matters how.\" Saying international humanitarian law must be respected, Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians. You said that nine months ago. Now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead. Nearly 100 hostages remain. Just last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there's not a deal in the making. President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let's understand how we got here. On Oct. 7, Hamas, a terrorist organization, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. Many of them young people who were simply attending a concert. Women were horribly raped. And so absolutely, I said then, I say now, Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out. And so we will continue to work around the clock on that. Work around the clock also understanding that we must chart a course for a two-state solution. And in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and in equal measure for the Palestinians. But the one thing I will assure you always, I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, how would you negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If I were president it would have never started. If I were president Russia would have never, ever -- I know Putin very well. He would have never -- and there was no threat of it either, by the way, for four years. Have gone into Ukraine and killed millions of people when you add it up. Far worse than people understand what's going on over there. But when she mentions about Israel all of a sudden -- she hates Israel. She wouldn't even meet with Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make a very important speech. She refused to be there because she was at a sorority party of hers. She wanted to go to the sorority party. She hates Israel. If she's president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now. And I've been pretty good at predictions. And I hope I'm wrong about that one. She hates Israel. At the same time in her own way she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone. It would have never happened. Iran was broke under Donald Trump. Now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had. Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror. And they are spheres of terror. Horrible terror. They had no money. It was a big story, and you know it. You covered it. Very well, actually. They had no money for terror. They were broke. Now they're a rich nation. And now what they're doing is spreading that money around. Look at what's happening with the Houthis and Yemen. Look at what's going on in the Middle East. This would have never happened. I will get that settled and fast. And I'll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended. If I'm President-Elect, I'll get it done before even becoming president.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, he says you hate Israel.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That's absolutely not true. I have my entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people. He knows that. He's trying to again divide and distract from the reality, which is it is very well known that Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy. It is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one according to himself. It is well known that he said of Putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine. It is well known when that he said when Russia went into Ukraine it was brilliant. It is well known he exchanged love letters with Kim Jong un. And it is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they're so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors. And that is why so many military leaders who you have worked with have told me you are a disgrace. That is why we understand that we have to have a president who is not consistently weak and wrong on national security including the importance of upholding and respecting in highest regard our military.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They're the ones -- and she's the one that caused it, that's weak on national security by allowing every nation last month for the year, 168 different countries sending people into our country. Their crime rates are way down. Putin endorsed her last week. Said I hope she wins. And I think he meant it. Because what he's gotten away with is absolutely incredible. It wouldn't have happened with me. The leaders of other countries think that they're weak and incompetent. And they are. They're grossly incompetent. And I just ask one question. Why does Biden go in and kill the Keystone pipeline and approve the single biggest deal that Russia's ever made, Nordstream 2, the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world going to Germany and all over Europe? Because they're weak and they're ineffective. And Biden, by the way --\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump...\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Gets paid a lot of money --\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Thank you. We have a lot of issues to get to.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We'll be right back with much more of this historic ABC News presidential debate from the National Constitution Center right here in Philadelphia. Back in a moment.\n\nDAVID MUIR: And I want to turn to the war in Ukraine. We're now 2 1/2 years into this conflict. Mr. President, it has been the position of the Biden administration that we must defend Ukraine from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, to defend their sovereignty, their democracy, that it's in America's best interest to do so, arguing that if Putin wins he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries. You have said you would solve this war in 24 hours. You said so just before the break tonight. How exactly would you do that? And I want to ask you a very simple question tonight. Do you want Ukraine to win this war?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being uselessly -- people being killed by the millions. It's the millions. It's so much worse than the numbers that you're getting, which are fake numbers. Look, we're in for 250 billion or more because they don't ask Europe, which is a much bigger beneficiary to getting this thing done than we are. They're in for $150 billion less because Biden and you don't have the courage to ask Europe like I did with NATO. They paid billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars when I said either you pay up or we're not going to protect you anymore. So that may be one of the reasons they don't like me as much as they like weak people. But you take a look at what's happening. We're in for 250 to 275 billion. They're into 100 to 150. They should be forced to equalize. With that being said, I want to get the war settled. I know Zelenskyy very well and I know Putin very well. I have a good relationship. And they respect your president. Okay? They respect me. They don't respect Biden. How would you respect him? Why? For what reason? He hasn't even made a phone call in two years to Putin. Hasn't spoken to anybody. They don't even try and get it. That is a war that's dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president. If I win, when I'm President-Elect, and what I'll do is I'll speak to one, I'll speak to the other, I'll get them together. That war would have never happened. And in fact when I saw Putin after I left, unfortunately left because our country has gone to hell, but after I left when I saw him building up soldiers, he did it after I left, I said oh, he must be negotiating. It must be a good strong point of negotiation. Well, it wasn't because Biden had no idea how to talk to him. He had no idea how to stop it. And now you have millions of people dead and it's only getting worse and it could lead to World War 3. Don't kid yourself, David. We're playing with World War 3. And we have a president that we don't even know if he's -- where is our president? We don't even know if he's a president.\n\nDAVID MUIR: And just to clarify here.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They threw him out of a campaign like a dog. We don't even know, is he our president? But we have a president...\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President,\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: ...that doesn't know he's alive.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Your time is up. Just to clarify the question, do you believe it's in the U.S. best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think it's in the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. All right. Negotiate a deal. Because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I want to take this to Vice President Harris. I want to get your thoughts on support for Ukraine in this moment. But also as commander in chief if elected how would you deal with Vladimir Putin and would it be any different from what we're seeing from President Biden?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, first of all, it's important to remind the former president you're not running against Joe Biden, you're running against me. I believe the reason that Donald Trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up. And that's not who we are as Americans. Let's understand what happened here. I actually met with Zelenskyy a few days before Russia invaded, tried through force to change territorial boundaries to defy one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I met with President Zelenskyy. I shared with him American intelligence about how he could defend himself. Days later I went to NATO's eastern flank, to Poland and Romania. And through the work that I and others did we brought 50 countries together to support Ukraine in its righteous defense. And because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided, Ukraine stands as an independent and free country. If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine. Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland. And why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris Thank you. We heard from both of you on Ukraine tonight. Afghanistan came up in the last hour -- I wanted her to respond to something you said earlier.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have to respond.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Please I'll give you a minute here.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Putin would be sitting in Moscow and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men and women. But he would have been sitting in Moscow\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: (inaudible)\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Quiet, please. He would have been sitting in Moscow much happier than he is right now. But eventually, you know, he's got a thing that other people don't have. He's got nuclear weapons. They don't ever talk about that. He's got nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually uh maybe he'll use them. Maybe he hasn't been that threatening. But he does have that. Something we don't even like to talk about. Nobody likes to talk about it. But just so you understand, they sent her to negotiate peace before this war started. Three days later he went in and he started the war because everything they said was weak and stupid. They said the wrong things. That war should have never started. She was the emissary. They sent her in to negotiate with Zelenskyy and Putin. And she did and the war started three days later.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice president...\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And that's the kind of talent we have with her. She's worse than Biden. In my opinion, I think he's the worst president in the history of our country. She goes down as the worst vice president in the history of our country. But let me tell you something. She is a horrible negotiator. They sent her in to negotiate. As soon as they left Putin did the invasion.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. You did bring up something, you said she went to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Vice President Harris, have you ever met Vladimir Putin, can you clarify tonight?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Yet again, I said it at the beginning of this debate, you're going to hear a bunch of lies coming from this fella. And that is another one. When I went to meet with President Zelenskyy, I've now met with him over five times. The reality is, it has been about standing as America always should, as a leader upholding international rules and norms. As a leader who shows strength, understanding that the alliances we have around the world are dependent on our ability to look out for our friends and not favor our enemies because you adore strongmen instead of caring about democracy. And that is very much what is at stake here. The President of the United States is commander-in-chief. And the American people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of America's role and responsibility in terms of ensuring that there is stability and ensuring we stand up for our principles and not sell them for the benefit of personal flattery.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We've talked about Ukraine and Vladimir Putin. I do want to talk about Afghanistan. It came up in the first hour of this debate.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: David, one thing.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I want to move on to Afghanistan.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Secretary General Stoltenberg said Trump did the most amazing thing I've ever seen, he got these countries, the 28 countries at the time, to pay up. He said I've never seen -- he's the head of NATO. He said I've never seen -- for years we were paying almost all of NATO. We were being ripped off by European nations both on trade and on NATO. I got them to pay up by saying one of the statements you made before, if you don't pay we're not going to protect you.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump--\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Otherwise we would've never gotten it. He said it was one of the most incredible jobs that he's ever seen done.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Thank you. I want to turn to Afghanistan. We witnessed a poignant moment today on Capitol Hill honoring the soldiers who died in the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do want to ask the vice president, do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. But let's understand how we got to where we are. Donald Trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here's how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: And get this -- no, get this. And the president at the time invited the Taliban to Camp David. A place of storied significance for us as Americans, a place where we honor the importance of American diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders. And this former president as president invited them to Camp David because he does not again appreciate the role and responsibility of the President of the United States to be commander in chief with a level of respect. And this gets back to the point of how he has consistently disparaged and demeaned members of our military, fallen soldiers, and the work that we must do to uphold the strength and the respect of the United States of America around the world.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, your response to her saying that you began the negotiations with the Taliban.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, thank you. So if you take a look at that period of time, the Taliban was killing our soldiers, a lot of them, with snipers. And I got involved with the Taliban because the Taliban was doing the killing. That's the fighting force within Afghanistan. They don't bother doing that because you know, they deal with the wrong people all the time. But I got involved. And Abdul is the head of the Taliban. He is still the head of the Taliban. And I told Abdul don't do it anymore, you do it anymore you're going to have problems. And he said why do you send me a picture of my house? I said you're going to have to figure that out, Abdul. And for 18 months we had nobody killed. We did have an agreement negotiated by Mike Pompeo. It was a very good agreement. The reason it was good, it was -- we were getting out. We would have been out faster than them, but we wouldn't have lost the soldiers. We wouldn't have left many Americans behind. And we wouldn't have left -- we wouldn't have left $85 billion worth of brand new beautiful military equipment behind. And just to finish, they blew it. The agreement said you have to do this, this, this, this, this, and they didn't do it. They didn't do it. The agreement was, was terminated by us because they didn't do what they were supposed to do.\n\nDAVID MUIR: I want to move on.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And these people did the worst withdrawal and in my opinion the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country. And by the way, that's why Russia attacked Ukraine. Because they saw how incompetent she and her boss are.\n\nDAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. I want to move on now to race and politics in this country. Mr. President, you recently said of Vice President Harris, \"I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black.\" I want to ask a bigger-picture question here tonight. Why do you believe it's appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't. And I don't care. I don't care what she is. I don't care. You make a big deal out of something. I couldn't care less. Whatever she wants to be is okay with me.\n\nDAVID MUIR: But those were your words. So, I'm asking --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, your thoughts on this?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I think it's - I mean honestly, I think it's a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the American people. You know, I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us. And we don't want this kind of approach that is just constantly trying to divide us, and especially by race. And let's remember how Donald Trump started. He was a, a, a-land, he owned land, he owned buildings, and he was investigated because he refused to rent property to Black families. Let's remember, this is the same individual who took out a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five. Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution. This is the same individual who spread birther lies about the first Black President of the United States. And I think the American people want better than that. Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me \"Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?\" Knowing that regardless of people's color or the language their grandmother speaks we all have the same dreams and aspirations and want a president who invests in those, not in hate and division.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris thank you. Linsey?\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, this is now your third time --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. There's never been anything like it. They're destroying our country. And they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five. They admitted -- they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty -- then they pled we're not guilty. But this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago because there's nothing now. I built one of the greatest economies in the history of the world and I'm going to build it again. It's going to be bigger, better and stronger. But they're destroying our economy. They have no idea what a good economy is. Their oil policies -- every single policy -- and remember this. She is Biden. She's trying to get away from Biden. I don't know the gentleman, she says. She is Biden. The worst inflation we've ever had. A horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad and she can't get away with that.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you, your time is up. Linsey --\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I want to respond to that, though. I want to just respond briefly. Clearly, I am not Joe Biden, and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country. One who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people. I believe in what we can do to strengthen our small businesses, which is why I have a plan. Let's talk about our plans. And, and let's compare the plans. I have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction, to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work. I have a plan. $6,000 for young families for the first year of your child's life. To help you in that most critical stage of your child's development. I have a plan that is about allowing people to be able to pursue what has been fleeting in terms of the American dream by offering help with down payment of $25,000, down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. That's the kind of conversation I believe, David, that people really want tonight as opposed to a conversation that is constantly about belittling and name-calling. Let's turn the page and move forward.\n\nDAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: We have to move on. President trump --\n\nPRESIDENT TRUMP: She is destroying our country. She has a plan to defund the police. She has a plan to confiscate everybody's gun. She has a plan to not allow fracking in Pennsylvania or anywhere else. That's what her plan is until just recently.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, President Trump.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT HARRIS: The former president has said something twice and I need to respond too. I just need to respond one time to what he has said multiple times.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: I'm sorry, we're going to move on, Vice President Harris. This is now your third time running for president. you have long vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. You have failed to accomplish that. You now say you're going to keep Obamacare. Quote, unless we can do something much better. Last month you said, quote, we're working on it. So tonight, nine years after you first started running, do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Obamacare was lousy health care. Always was. It's not very good today. And what I said, that if we come up with something, we are working on things, we're going to do it and we're going to replace it. But remember this. I inherited Obamacare because Democrats wouldn't change it. They wouldn't vote for it. They were unanimous. They wouldn't vote to change it. If they would have done that, we would have had a much better plan than Obamacare. But the Democrats came up, they wouldn't vote for it. I had a choice to make when I was president, do I save it and make it as good as it can be? Never going to be great. Or do I let it rot? And I felt I had an obligation, even though politically it would have been good to just let it rot and let it go away. I decided -- and I told my people, the top people, and they're very good people -- I have a lot of good people in this -- that administration. We read about the bad ones. We had some real bad ones too. And so do they. They have really bad ones. The difference is they don't get rid of them. But let me just explain. I had a choice to make do I save it and make it as good as it can be or let it rot? And I saved it. I did the right thing. But it's still never going to be great. And it's too expensive for people. And what we will do is we're looking at different plans. If we can come up with a plan that's going to cost our people, our population less money and be better health care than Obamacare, then I would absolutely do it. But until then I'd run it as good as it can be run.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: So just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have concepts of a plan. I'm not president right now. But if we come up with something I would only change it if we come up with something better and less expensive. And there are concepts and options we have to do that. And you'll be hearing about it in the not-too-distant future.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in 2017 you supported Bernie Sanders' proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government-run health care system. Two years later you proposed a plan that included a private insurance option. What is your plan today?\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, first of all, I absolutely support and over the last four years as vice president private health care options. But what we need to do is maintain and grow the Affordable Care Act. But I, I'll get to that, linsey. I just need to respond to a previous point that the former president has made. I've made very clear my position on fracking. And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff. As it relates to the Affordable Care Act, understand, just look at the history to know where people stand. When Donald Trump was president, 60 times he tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. 60 times. I was a senator at the time. When, I will never forget the early morning hours when it was up for a vote in the United States Senate and the late great John McCain, who you have disparaged as being - uh, you don't like him, you said at the time because he got caught, he was an American hero. The late great John McCain, I will never forget that night. Walked onto the Senate floor and said no, you don't. No, you don't. No, you don't get rid of the Affordable Care Act. You have no plan. And what the Affordable Care Act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions. I don't have to tell the people watching tonight, you remember what that was like? Remember when an insurance company could deny if a child had asthma, if someone was a breast cancer survivor, if a grandparent had diabetes? And thankfully, as I've been vice president and we over the last four years have strengthened the Affordable Care Act, we have allowed for the first time Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of you the American people. Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate dr, drug prices. He never did. We did. And now we have capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month. Since I've been vice president we have capped the cost of prescription medication for seniors at $2,000 a year. And when I am president we will do that for all people understanding that the value I bring to this is that access to health care should be a right and not just a privilege of those who can afford it. And the plan has to be to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, not get rid of it, (in audible) in terms of where Donald Trump stands on that.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: I want to move to an issue that's important --\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She made a mistake. Number one, John McCain fought Obamacare for ten years. But it wasn't only him. It was, All of the Democrats that kept it going. And you know what? We could do much better than Obamacare. Much less money. But she won't improve private insurance for people. Private, medical insurance. That's another thing she doesn't want\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: People are paying privately for insurance that have worked hard and made money and they want to have private. She wants everybody to be on government insurance where you wait six months for an operation that you need immediately.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you. We have another issue that we'd like to get to that's important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters, and that's climate change. President Trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water. Vice President Harris, you call climate change an existential threat. The question to you both tonight is what would you do to fight climate change? And Vice President Harris, we'll start with you. One minute for you each.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, the former president had said that climate change is a hoax. And what we know is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or is being jacked up. You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go. We know that we can actually deal with this issue. The young people of America care deeply about this issue. And I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels. We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have been vice president. We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs. And I'm also proud to have the endorsement of the United Auto Workers and Shawn Fain, who also know that part of building a clean energy economy includes investing in American-made products, American automobiles. It includes growing what we can do around American manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like what happened under Donald Trump.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That didn't happen under Donald Trump. Let me just tell you, they lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month. It's going -- they're all leaving. They're building big auto plants in Mexico. In many cases owned by China. They're building these massive plants, and they think they're going to sell their cars into the United States because of these people. What they have given to China is unbelievable. But we're not going to let that. We'll put tariffs on those cars so they can't come into our country. Because they will kill the United Auto Workers and any auto worker, whether it's in Detroit or South Carolina or any other place. What they've done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible. We have nothing because they refuse -- you know, Biden doesn't go after people because supposedly China paid him millions of dollars. He's afraid to do it. Between him and his son. They get all this money from Ukraine. They get all this money from all of these different countries. And then you wonder why is he so loyal to this one, that one Ukraine, China? Why is he? Why did he get 3 1/2 million dollars from the mayor of Moscow's wife? Why did he get -- why did she pay him 3 1/2 million dollars? This is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you.\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank you.\n\nDAVID MUIR: We'll be right back with closing statements from both of our candidates. A historic night, this ABC News Presidential Debate from Philadelphia. Back in a moment.\n\nDAVID MUIR: The time has come for closing statements. And Vice President Harris, we begin with you.\n\nVICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So I think you've heard tonight two very different visions for our country. One that is focused on the future and the other that is focused on the past. And an attempt to take us backward. But we're not going back. And I do believe that the American people know we all have so much more in common than what separates us and we can chart a new way forward. And a vision of that includes having a plan, understanding the aspirations, the dreams, the hopes, the ambition of the American people, which is why I intend to create an opportunity economy, investing in small businesses, in new families, in what we can do around protecting seniors, what we can do that is about giving hard-working folks a break in bringing down the cost of living. I believe in what we can do together that is about sustaining America's standing in the world and ensuring we have the respect that we so rightly deserve including respecting our military and ensuring we have the most lethal fighting force in the world. I will be a president that will protect our fundamental rights and freedoms including the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do. I'll tell you, I started my career as a prosecutor. I was a D.A. I was an attorney general. A United States senator. And now vice president. I've only had one client. The people. And I'll tell you, as a prosecutor I never asked a victim or a witness are you a Republican or a Democrat. The only thing I ever asked them, are you okay? And that's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. I intend to be a president for all Americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you the American people.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump?\n\nFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: So, she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for 3 1/2 years. They've had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. They've had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven't done it. And you won't do it. Because you believe in things that the American people don't believe in. You believe in things like we're not going to frack. We're not going to take fossil fuel. We're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not. Germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants. We're not ready for it. We can't sacrifice our country for the sake of bad vision. But I just ask one simple question. Why didn't she do it? We're a failing nation. We're a nation that's in serious decline. We're being laughed at all over the world. All over the world, they laugh, I know the leaders very well. They're coming to see me. They call me. We're laughed at all over the world. They don't understand what happened to us as a nation. We're not a leader. We don't have any idea what's going on. We have wars going on in the Middle East. We have wars going on with Russia and Ukraine. We're going to end up in a third World War. And it will be a war like no other because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry. I rebuilt our entire military. She gave a lot of it away to the Taliban. She gave it to Afghanistan. What these people have done to our country, and maybe toughest of all is allowing millions of people to come into our country, many of them are criminals, and they're destroying our country. The worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country.\n\nLINSEY DAVIS: President Trump thank you. And that is our ABC News presidential debate from here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center. I'm Linsey Davis.\n\nDAVID MUIR: And I'm David Muir. Thank you for watching here in the U.S. And all over the world. And from all of us here at ABC News, good night.",
    "id": "5cb75357-a4d9-430c-9f9b-f7810a8535bd"
  },
  {
    "year": 2016,
    "date": "October 9, 2016",
    "title": "The Second Clinton-Trump Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 9, 2016 Debate TranscriptPresidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, MissouriOctober 9, 2016PARTICIPANTS:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) andBusinessman Donald Trump (R)MODERATORS:Anderson Cooper (CNN) andMartha Raddatz (ABC News)RADDATZ: Good evening. I’m Martha Raddatz from ABC News.COOPER: And I’m Anderson Cooper from CNN. We want to welcome you to Washington University in St. Louis for the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight’s debate is a town hall format, which gives voters a chance to directly ask the candidates questions. Martha and I will ask follow-up questions but the night really belongs to the people in this room, and to people across the country who have submitted questions online.RADDATZ: The people you see on this stage were chosen by the Gallup Organization. They are all from the St. Louis area and told Gallup they haven’t committed to a candidate. Each of them came here with questions they wanted to ask, and we saw those questions for the first time this morning. Anderson and I and our team from ABC and CNN are the only ones who have seen them. Both candidates will have two minutes to answer each audience and online question. We hope to get to as many questions as we can, so we’ve asked the audience here not to slow things down with any applause. Except for now.RADDATZ: Ladies and gentlemen the Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, and the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. [applause]COOPER: Thank you very much for being here. We’re going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss, so you’ll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Brock. Patrice?QUESTION: Thank you, and good evening. The last presidential debate could have been rated as MA, mature audiences, per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debates as students’ homework, do you feel you’re modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth?CLINTON: Well, thank you. Are you a teacher? Yes, I think that that’s a very good question, because I’ve heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the things that are being said and done in this campaign.And I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we’re good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl, as well as every adult, to bring them in to working on behalf of our country.I have a very positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That’s why the slogan of my campaign is “Stronger Together,” because I think if we work together, if we overcome the divisiveness that sometimes sets Americans against one another, and instead we make some big goals—and I’ve set forth some big goals, getting the economy to work for everyone, not just those at the top, making sure that we have the best education system from preschool through college and making it affordable, and so much else.If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there’s nothing in my opinion that America can’t do. So that’s why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I’m hoping to earn your vote, I’m hoping to be elected in November, and I can promise you, I will work with every American.I want to be the president for all Americans, regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. I want us to heal our country and bring it together because that’s, I think, the best way for us to get the future that our children and our grandchildren deserve.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.TRUMP: Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country. This is a great country. This is a great land. I’ve gotten to know the people of the country over the last year-and-a-half that I’ve been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I’m saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician.And my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made, when I watch what’s happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent, when I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it’s a one-sided transaction where we’re giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state, really, the number one terror state, we’ve made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago.When I look at all of the things that I see and all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential, whether it’s in business and trade, where we’re doing so badly. Last year, we had an almost $800 billion trade deficit. In other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It’s hard to believe. Inconceivable.You say who’s making these deals? We’re going to make great trade deals. We’re going to have a strong border. We’re going to bring back law and order. Just today, policemen was shot, two killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to bring back respect to law enforcement. At the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice.But I want to do things that haven’t been done, including fixing and making our inner cities better for the African-American citizens that are so great, and for the Latinos, Hispanics, and I look forward to doing it. It’s called make America great again.COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate behavior for today’s youth? We received a lot of questions online, Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday, as you can imagine. You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?TRUMP: No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was—this was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly, I’m not proud of it. But this is locker room talk.You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have—and, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven’t seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are, frankly, doing so well against us with ISIS? And they look at our country and they see what’s going on.Yes, I’m very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.COOPER: So, Mr. Trump…TRUMP: And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things.COOPER: Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women without consent?TRUMP: I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.COOPER: So, for the record, you’re saying you never did that?TRUMP: I’ve said things that, frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women.COOPER: Have you ever done those things?TRUMP: And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I’m going to make our country safe. We’re going to have borders in our country, which we don’t have now. People are pouring into our country, and they’re coming in from the Middle East and other places.We’re going to make America safe again. We’re going to make America great again, but we’re going to make America safe again. And we’re going to make America wealthy again, because if you don’t do that, it just—it sounds harsh to say, but we have to build up the wealth of our nation.COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: Right now, other nations are taking our jobs and they’re taking our wealth.COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: And that’s what I want to talk about.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?CLINTON: Well, like everyone else, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles, but I never questioned their fitness to serve.Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn’t represent who he is.But I think it’s clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we’ve seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We’ve seen him rate women on their appearance, ranking them from one to ten. We’ve seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former Miss Universe in the harshest, most personal terms.So, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. But it’s not only women, and it’s not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others.So this is who Donald Trump is. And the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we are. That’s why—to go back to your question—I want to send a message—we all should—to every boy and girl and, indeed, to the entire world that America already is great, but we are great because we are good, and we will respect one another, and we will work with one another, and we will celebrate our diversity.These are very important values to me, because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I’m so fortunate enough to become your president.RADDATZ: And we want to get to some questions from online…TRUMP: Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am.RADDATZ: Yes, you can respond to that.TRUMP: It’s just words, folks. It’s just words. Those words, I’ve been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the Senate in New York, where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed.I’ve heard them where Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible. I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.She’s done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing, and then she comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was a United States senator. She campaigned where the primary part of her campaign…RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump—I want to get to audience questions and online questions.TRUMP: So, she’s allowed to do that, but I’m not allowed to respond?RADDATZ: You’re going to have—you’re going to get to respond right now.TRUMP: Sounds fair.RADDATZ: This tape is generating intense interest. In just 48 hours, it’s become the single most talked about story of the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around country via social media, and our first stays on this topic. Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook, “Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?” So, Mr. Trump, let me add to that. When you walked off that bus at age 59, were you a different man or did that behavior continue until just recently? And you have two minutes for this.TRUMP: It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I’m not proud of it. But that was something that happened.If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight.So don’t tell me about words. I am absolutely—I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who’s also here tonight.And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [applause]RADDATZ: Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.CLINTON: Well, first, let me start by saying that so much of what he’s just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Instead of answering people’s questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country, that’s his choice.When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low, you go high. [applause]And, look, if this were just about one video, maybe what he’s saying tonight would be understandable, but everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone.He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the Gold Star family whose son, Captain Khan, died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion.He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge who was born in Indiana, but Donald said he couldn’t be trusted to be a judge because his parents were, quote, “Mexican.”He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching. And he never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America. He owes the president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words.TRUMP: Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal—he’s another real winner that you have—and he’s the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager, and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You’re the one that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with President Obama in a certain garb. That was long before I was ever involved, so you actually owe an apology.Number two, Michelle Obama. I’ve gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I’ve gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I’ve ever seen of Michelle Obama talking about you, Hillary.So, you talk about friend? Go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost fair and square, unlike the Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at WikiLeaks and just see what they said about Bernie Sanders and see what Deborah Wasserman Schultz had in mind, because Bernie Sanders, between super-delegates and Deborah Wasserman Schultz, he never had a chance. And I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil.But when you talk about apology, I think the one that you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing.And I’ll tell you what. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been long-term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails—and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process.So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that.[crosstalk]RADDATZ: I’m going to let you talk about e-mails.CLINTON: … because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I’m not surprised.TRUMP: Oh, really?CLINTON: In the first debate…[laughter]RADDATZ: And really, the audience needs to calm down here.CLINTON: … I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people.So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump—you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is—it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail. [applause]RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton…COOPER: We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You’re just wasting time.RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on e- mails. You’ve said your handing of your e-mails was a mistake. You disagreed with FBI Director James Comey, calling your handling of classified information, quote, “extremely careless.” The FBI said that there were 110 classified e-mails that were exchanged, eight of which were top secret, and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those e-mails. You don’t call that extremely careless?CLINTON: Well, Martha, first, let me say—and I’ve said before, but I’ll repeat it, because I want everyone to hear it—that was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I’m not making any excuses. It was a mistake. And I am very sorry about that.But I think it’s also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. After a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all—anyone who says otherwise has no basis—that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands.I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was privy to a lot of classified material. Obviously, as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after Bin Laden. So I am very committed to taking classified information seriously. And as I said, there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands.RADDATZ: OK, we’re going to move on.TRUMP: And yet she didn’t know the word—the letter C on a document. Right? She didn’t even know what that word—what that letter meant.You know, it’s amazing. I’m watching Hillary go over facts. And she’s going after fact after fact, and she’s lying again, because she said she—you know, what she did with the e-mails was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don’t think so.She said the 33,000 e-mails had to do with her daughter’s wedding, number one, and a yoga class. Well, maybe we’ll give three or three or four or five or something. 33,000 e-mails deleted, and now she’s saying there wasn’t anything wrong.And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn’t before. That was after. She got it from the United States Congress. And I’ll be honest, I am so disappointed in congressmen, including Republicans, for allowing this to happen.Our Justice Department, where her husband goes onto the back of an airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general days before a ruling is going to be made on her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did—and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress.COOPER: We have to move on.TRUMP: You did that. Wait a minute. One second.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond, and then we’ve got to move on.RADDATZ: We want to give the audience a chance.TRUMP: If you did that in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond. Then we have to move on to an audience question.CLINTON: Look, it’s just not true. And so please, go to…TRUMP: Oh, you didn’t delete them?COOPER: Allow her to respond, please.CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official.TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah.CLINTON: Not—well, we turned over 35,000, so…TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000?COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn’t talk while you talked.CLINTON: Yes, that’s true, I didn’t.TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say.CLINTON: I didn’t in the first debate, and I’m going to try not to in this debate, because I’d like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about.TRUMP: And get off this question.CLINTON: OK, Donald. I know you’re into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it’s exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let’s at least focus…TRUMP: Let’s see what happens…[crosstalk]COOPER: Allow her to respond.CLINTON: … on some of the issues that people care about tonight. Let’s get to their questions.COOPER: We have a question here from Ken Karpowicz. He has a question about health care. Ken?TRUMP: I’d like to know, Anderson, why aren’t you bringing up the e-mails? I’d like to know. Why aren’t you bringing…COOPER: We brought up the e-mails.TRUMP: No, it hasn’t. It hasn’t. And it hasn’t been finished at all.COOPER: Ken Karpowicz has a question.TRUMP: It’s nice to—one on three.QUESTION: Thank you. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up. And the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better?COOPER: That first one goes to Secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience.CLINTON: If he wants to start, he can start. No, go ahead, Donald.TRUMP: No, I’m a gentleman, Hillary. Go ahead. [laughter]COOPER: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I think Donald was about to say he’s going to solve it by repealing it and getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. And I’m going to fix it, because I agree with you. Premiums have gotten too high. Copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs, and I’ve laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down.But here’s what I don’t want people to forget when we’re talking about reining in the costs, which has to be the highest priority of the next president, when the Affordable Care Act passed, it wasn’t just that 20 million people got insurance who didn’t have it before. But that in and of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time, and they tell me what a difference having that insurance meant to them and their families.But everybody else, the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employers got big benefits. Number one, insurance companies can’t deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two, no lifetime limits, which is a big deal if you have serious health problems.Number three, women can’t be charged more than men for our health insurance, which is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. Number four, if you’re under 26, and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26, something that didn’t happen before.So I want very much to save what works and is good about the Affordable Care Act. But we’ve got to get costs down. We’ve got to provide some additional help to small businesses so that they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it, as Donald has proposed, and start over again, all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again.Right now, we are at 90 percent health insurance coverage. That’s the highest we’ve ever been in our country.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your time is up.CLINTON: So I want us to get to 100 percent, but get costs down and keep quality up.COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.TRUMP: It is such a great question and it’s maybe the question I get almost more than anything else, outside of defense. Obamacare is a disaster. You know it. We all know it. It’s going up at numbers that nobody’s ever seen worldwide. Nobody’s ever seen numbers like this for health care.It’s only getting worse. In ’17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money, more and more money. We have right now almost $20 trillion in debt.Obamacare will never work. It’s very bad, very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. It’s going to be one of the biggest line items very shortly.We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing, because they want—and President Obama and whoever was working on it—they want to leave those lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition.You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster, somewhat similar to Canada. And if you haven’t noticed the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States in many cases because their system is so slow. It’s catastrophic in certain ways.But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after this for years. Obamacare was the first step. Obamacare is a total disaster. And not only are your rates going up by numbers that nobody’s ever believed, but your deductibles are going up, so that unless you get hit by a truck, you’re never going to be able to use it.COOPER: Mr. Trump, your time…TRUMP: It is a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, let me follow up with you. Your husband called Obamacare, quote, “the craziest thing in the world,” saying that small-business owners are getting killed as premiums double, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken or was the mistake simply telling the truth?CLINTON: No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it’s very clear. Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That’s where the vast majority of people get their health care.And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn’t put together any resources to afford health care, namely people on Medicaid. Obviously, Medicare, which is a single-payer system, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all of the people who were employed, but people who were working but didn’t have the money to afford insurance and didn’t have anybody, an employer or anybody else, to help them.That was the slot that the Obamacare approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance. So if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald’s not telling you is we just turn it back to the insurance companies the way it used to be, and that means the insurance companies…COOPER: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: … get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I’m sorry, you’ve got diabetes, you had cancer, your child has asthma…COOPER: Your time is up.CLINTON: … you may not be able to have insurance because you can’t afford it. So let’s fix what’s broken about it, but let’s not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That’s not going to work.COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up on this.TRUMP: Well, I just want—just one thing. First of all, Hillary, everything’s broken about it. Everything. Number two, Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it, trying to save Obamacare, which is a disaster.COOPER: You’ve said you want to end Obamacare…TRUMP: By the way…COOPER: You’ve said you want to end Obamacare. You’ve also said you want to make coverage accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you’re no longer mandating that every American get insurance?TRUMP: We’re going to be able to. You’re going to have plans…COOPER: What does that mean?TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what it means. You’re going to have plans that are so good, because we’re going to have so much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out—once we break out the lines and allow the competition to come…COOPER: Are you going—are you going to have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance?TRUMP: President Obama—Anderson, excuse me. President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around each state, it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare, which, by the way, was a fraud. You know that, because Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, was said—he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie. President Obama said you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn’t work.But when we get rid of those lines, you will have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we’ll also be able to help people that can’t get—don’t have money because we are going to have people protected.And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way. We’re going to block grant into the states. We’re going to block grant into Medicaid into the states…COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: … so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves.COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.RADDATZ: We now go to Gorbah Hamed with a question for both candidates.QUESTION: Hi. There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, you’re first.TRUMP: Well, you’re right about Islamophobia, and that’s a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure that—because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we could be very politically correct, but whether we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on. When they see hatred going on, they have to report it.As an example, in San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and wounded many, many people. Horribly wounded. They’ll never be the same. Muslims have to report the problems when they see them.And, you know, there’s always a reason for everything. If they don’t do that, it’s a very difficult situation for our country, because you look at Orlando and you look at San Bernardino and you look at the World Trade Center. Go outside. Look at Paris. Look at that horrible—these are radical Islamic terrorists.And she won’t even mention the word and nor will President Obama. He won’t use the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won’t say the name and President Obama won’t say the name. But the name is there. It’s radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name.RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, thank you for asking your question. And I’ve heard this question from a lot of Muslim-Americans across our country, because, unfortunately, there’s been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about Muslims. And even someone like Captain Khan, the young man who sacrificed himself defending our country in the United States Army, has been subject to attack by Donald.I want to say just a couple of things. First, we’ve had Muslims in America since George Washington. And we’ve had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particularly well-known one with Muhammad Ali.My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place, if you’re willing to work hard, you do your part, you contribute to the community. That’s what America is. That’s what we want America to be for our children and our grandchildren.It’s also very short-sighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogic rhetoric that Donald has about Muslims. We need American Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I’ve worked with a lot of different Muslim groups around America. I’ve met with a lot of them, and I’ve heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and included and part of our country, part of our homeland security, and that’s what I want to see.It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations. Right now, a lot of those nations are hearing what Donald says and wondering, why should we cooperate with the Americans? And this is a gift to ISIS and the terrorists, violent jihadist terrorists.We are not at war with Islam. And it is a mistake and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are. So I want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else.RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.Mr. Trump, in December, you said this. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice.” Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct? And if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?TRUMP: First of all, Captain Khan is an American hero, and if I were president at that time, he would be alive today, because unlike her, who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was a disaster. So he would have been alive today.The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. Hillary Clinton wants to allow hundreds of thousands—excuse me. Excuse me..RADDATZ: And why did it morph into that? No, did you—no, answer the question. Do you still believe…TRUMP: Why don’t you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time.RADDATZ: I do.TRUMP: Why don’t you interrupt her?RADDATZ: Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?TRUMP: It’s called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they’re coming in by the tens of thousands because of Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings about our country is, and she wants 550 percent more. This is going to be the great Trojan horse of all time.We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe zones. I believe in having other people pay for them, as an example, the Gulf states, who are not carrying their weight, but they have nothing but money, and take care of people. But I don’t want to have, with all the problems this country has and all of the problems that you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country.RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that, because you have asked for an increase from 10,000 to 65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That’s not a perfect system. So why take the risk of having those refugees come into the country?CLINTON: Well, first of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of refugees, women and children—think of that picture we all saw of that 4-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead because he’d been bombed by the Russian and Syrian air forces.There are children suffering in this catastrophic war, largely, I believe, because of Russian aggression. And we need to do our part. We by no means are carrying anywhere near the load that Europe and others are. But we will have vetting that is as tough as it needs to be from our professionals, our intelligence experts and others.But it is important for us as a policy, you know, not to say, as Donald has said, we’re going to ban people based on a religion. How do you do that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own county? Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country? And how do we expect to be able to implement those?So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous. And indeed, you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorist sites, and what Donald Trump says about Muslims is used to recruit fighters, because they want to create a war between us.And the final thing I would say, this is the 10th or 12th time that he’s denied being for the war in Iraq. We have it on tape. The entire press corps has looked at it. It’s been debunked, but it never stops him from saying whatever he wants to say.TRUMP: That’s not been debunked.CLINTON: So, please…TRUMP: That has not been debunked.CLINTON: … go to HillaryClinton.com and you can see it.TRUMP: I was against—I was against the war in Iraq. Has not been debunked. And you voted for it. And you shouldn’t have. Well, I just want to say…RADDATZ: There’s been lots of fact-checking on that. I’d like to move on to an online question…TRUMP: Excuse me. She just went about 25 seconds over her time.RADDATZ: She did not.TRUMP: Could I just respond to this, please?RADDATZ: Very quickly, please.TRUMP: Hillary Clinton, in terms of having people come into our country, we have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country, their country says we don’t want them. In some cases, they’re murderers, drug lords, drug problems. And they don’t want them.And Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, said that’s OK, we can’t force it into their country. Let me tell you, I’m going to force them right back into their country. They’re murderers and some very bad people.And I will tell you very strongly, when Bernie Sanders said she had bad judgment, she has really bad judgment, because we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you’ve never seen. We’re also letting drugs pour through our southern border at a record clip. At a record clip. And it shouldn’t be allowed to happen.ICE just endorsed me. They’ve never endorsed a presidential candidate. The Border Patrol agents, 16,500, just recently endorsed me, and they endorsed me because I understand the border. She doesn’t. She wants amnesty for everybody. Come right in. Come right over. It’s a horrible thing she’s doing. She’s got bad judgment, and honestly, so bad that she should never be president of the United States. That I can tell you.RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump. I want to move on. This next question comes from the public through the Bipartisan Open Debate Coalition’s online forum, where Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question involves WikiLeaks release of purported excerpts of Secretary Clinton’s paid speeches, which she has refused to release, and one line in particular, in which you, Secretary Clinton, purportedly say you need both a public and private position on certain issues. So, Tu, from Virginia asks, is it OK for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues? Secretary Clinton, your two minutes.CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great—I thought a great display of presidential leadership.But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information, we don’t even know if it’s accurate information, and then they put it out.We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me, they’re not doing it to get me elected. They’re doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don’t know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships that he has…RADDATZ: We’re going to get to that later. Secretary Clinton, you’re out of time.CLINTON: … with the Russians and other foreign powers.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: Well, I think I should respond, because—so ridiculous. Look, now she’s blaming—she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things—WikiLeaks that just came out. And she lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That’s one that I haven’t…[laughter]OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin.But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are—she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know—I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia.I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the Old Post Office, between the White House and Congress, chose me to do the Old Post Office. One of the primary things, in fact, perhaps the primary thing was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well in order to get that development I had to have.Now, the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have—first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who’s a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that she can do many more commercials than me gave her—took massive deductions.I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. But—but as soon as my routine audit is finished, I’ll release my returns. I’ll be very proud to. They’re actually quite great.RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump.COOPER: We want to turn, actually, to the topic of taxes. We have a question from Spencer Maass. Spencer?QUESTION: Good evening. My question is, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.TRUMP: Well, one thing I’d do is get rid of carried interest. One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you, I give up a lot when I run, because I knock out the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by the way. She’s a United States—she was a United States senator.She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn’t she change it? Why didn’t you change it when you were a senator? The reason you didn’t is that all your friends take the same advantage that I do. And I do. You have provisions in the tax code that, frankly, we could change. But you wouldn’t change it, because all of these people give you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump.But—and I say that about a lot of things. You know, I’ve heard Hillary complaining about so many different things over the years. “I wish you would have done this.” But she’s been there for 30 years she’s been doing this stuff. She never changed. And she never will change. She never will change.We’re getting rid of carried interest provisions. I’m lowering taxes actually, because I think it’s so important for corporations, because we have corporations leaving—massive corporations and little ones, little ones can’t form. We’re getting rid of regulations which goes hand in hand with the lowering of the taxes.But we’re bringing the tax rate down from 35 percent to 15 percent. We’re cutting taxes for the middle class. And I will tell you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class.And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks. You can look at me. She’s raising your taxes really high. And what that’s going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising your taxes and I’m lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There’s no growth. If China has a GDP of 7 percent, it’s like a national catastrophe. We’re down at 1 percent. And that’s, like, no growth. And we’re going lower, in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world. And I’m bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. And I think it’s so important—one of the most important things we can do. But she is raising everybody’s taxes massively.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. The question was, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes?CLINTON: Well, everything you’ve heard just now from Donald is not true. I’m sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn’t paid federal income taxes in maybe 20 years talking about what he’s going to do.But I’ll tell you what he’s going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they’ve ever had, more than the Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald, and this would be a massive gift. And, indeed, the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes on middle-class families, millions of middle-class families.Now, here’s what I want to do. I have said nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year—and that’s the vast majority of Americans as you know—will have their taxes raised, because I think we’ve got to go where the money is. And the money is with people who have taken advantage of every single break in the tax code.And, yes, when I was a senator, I did vote to close corporate loopholes. I voted to close, I think, one of the loopholes he took advantage of when he claimed a billion-dollar loss that enabled him to avoid paying taxes.I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars. It’s called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who’s gone out and said somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above $5 million.We have to make up for lost times, because I want to invest in you. I want to invest in hard-working families. And I think it’s been unfortunate, but it’s happened, that since the Great Recession, the gains have all gone to the top. And we need to reverse that.People like Donald, who paid zero in taxes, zero for our vets, zero for our military, zero for health and education, that is wrong.COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.CLINTON: And we’re going to make sure that nobody, no corporation, and no individual can get away without paying his fair share to support our country.COOPER: Thank you. I want to give you—Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond. I just wanted to tell our viewers what she’s referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number-one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The New York Times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns. They show you claimed a $916 million loss, which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You’ve said you pay state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered, though, a simple question. Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?TRUMP: Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.COOPER: So have you paid personal federal income tax?TRUMP: A lot of my—excuse me, Anderson—a lot of my write- off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a senator allowed. And she’ll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That’s why.See, I understand the tax code better than anybody that’s ever run for president. Hillary Clinton—and it’s extremely complex—Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including they want the carried interest provision, which is very important to Wall Street people. But they really want the carried interest provision, which I believe Hillary’s leaving. Very interesting why she’s leaving carried interest.But I will tell you that, number one, I pay tremendous numbers of taxes. I absolutely used it. And so did Warren Buffett and so did George Soros and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from. Now, I won’t mention their names, because they’re rich, but they’re not famous. So we won’t make them famous.COOPER: So can you—can you say how many years you have avoided paying personal federal income taxes?TRUMP: No, but I pay tax, and I pay federal tax, too. But I have a write-off, a lot of it’s depreciation, which is a wonderful charge. I love depreciation. You know, she’s given it to us.Hey, if she had a problem—for 30 years she’s been doing this, Anderson. I say it all the time. She talks about health care. Why didn’t she do something about it? She talks about taxes. Why didn’t she do something about it? She doesn’t do anything about anything other than talk. With her, it’s all talk and no action.COOPER: In the past…TRUMP: And, again, Bernie Sanders, it’s really bad judgment. She has made bad judgment not only on taxes. She’s made bad judgments on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. I mean, her and Obama, whether you like it or not, the way they got out of Iraq, the vacuum they’ve left, that’s why ISIS formed in the first place. They started from that little area, and now they’re in 32 different nations, Hillary. Congratulations. Great job.COOPER: Secretary—I want you to be able to respond, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: Well, here we go again. I’ve been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when I was a senator from New York. But that’s not the point here.TRUMP: Why didn’t you do it? Why didn’t you do it?COOPER: Allow her to respond.CLINTON: Because I was a senator with a Republican president.TRUMP: Oh, really?CLINTON: I will be the president and we will get it done. That’s exactly right.TRUMP: You could have done it, if you were an effective—if you were an effective senator, you could have done it. If you were an effective senator, you could have done it. But you were not an effective senator.COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn’t interrupt you.CLINTON: You know, under our Constitution, presidents have something called veto power. Look, he has now said repeatedly, “30 years this and 30 years that.” So let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I’m very glad to do so.Eight million kids every year have health insurance, because when I was first lady I worked with Democrats and Republicans to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system. After 9/11, I went to work with Republican mayor, governor and president to rebuild New York and to get health care for our first responders who were suffering because they had run toward danger and gotten sickened by it. Hundreds of thousands of National Guard and Reserve members have health care because of work that I did, and children have safer medicines because I was able to pass a law that required the dosing to be more carefully done.When I was secretary of state, I went around the world advocating for our country, but also advocating for women’s rights, to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better life and negotiated a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear weapons. Four hundred pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight years.I worked very hard and was very proud to be re-elected in New York by an even bigger margin than I had been elected the first time. And as president, I will take that work, that bipartisan work, that finding common ground, because you have to be able to get along with people to get things done in Washington.COOPER: Thank you, secretary.CLINTON: And I’ve proven that I can, and for 30 years, I’ve produced results for people.COOPER: Thank you, secretary.RADDATZ: We’re going to move on to Syria. Both of you have mentioned that.TRUMP: She said a lot of things that were false. I mean, I think we should be allowed to maybe…RADDATZ: No, we can—no, Mr. Trump, we’re going to go on. This is about the audience.TRUMP: Excuse me. Because she has been a disaster as a senator. A disaster.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, we’re going to move on. The heart-breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy named Omran sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an air strike in Aleppo focused the world’s attention on the horrors of the war in Syria, with 136 million views on Facebook alone.But there are much worse images coming out of Aleppo every day now, where in the past few weeks alone, 400 people have been killed, at least 100 of them children. Just days ago, the State Department called for a war crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its ally, Russia, for their bombardment of Aleppo.So this next question comes from social media through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks, if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn’t it a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped? Secretary Clinton, we will begin with your two minutes.CLINTON: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me. I’ve stood up to Russia. I’ve taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president.I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that’s fine. And I did as secretary of state. That’s how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. It’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot. So I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Mr. Trump?TRUMP: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which…CLINTON: No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point…TRUMP: OK. But you were in contact—excuse me. You were…CLINTON: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.TRUMP: You were in total contact with the White House, and perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I don’t think he would be listening to you very much anymore.Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened.Now, with that being said, she talks tough against Russia. But our nuclear program has fallen way behind, and they’ve gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn’t have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear. We are old. We’re tired. We’re exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing.Now, she talks tough, she talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people.Look at what she did in Libya with Gadhafi. Gadhafi’s out. It’s a mess. And, by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I’m sure you probably have heard that. It was a disaster. Because the fact is, almost everything she’s done in foreign policy has been a mistake and it’s been a disaster.But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia, and look at what they did this week, where I agree, she wasn’t there, but possibly she’s consulted. We sign a peace treaty. Everyone’s all excited. Well, what Russia did with Assad and, by the way, with Iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I’ve ever seen in the history of deal-making, the Iran deal, with the $150 billion, with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough cash to fill up this room.But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There’s only one problem. You don’t even know who the rebels are. So what’s the purpose?RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.TRUMP: I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president…[laughter]…what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.TRUMP: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise.RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something. You take a look at Mosul. The biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have Mosul. They think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in Mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq, we will be attacking Mosul in three weeks or four weeks.Well, all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving Mosul. Why can’t they do it quietly? Why can’t they do the attack, make it a sneak attack, and after the attack is made, inform the American public that we’ve knocked out the leaders, we’ve had a tremendous success? People leave. Why do they have to say we’re going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six weeks, which is what they’re saying? How stupid is our country?RADDATZ: There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare.TRUMP: I can’t think of any. I can’t think of any. And I’m pretty good at it.RADDATZ: It might be to help get civilians out.TRUMP: And we have General Flynn. And we have—look, I have 200 generals and admirals who endorsed me. I have 21 Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who endorsed me. We talk about it all the time. They understand, why can’t they do something secretively, where they go in and they knock out the leadership? How—why would these people stay there? I’ve been reading now…RADDATZ: Tell me what your strategy is.TRUMP: … for weeks—I’ve been reading now for weeks about Mosul, that it’s the harbor of where—you know, between Raqqa and Mosul, this is where they think the ISIS leaders are. Why would they be saying—they’re not staying there anymore. They’re gone. Because everybody’s talking about how Iraq, which is us with our leadership, goes in to fight Mosul.Now, with these 200 admirals and generals, they can’t believe it. All I say is this. General George Patton, General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grave at the stupidity of what we’re doing in the Middle East.RADDATZ: I’m going to go to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you want Assad to go. You advocated arming rebels, but it looks like that may be too late for Aleppo. You talk about diplomatic efforts. Those have failed. Cease-fires have failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. military force beyond a no-fly zone against the Assad regime to back up diplomacy?CLINTON: I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don’t think American troops should be holding territory, which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don’t think that is a smart strategy.I do think the use of special forces, which we’re using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening, but let me just…RADDATZ: But what would you do differently than President Obama is doing?CLINTON: Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I—if I’m fortunate…TRUMP: Everything.CLINTON: I hope by the time I am president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul. And, you know, Donald says he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn’t.There are a lot of very important planning going on, and some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area, as well as Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and preparation.I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi, because I think our targeting of Al Qaida leaders—and I was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones—made a difference. So I think that could help.I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there’s a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We’re going to move on…TRUMP: You know what’s funny? She went over a minute over, and you don’t stop her. When I go one second over, it’s like a big deal.RADDATZ: You had many answers.TRUMP: It’s really—it’s really very interesting.COOPER: We’ve got a question over here from James Carter. Mr. Carter?QUESTION: My question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?COOPER: That question begins for Mr. Trump.TRUMP: Absolutely. I mean, she calls our people deplorable, a large group, and irredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I’ll be a president that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back.Because NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. Not in this country. It stripped us of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs. We lost our money. We lost our plants. It is a disaster. And now she wants to sign TPP, even though she says now she’s for it. She called it the gold standard. And by the way, at the last debate, she lied, because it turned out that she did say the gold standard and she said she didn’t say it. They actually said that she lied. OK? And she lied. But she’s lied about a lot of things.I would be a president for all of the people, African-Americans, the inner cities. Devastating what’s happening to our inner cities. She’s been talking about it for years. As usual, she talks about it, nothing happens. She doesn’t get it done.Same with the Latino Americans, the Hispanic Americans. The same exact thing. They talk, they don’t get it done. You go into the inner cities and—you see it’s 45 percent poverty. African- Americans now 45 percent poverty in the inner cities. The education is a disaster. Jobs are essentially nonexistent.I mean, it’s—you know, and I’ve been saying at big speeches where I have 20,000 and 30,000 people, what do you have to lose? It can’t get any worse. And she’s been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. Nothing’s going to ever happen.Let me tell you, if she’s president of the United States, nothing’s going to happen. It’s just going to be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She’s not doing any me favors. But by doing all the others’ favors, she’s doing me favors.COOPER: Mr. Trump, thank you.TRUMP: But I will tell you, she’s all talk. It doesn’t get done. All you have to do is take a look at her Senate run. Take a look at upstate New York.COOPER: Your two minutes is up. Secretary Clinton, two minutes?TRUMP: It turned out to be a disaster.COOPER: You have two minutes, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: Well, 67 percent of the people voted to re-elect me when I ran for my second term, and I was very proud and very humbled by that.Mr. Carter, I have tried my entire life to do what I can to support children and families. You know, right out of law school, I went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund. And Donald talks a lot about, you know, the 30 years I’ve been in public service. I’m proud of that. You know, I started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against African-American children in schools and in the criminal justice system. I worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get a public education, something that I care very much about. I have worked with Latinos—one of my first jobs in politics was down in south Texas registering Latino citizens to be able to vote. So I have a deep devotion, to use your absolutely correct word, to making sure that every American feels like he or she has a place in our country.And I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn’t have a place in Donald Trump’s America. They write me, and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix. She adopted him from Ethiopia when he was a toddler. He’s 10 years old now. This is the only country he’s ever known. And he listens to Donald on TV and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected?You know, children listen to what is being said. To go back to the very, very first question. And there’s a lot of fear—in fact, teachers and parents are calling it the Trump effect. Bullying is up. A lot of people are feeling, you know, uneasy. A lot of kids are expressing their concerns.So, first and foremost, I will do everything I can to reach out to everybody.COOPER: Your time, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: Democrats, Republicans, independents, people across our country. If you don’t vote for me, I still want to be your president.COOPER: Your two minutes is up.CLINTON: I want to be the best president I can be for every American.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your two minutes is up. I want to follow up on something that Donald Trump actually said to you, a comment you made last month. You said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are, quote, “deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” You later said you regretted saying half. You didn’t express regret for using the term “deplorables.” To Mr. Carter’s question, how can you unite a country if you’ve written off tens of millions of Americans?CLINTON: Well, within hours I said that I was sorry about the way I talked about that, because my argument is not with his supporters. It’s with him and with the hateful and divisive campaign that he has run, and the inciting of violence at his rallies, and the very brutal kinds of comments about not just women, but all Americans, all kinds of Americans.And what he has said about African-Americans and Latinos, about Muslims, about POWs, about immigrants, about people with disabilities, he’s never apologized for. And so I do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said—I’m proud of the campaign that Bernie Sanders and I ran. We ran a campaign based on issues, not insults. And he is supporting me 100 percent.COOPER: Thank you.CLINTON: Because we talked about what we wanted to do. We might have had some differences, and we had a lot of debates…COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.TRUMP: … but we believed that we could make the country better. And I was proud of that.COOPER: I want to give you a minute to respond.TRUMP: We have a divided nation. We have a very divided nation. You look at Charlotte. You look at Baltimore. You look at the violence that’s taking place in the inner cities, Chicago, you take a look at Washington, D.C.We have a increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years. We have a divided nation, because people like her—and believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they’re irredeemable, you didn’t mention that, but when she said they’re irredeemable, to me that might have been even worse.COOPER: She said some of them are irredeemable.TRUMP: She’s got tremendous—she’s got tremendous hatred. And this country cannot take another four years of Barack Obama, and that’s what you’re getting with her.COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up with you. In 2008, you wrote in one of your books that the most important characteristic of a good leader is discipline. You said, if a leader doesn’t have it, quote, “he or she won’t be one for very long.” In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., including one that told people to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good leader?TRUMP: No, there wasn’t check out a sex tape. It was just take a look at the person that she built up to be this wonderful Girl Scout who was no Girl Scout.COOPER: You mentioned sex tape.TRUMP: By the way, just so you understand, when she said 3 o’clock in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3 o’clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn’t answer it, because when Ambassador Stevens…COOPER: The question is, is that the discipline of a good leader?TRUMP: … 600—wait a minute, Anderson, 600 times. Well, she said she was awake at 3 o’clock in the morning, and she also sent a tweet out at 3 o’clock in the morning, but I won’t even mention that. But she said she’ll be awake. Who’s going—the famous thing, we’re going to answer our call at 3 o’clock in the morning. Guess what happened? Ambassador Stevens—Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help. And the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who’s her friend and not a good guy, by the way. So, you know, she shouldn’t be talking about that.Now, tweeting happens to be a modern day form of communication. I mean, you can like it or not like it. I have, between Facebook and Twitter, I have almost 25 million people. It’s a very effective way of communication. So you can put it down, but it is a very effective form of communication. I’m not un-proud of it, to be honest with you.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader?CLINTON: No.TRUMP: I’m shocked to hear that. [laughter]CLINTON: Well, it’s not only my opinion. It’s the opinion of many others, national security experts, Republicans, former Republican members of Congress. But it’s in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job up close and know how difficult it is, and it’s not just because I watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit and turn it into a $200 billion surplus, and 23 million new jobs were created, and incomes went up for everybody. Everybody. African-American incomes went up 33 percent.And it’s not just because I worked with George W. Bush after 9/11, and I was very proud that when I told him what the city needed, what we needed to recover, he said you’ve got it, and he never wavered. He stuck with me.And I have worked and I admire President Obama. He inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That was a terrible time for our country.COOPER: We have to move along.CLINTON: Nine million people lost their jobs.RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we have to…CLINTON: Five million homes were lost.RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we’re moving on.CLINTON: And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out. We are back on the right track. He would send us back into recession with his tax plans that benefit the wealthiest of Americans.RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we are moving to an audience question. We’re almost out of time. We have another…TRUMP: We have the slowest growth since 1929.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, we’re moving to an audience question.TRUMP: It is—our country has the slowest growth and jobs are a disaster.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, we want to get to the audience. Thank you very much both of you. [laughter]We have another audience question. Beth Miller has a question for both candidates.QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: Thank you. Well, you’re right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that.I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don’t always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you’re wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else.So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, they’ve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty.I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people.RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. You’re out of time. Mr. Trump?TRUMP: Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently. And we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges—and I’ve actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody.But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important. Also, the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton. They’ll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for, what it represents. So important to me.Now, Hillary mentioned something about contributions just so you understand. So I will have in my race more than $100 million put in—of my money, meaning I’m not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she’s doing. What I ask is this.So I’m putting in more than—by the time it’s finished, I’ll have more than $100 million invested. Pretty much self-funding mine. We’re raising money for the Republican Party, and we’re doing tremendously on the small donations, $61 average or so.I ask Hillary, why doesn’t—she made $250 million by being in office. She used the power of her office to make a lot of money. Why isn’t she funding, not for $100 million, but why don’t you put $10 million or $20 million or $25 million or $30 million into your own campaign?It’s $30 million less for special interests that will tell you exactly what to do and it would really, I think, be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren’t you putting some money in? You have a lot of it. You’ve made a lot of it because of the fact that you’ve been in office. Made a lot of it while you were secretary of state, actually. So why aren’t you putting money into your own campaign? I’m just curious.CLINTON: Well…[crosstalk]RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We’re going to get on to one more question.CLINTON: The question was about the Supreme Court. And I just want to quickly say, I respect the Second Amendment. But I believe there should be comprehensive background checks, and we should close the gun show loophole, and close the online loophole.COOPER: Thank you.RADDATZ: We have—we have one more question, Mrs. Clinton.CLINTON: We have to save as many lives as we possibly can.COOPER: We have one more question from Ken Bone about energy policy. Ken?QUESTION: What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?COOPER: Mr. Trump, two minutes?TRUMP: Absolutely. I think it’s such a great question, because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our—buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil.We are killing—absolutely killing our energy business in this country. Now, I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable—we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.I will bring our energy companies back. They’ll be able to compete. They’ll make money. They’ll pay off our national debt. They’ll pay off our tremendous budget deficits, which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers.You take a look at what’s happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies. We have to make it possible.The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they’re doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It’s a disgrace.COOPER: Your time is up. Thank you.TRUMP: It’s an absolute disgrace.COOPER: Secretary Clinton, two minutes.CLINTON: And actually—well, that was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That’s something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don’t get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.You know, because it sounds like you’re in the business or you’re aware of people in the business—you know that we are now for the first time ever energy-independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices. So the price of oil has been way down. And that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I think that’s an important transition.We’ve got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.But I also want to be sure that we don’t leave people behind. That’s why I’m the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered our factories. I don’t want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them.COOPER: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: But the price of coal is down worldwide. So we have to look at this comprehensively.COOPER: Your time is up.CLINTON: And that’s exactly what I have proposed. I hope you will go to HillaryClinton.com and look at my entire policy.COOPER: Time is up. We have time for one more…RADDATZ: We have…COOPER: One more audience question.RADDATZ: We’ve sneaked in one more question, and it comes from Karl Becker.QUESTION: Good evening. My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another? [applause]RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, would you like to go first?CLINTON: Well, I certainly will, because I think that’s a very fair and important question. Look, I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don’t agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that. And I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very important to me.So I believe that this election has become in part so—so conflict-oriented, so intense because there’s a lot at stake. This is not an ordinary time, and this is not an ordinary election. We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world, from the Supreme Court to energy and so much else, and so there is a lot at stake. It’s one of the most consequential elections that we’ve had.And that’s why I’ve tried to put forth specific policies and plans, trying to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is I want to do as president. And that’s why I hope people will check on that for themselves so that they can see that, yes, I’ve spent 30 years, actually maybe a little more, working to help kids and families. And I want to take all that experience to the White House and do that every single day.RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don’t know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great—I’m very proud of my children. And they’ve done a wonderful job, and they’ve been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment.I will say this about Hillary. She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard, and she doesn’t quit, and she doesn’t give up. And I consider that to be a very good trait.RADDATZ: Thanks to both of you.COOPER: We want to thank both the candidates. We want to thank the university here. This concludes the town hall meeting. Our thanks to the candidates, the commission, Washington University, and to everybody who watched.RADDATZ: Please tune in on October 19th for the final presidential debate that will take place at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Good night, everyone.",
    "id": "357eb022-743d-4522-87c8-ba53681a2375"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 11, 1992",
    "title": "The First Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate (Second half)",
    "content": "October 11, 1992 Second Half Debate TranscriptOctober 11, 1992The First Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate(Second Half of Debate)The second half of the first debate of 1992 continues below. The length of the printed transcript is approximately 14 pages long.LEHRER: All right, moving on now to divisions in our country, the first question goes to Governor Clinton for 2 minutes, and Ann will ask it.COMPTON: Governor Clinton, can you tell us what your definition of the word “family” is?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 (sic) 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. And 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 seventy-two 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 thank you, my daughter, for being here.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.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 highest outrageous numbers of divorces — it happens 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. And 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.LEHRER: All right, Mr. Perot, you have one minute.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 — you see, I look at my grandchildren and wonder if they’ll ever learn to walk because they’re always in someone’s arms. And 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: New question, two-minute answer, goes to President Bush. Sandy will ask it.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)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.And 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?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 below that used to say, well, this is the US’ problem — if you’d get the demand down, then we wouldn’t have the problem — are working cooperatively with the DEA and 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. And 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. I’ll 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. And 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot, one minute.PEROT: Anytime you think you want to legalize drugs, go to a neonatal unit — if you can get in. They’re between 100 and 200% capacity up and down the East Coast. And the reason is crack babies being born, babies 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. You know, we went on the Libyan raid — do you remember that one? — because we were worried to death that Gaddafi 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.Now, again, if I get up there, if you send me, we’re going to have some blunt talks about this, and we’re really going to get down 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 BMWs and Mercedes selling drugs. And these old boys are not going to quit easy.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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 a hundred thousand 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’re 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 US 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Next question is to you, Mr. Perot. You have two minutes to answer it and John will ask it.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?PEROT: This is a relevant question here tonight. The 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 is all broken to pieces after November the 3rd.(APPLAUSE)We are all in this together. We ought to love one another because united teams win and divided teams lose. And if we can’t love one another, we ought to get along with one another. And 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 is 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.See, our differences are our strengths. We have got to pull together. In athletics, we know it. 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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. And 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 drop-outs, we have too many low birthweight babies, we have too many drug addicts as kids, we have too much violence, we are too divided by race, by income, by region. And 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 and 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 can stop us.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. President, one minute.BUSH: Well, I think Governor Clinton is committed. I do think it’s fair to note — he can rebut it — but 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 ten 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 up at 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.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.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?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 — ten times as much per 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, and 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 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. And 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. Is the behavior you’re using prone to cause AIDS? Change the behavior.” 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. And all of us are in this fight together, all of us care. Do not go to the extreme.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: One minute, Mr. Perot.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 at 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 ten-year cycle that FDA goes through on new drugs.Believe me, people with AIDS are more than willing to take that risk. And we could be moving out to the human population a whole lot faster than we are on some of these new drugs. So I would think we can expedite the problem there.Let me go back a minute to racial divisiveness. The 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.(APPLAUSE)2nd thing, there are not many times in your life when you get to talk to a whole country. But let me just say to all of America: if you hate people, I don’t want your vote. That’s how strongly I feel about it.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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.And 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 have worked in my state to reduce teen pregnancy and illness among children. 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 am proud of what we did at the Democratic Convention, putting 2 HIV-positive people on the platform, and I am proud of the leadership that I’m going to bring to this country in dealing with the AIDS crisis.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: New question for Mr. Perot. You have 2 minutes to answer, and Ann will ask it.COMPTON: Mr. Perot, even if you’ve got what people say are the guts to take on changes in the most popular, the most sacred of the entitlements, Medicare, people say you haven’t a prayer of actually getting anything passed in Washington.Since a president isn’t a lone ranger, how in the world can you make some of those unpopular changes?PEROT: Two ways. Number one, if I get there, it will be a very unusual and historical event —(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, and what-have-you, they’ll be over there in the Smithsonian, you know —(Laughter)— because we’re going to get rid of them, and 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. And they will make those sacrifices.So I welcome that challenge, and just watch —(APPLAUSE)— 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, you know? Then when they get off by themselves, they say nobody did it.(Laughter)And yet the cash register’s empty and it used to have our money, the taxpayers’ money, in it, and we didn’t get the results.No, we’ll get it done.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor, one minute.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 costs 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.And 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 in 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: One minute, President Bush.BUSH: Well, first place, I’d like to clear up something because every 4 years, the Democrats go around and say, Republicans are going to cut Social Security and Medicare. They started it again.I’m the president that stood up and said, don’t mess with Social Security, and I’m not going to and we haven’t and 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, let it grow for inflation, let it grow for the amount of new people added, population, and then hold the line.And 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.LEHRER: New question, it is for Governor Clinton, 2 -minute answer. Sandy will ask it.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.CLINTON: Mr. Bush made that charge.VANOCUR: Well, he served with him 2 years later, in 1967, where I first met him. The 2nd 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 it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?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 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 states. 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 $1200 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% more on health care than any country in the world, any country, and yet we have 35 million people uninsured, we have no preventing 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% 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 it, America can do it, too. I’m tired of being told we can’t. I say we can. We can do better, and we must.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.BUSH: Well, I don’t have time in 30 seconds, or whatever — a 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 with Disabilities Act, speaking about sound and sensible civil rights legislation, was the most foremost piece of legislation passed in modern times, and so we do have something more than a technical problem.Governor Clinton clicked off the things — he’s going 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 the costs of medical care up 25 to 50 billion. And 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 5 or 6 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot, one minute.PEROT: We 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?Well, 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.(APPLAUSE)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 drawing, and Mr. Perot, you are first.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 in 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 at the men and women who fought on the battlefield, the children — the families — of the ones who died and 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. And 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 — and 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 you everything I have, if you want me to do it.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, your closing statement.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 in America. I’d like to thank the hundreds of executives who came to Chicago, a third of them Republicans, who said they wanted to change. I’d like to thank the people who’ve started with Mr. Perot who’ve come on to help our campaign.I’d like to thank all the folks around America that no one ever knows about — the woman that 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; three 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, your opposing statement.BUSH: 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. And then you need a philosophical — I’d call it a philosophical underpinning. Mine for foreign affairs is democracy and freedom, and 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 US came together as we haven’t in many, many years. And we kicked this man out of Kuwait. And 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.And 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 any more. 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. And 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.(APPLAUSE)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, and 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.(APPLAUSE)END Part 2, 1992 Debate 1",
    "id": "8876c250-e4b9-45e1-a8e5-e5fc6a5da446"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 15, 1992",
    "title": "The Second Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate (Second half)",
    "content": "October 15, 1992 Second Half Debate TranscriptOctober 15, 1992The Second Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate(Second Half of Debate)This is the second half of the transcript of the Richmond debate. The October 15th “town hall” format debate was moderated by Carole Simpson. The length of this printed transcript is approximately 20 pages.SIMPSON: Brief, Governor Clinton. Thank you. We have a question right here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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?PEROT: May I answer that?SIMPSON: Well, Mr. Perot — yes, of course.PEROT: Who do you want to start with?AUDIENCE QUESTION: My question is for each of you, so-PEROT: 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. And 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.But I have lived the American dream. I came from 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. That’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.SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Perot. Mr. President.BUSH: Well, I think the national debt affects everybody.AUDIENCE QUESTION: You personally.BUSH: Obviously it has a lot to do with interest rates —SIMPSON: She’s saying, “you personally”AUDIENCE QUESTION: You, on a personal basis — how has it affected you?SIMPSON: Has it affected you personally?BUSH: I’m sure it has. I love my grandchildren —AUDIENCE QUESTION: How?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?AUDIENCE QUESTION: What I’m saying is —BUSH: I’m not sure I get — help me with the question and I’ll try to answer it.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Well, I’ve had friends that have been laid off from jobs.BUSH: Yeah.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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?SIMPSON: I think she means more the recession — the economic problems today the country faces rather than the deficit.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 difficulties that families are having to make ends meet. I talk 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’s it like. I don’t think it’s fair to say, you know, whatever it is, that 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 US. And that’s why I’m trying to do something about it by stimulating the export, vesting more, better education systems.Thank you. I’m glad you clarified it.SIMPSON: Governor Clinton.CLINTON: Tell me how it’s affected you again.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Um —CLINTON: You know people who’ve lost their jobs and lost their homes?AUDIENCE QUESTION: Well, yeah, uh-huh.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 and gives us less money to do it with. I see people in my state, middle class people — their taxes have gone up in 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 first to twelfth 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 ten 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’m going to go fix it but what are we going to do? I think we have to do is invest in American jobs, American education, control American health care costs and bring the American people together again.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Thank you.SIMPSON: Thank you, Governor Clinton.We are a little more than halfway through this program and I’m glad 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?AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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. And we funded the trust fund with IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds. The Pension Guarantee 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.And 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.SIMPSON: President Bush, may we start with you?BUSH: Well, the Social Security — you’re an expert and I could, I’m sure, learn from you the details of the Pension Guarantee 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 gonna add to the overall prosperity and wealth. I can’t give you a specific answer on Pension Guarantee Fund. All I know is that we have firm government credit to guarantee the pensions. And that is very important. But it’s — the full faith and credit of the US, 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. And 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. And 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. And 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’s about. And sound fiscal policy is the best answer, I think, to all the three problems you mentioned.SIMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Perot.PEROT: On the 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. Then, if the plans are huge and complex like health care, I would urge you to implement pilot programs. Like the old 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’ve 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% 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 1% 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, and 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 gonna 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 — put 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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, can you wrap it up?PEROT: 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.SIMPSON: But we’ve got to be fair.PEROT: This is just 1 of 1000.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. And I’d love to be out of workers and have to import them, like some of our international competitors.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, I’m sorry. I’m going to —PEROT: Sorry.SIMPSON: And I don’t want to sound-bite you but we are trying to be fair —PEROT: Okay.SIMPSON: — to everyone.PEROT: Absolutely. I apologize.SIMPSON: All right. Governor Clinton.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. And we all have ideas out there, and Mr. Bush has a record. So I don’t want you to read my lips and I sure don’t want you to read his. I do hope you will read our plans.Now, specifically, 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 cost 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 got to get those costs down.Number 2, 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 disproportionally 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 3, on the pension funds, I don’t know as much about it, but I will say this. What I would 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&Ls, 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. I think we have a question here on international affairs, hopefully.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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?SIMPSON: Mr. President.BUSH: Well, 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. 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 are going to just ask for conflagration that we’ll get involved in the future.NATO, for example, has kept the peace for many, many years, and 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. And 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’m president, working to improve things.You know, it’s so easy now to say, hey, cut out foreign aid, we got a problem at home. I think the US has to still have the Statue of Liberty as a symbol, caring for others. Right this very minute we’re sending supplies in to help these little starving kids in Somalia. It’s the US that’s taken the lead in humanitarian aid into Bosnia. We’re doing this all around the world.Yes, we got problems at home. And I think I 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 the late 70s — 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, and 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. And we are the US, 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. And only the US could do this. Excuse me, Carole.SIMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Perot.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 is still very unstable; they could go back to square one, and worse. All the nuclear weapons are not dismantled. I am particularly concerned about the intercontinental weapons, the ones that can hit us. We’ve got agreements, but they are 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 and 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 spent $300 billion a year defending the world. Germany and Japan spend around $30 billion a piece. 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’re a used to be and we will no longer be a force for good throughout the world. And 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.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?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. Winds of freedom blowing around the world, Russia demilitarizing. And it also requires us to maintain some continuity — some bipartisan American commitment to certain principles. And 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 that defense needs to be — with fewer people in 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. Got to keep going until all those nuclear weapons in Russia are gone and the other republics. Number 2, 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.And number three, we need to be a force for freedom and democracy and 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 and that’s the kind of thing that I would do as president — follow those three commitments into the future.SIMPSON: Okay. We have a question up there.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Yes. 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?SIMPSON: Who would like to begin — the education president?PEROT: Go ahead, sir. Yeah, go ahead.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 1700 communities — bypassed Congress on this one, Ross — 1700 communities across the country. It’s called America 2000. And it literally says to the communities, re-invent 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.And 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) And so our America 2000 program also says this. It says let’s give parents the choice of a public, private or public school — public, private or religious school. And it works- -it works in Milwaukee. 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 maybe — 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. And I believe you’re right on to 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.SIMPSON: Governor Clinton.CLINTON: First of all, let me say that I’ve spent more of my time and life on this in the last 12 years than any other issue. Seventy percent of my state’s money goes to the public schools, and 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 2 states showing real strides forward in the 80s. So I care a lot about this, and I’ve spent countless hours in schools.But let me start with what you 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 8 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 the chance to get a high school diploma, in big places on the job.Number 2, we would provide 2-year apprenticeship programs to high school graduates who don’t go to college. And community colleges are 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 or with a couple of years of service to our nation here at home.Number 4, we would fully fund the Head Start program to get little kids off to a good start.And, 5, I would have an aggressive program of school reform, more choices — 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, and 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.SIMPSON: Thank you, Governor Clinton.AUDIENCE QUESTION: What are they going to cost?SIMPSON: The question is, what is it going to cost? What is it going to cost?CLINTON: In 6 years — I budget all this in my budget, and in 6 years the college program would cost 8 billion dollars over and above what — the present student loan program costs 4; you pay 3 billion dollars for busted loans, because we don’t have an automatic recovery system, and a billion dollars in bank fees. So the net cost would 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. And 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Perot, you on education, please.PEROT: Yes, I’ve got scars to show for being around education reform. And the first word you need to say in every city and state, and just draw a line in the sand, is 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 dollars 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 education achievement. One more time you’ve bought a front-row box seat and got a third-rate performance. This is a government that is 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 a janitor’s job at $57,000 a year, more than the teachers make, and with luck they clean the cafeteria once a week. Now, you’re paying for that. Those schools belong to you. And we put up with that.Now, as long as we put up with that, that’s what you’re going to get. And 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 the world will ever know is a strong loving family unit.Next thing. You need small schools, not big schools. In a little school everybody is 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. 5000 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 of the school day was non-academic pursuits — in one place it was 35%. 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 and missed 65 days going to livestock shows. Finally had to come back to school, the chicken lost its 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. And 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. At the end of the first day, that little child wants out.I’ll 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.SIMPSON: No, you don’t.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 workforce. And here you’ve got, for the disadvantaged children, you’ve got to have early childhood development. Cheapest money you’ll ever spend. First contact should be with the money when she’s pregnant. That little child needs to be loved and hugged and nurtured and made to feel special, like your children were. They learn to think well or poorly of themselves in the first 18 months.SIMPSON: Thank you.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Perot.PEROT: And in the first few years they either learn how to learn or don’t learn how to learn. And if they don’t, they wind up in prison.SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Perot.PEROT: And it costs more to keep them in prison than it does to send them to Harvard. I rest my case.SIMPSON: Thank you. President Bush, you wanted to answer.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. And 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 — you know, 46% of the teachers in Chicago, public school teachers, 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.CLINTON: I just want to mention if I could —SIMPSON: Very briefly.CLINTON: Very briefly. Including 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 9 countries that spend more than we do on public education. We spend more on education ’cause we spend so much more on colleges.But if you look at public education alone and you take into account the fact that we have more racial diversity and more poverty, it makes a big difference. There are great public schools where there’s 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.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?AUDIENCE QUESTION: What I’d like to know, and this is to any of the three of you, is aside from the recent accomplishment 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 U.S.?SIMPSON: Governor Clinton, why don’t you answer that first?CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any idea but I hope it will happen some time in my lifetime.AUDIENCE QUESTION: I do, too.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. And 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’s it like to be paid an unequal amount for equal work. They know what it’s like not to have flexible working hours. They know what it’s like not to have family leave or childcare. So I think it would be a good thing for America if it happened. And I think it will happen in my lifetime.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?BUSH: I think if Barbara Bush were running this year she’d be elected. But it’s too late.(Laughter) 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 —AUDIENCE QUESTION: (Inaudible).BUSH: You weren’t impressed with the fact that he —AUDIENCE QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m extremely impressed with that.BUSH: Yeah, but wouldn’t that suggest to the American people, then, here’s a quality person, if he decided that he could automatically get the nomination of either party?AUDIENCE QUESTION: Sure — I just wanted to know — yes.BUSH: Huh?AUDIENCE QUESTION: I’m totally impressed with that. I just wanted to know is, when’s your-BUSH: Oh, I see.AUDIENCE QUESTION: When?BUSH: You mean, time?AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.BUSH: I don’t know — starting after 4 years.AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Laughs)BUSH: No, I think you’ll see —SIMPSON: Mr. Perot.BUSH: I think you’ll see more minority candidates and women candidates coming forward.SIMPSON: We have — thank you.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 —SIMPSON: Mr. Perot — I don’t want to cut you off any more but we only have a minute left.PEROT: I have a fearless forecast. A message just won’t do it. Colin Powell will be on somebody’s ticket 4 years from now — right? Right? He wanted that said — 4 years.SIMPSON: How about a woman?PEROT: Now, if won’t be, General Waller would be — you say, why do you keep picking military people. These are people that I just happen to know and have a high regard for. I’m sure there are hundreds of others.BUSH: How about Dr. Lou Sullivan?PEROT: Absolutely.BUSH: Yeah, a good man.SIMPSON: What about a woman?PEROT: Oh, oh.BUSH: (Inaudible) totally agree. My candidate’s back there.SIMPSON: (Laughs)PEROT: Okay. I can think of many.SIMPSON: Many?PEROT: Absolutely.SIMPSON: When?PEROT: All right. How about Sandra Day O’Connor as an example?SIMPSON: Hm-hm.PEROT: Dr. Bernadine Healy —SIMPSON: Good.PEROT: National Institutes of Health. I’ll yield the floor.BUSH: All good Republicans.PEROT: Name some more.(Laughter)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 and by prior agreement President Bush will go first.BUSH: May I ask for an exception because I think we owe Carole Simpson — anybody who can stand in between these three characters here and get the job done — we owe her a round of applause.(Applause) But don’t take it out of my time! (Applause)SIMPSON: That’s right.BUSH: I feel strongly about it because I don’t want it to come out of my time.SIMPSON: Give this man more time. (Laughs)BUSH: No, but let me just stay to the American people in 2 and a half 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 2 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, who, if you were appointed to name 1 of the 3 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.SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. President. And now a closing statement from Mr. Perot.PEROT: If the American people want to do it and not talk about it, then they ought to — you know, 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 dealt my businesses. Getting things done in three 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 clothes to one thing because I am passionate about education. I was talking about early childhood education for disadvantaged little children. And 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’s 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 4th grade. Ninety percent are on the honor role. Now that will change America. Those children will all go to college. They will live the American dream. And I beg the American people, any time 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 and teach them that they’re unique and that they’re precious and that there’s only one person in the world like them and you will see this nation bloom. And 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. And 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 a billion in taxes. And for a guy that started out with everything he owned in the trunk of his car —SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, I’m sorry —PEROT: — that ain’t bad.SIMPSON: — once again.PEROT: But it’s in your hands. I wish you well. I’ll see you tomorrow night — (Laughter) on NBC — 10:30 to 11:00 Eastern Time.(Laughter)SIMPSON: And finally, last but not least — Governor Clinton.CLINTON: Thank you, Carole, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.Since I suggested this format I hope it’s been good for all of you. I 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 2 or 3 things. First of all, the people of my state have let me be their governor for 12 years because I made commitments to 2 things — more jobs and better schools.Our schools are now better. Our children get off to a better start from pre-school programs and smaller classes in the early grades, and 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, 4th in manufacturing in job growth, 4th in income growth, 4th 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 her 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.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 3rd and vote. We invite you to join us on the 3rd and final presidential debate Monday, Oct 19, from the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich.I’m Carole Simpson. Good night.END of second half of 1992 Debate 2",
    "id": "11c050b3-94f4-430a-9785-3e827b9bcbc9"
  },
  {
    "year": 2008,
    "date": "October 15, 2008",
    "title": "The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 15, 2008 Debate TranscriptOctober 15, 2008The Third McCain-Obama Presidential DebateSENS. MCCAIN AND OBAMA PARTICIPATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORKSPEAKERS:U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (AZ)REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEU. S. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (IL)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEBOB SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR[*] SCHIEFFER: Good evening. And welcome to the third and last presidential debate of 2008, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News.The rules tonight are simple. The subject is domestic policy. I will divide the next hour-and-a-half into nine-minute segments.I will ask a question at the beginning of each segment. Each candidate will then have two minutes to respond, and then we’ll have a discussion.I’ll encourage them to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will.The audience behind me has promised to be quiet, except at this moment, when we welcome Barack Obama and John McCain.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, welcome.By now, we’ve heard all the talking points, so let’s try to tell the people tonight some things that they — they haven’t heard. Let’s get to it.Another very bad day on Wall Street, as both of you know. Both of you proposed new plans this week to address the economic crisis.Senator McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things.Senator Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs.I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?Senator McCain, you go first.MCCAIN: Well, let — let me say, Bob, thank you.And thanks to Hofstra.And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our thoughts and prayers are going with you.It’s good to see you again, Senator Obama.Americans are hurting right now, and they’re angry. They’re hurting, and they’re angry. They’re innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they’re angry, and they have every reason to be angry.And they want this country to go in a new direction. And there are elements of my proposal that you just outlined which I won’t repeat.But we also have to have a short-term fix, in my view, and long- term fixes.Let me just talk to you about one of the short-term fixes.The catalyst for this housing crisis was the Fannie and Freddie Mae that caused subprime lending situation that now caused the housing market in America to collapse.I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.Now, we have allocated $750 billion. Let’s take 300 of that billion and go in and buy those home loan mortgages and negotiate with those people in their homes, 11 million homes or more, so that they can afford to pay the mortgage, stay in their home.Now, I know the criticism of this.MCCAIN: Well, what about the citizen that stayed in their homes? That paid their mortgage payments? It doesn’t help that person in their home if the next door neighbor’s house is abandoned. And so we’ve got to reverse this. We ought to put the homeowners first. And I am disappointed that Secretary Paulson and others have not made that their first priority.SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to thank Hofstra University and the people of New York for hosting us tonight and it’s wonderful to join Senator McCain again, and thank you, Bob.I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the financial rescue plan that Senator McCain and I supported is an important first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayer can get their money back if they’re putting money up. Making sure that CEOs are not enriching themselves through this process.And I think that it’s going to take some time to work itself out. But what we haven’t yet seen is a rescue package for the middle class. Because the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis. So I’ve proposed four specific things that I think can help.Number one, let’s focus on jobs. I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and provide a tax credit for every company that’s creating a job right here in America.Number two, let’s help families right away by providing them a tax cut — a middle-class tax cut for people making less than $200,000, and let’s allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty if they’re experiencing a crisis.Now Senator McCain and I agree with your idea that we’ve got to help homeowners. That’s why we included in the financial package a proposal to get homeowners in a position where they can renegotiate their mortgages.I disagree with Senator McCain in how to do it, because the way Senator McCain has designed his plan, it could be a giveaway to banks if we’re buying full price for mortgages that now are worth a lot less. And we don’t want to waste taxpayer money. And we’ve got to get the financial package working much quicker than it has been working.Last point I want to make, though. We’ve got some long-term challenges in this economy that have to be dealt with. We’ve got to fix our energy policy that’s giving our wealth away. We’ve got to fix our health care system and we’ve got to invest in our education system for every young person to be able to learn.SCHIEFFER: All right. Would you like to ask him a question?MCCAIN: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who’s a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher.Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I’ll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able — and I’ll keep your taxes low and I’ll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.And I will not have — I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income taxes are paid by small businesses. That’s 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.SCHIEFFER: Is that what you want to do?MCCAIN: That’s what Joe believes.OBAMA: He has been watching ads of Senator McCain’s. Let me tell you what I’m actually going to do. I think tax policy is a major difference between Senator McCain and myself. And we both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for.Now, Senator McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.What I’ve said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more — if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime. And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Senator McCain does.OBAMA: Now, the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, “Five years ago, when you were in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then.”And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn’t yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now. And that requires us to make some important choices.The last point I’ll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.MCCAIN: You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber — we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we’re going to take Joe’s money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around.I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around.The whole premise behind Senator Obama’s plans are class warfare, let’s spread the wealth around. I want small businesses — and by the way, the small businesses that we’re talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now.Who — why would you want to increase anybody’s taxes right now? Why would you want to do that, anyone, anyone in America, when we have such a tough time, when these small business people, like Joe the plumber, are going to create jobs, unless you take that money from him and spread the wealth around.I’m not going to…OBAMA: OK. Can I…MCCAIN: We’re not going to do that in my administration.OBAMA: If I can answer the question. Number one, I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes in order…MCCAIN: We’re talking about Joe the plumber. OBAMA: … in order to give — in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000.Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there — they’re trying to figure out how they’re going to afford food, how they’re going to save for their kids’ college education, they need a break.So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we’ve got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody’s got to do it.MCCAIN: Nobody likes taxes. Let’s not raise anybody’s taxes. OK?OBAMA: Well, I don’t mind paying a little more.MCCAIN: The fact is that businesses in America today are paying the second highest tax rate of anywhere in the world. Our tax rate for business in America is 35 percent. Ireland, it’s 11 percent.Where are companies going to go where they can create jobs and where they can do best in business?We need to cut the business tax rate in America. We need to encourage business.Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people’s taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around.SCHIEFFER: All right. Let’s go to another topic. It’s related. So if you have other things you want to say, you can get back to that.This question goes to you first, Senator Obama.We found out yesterday that this year’s deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit.Aren’t you both ignoring reality? Won’t some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?Give us some specifics on what you’re going to cut back.Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it’s structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it’s structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that’s important to understand.But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven’t made a promise about…SCHIEFFER: But you’re going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.OBAMA: And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t — under the Medicare plan — it doesn’t help seniors get any better. It’s not improving our health care system. It’s just a giveaway.We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don’t work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.Now, what is true is that Senator McCain and I have a difference in terms of the need to invest in America and the American people. I mentioned health care earlier.If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we’re borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century.But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we’re not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.And we’re going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.Senator?MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Bob. I just want to get back to this home ownership. During the Depression era, we had a thing called the home ownership loan corporation.And they went out and bought up these mortgages. And people were able to stay in their homes, and eventually the values of those homes went up, and they actually made money. And, by the way, this was a proposal made by Senator Clinton not too long ago.So, obviously, if we can start increasing home values, then there will be creation of wealth.SCHIEFFER: But what…MCCAIN: But — OK. All right.SCHIEFFER: The question was, what are you going to cut?MCCAIN: Energy — well, first — second of all, energy independence. We have to have nuclear power. We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. It’s wind, tide, solar, natural gas, nuclear, off-shore drilling, which Senator Obama has opposed.And the point is that we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs — millions of jobs in America.OK, what — what would I cut? I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that’s a hatchet. That’s a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?Because we’ve got — we have presided over the largest increase — we’ve got to have a new direction for this country. We have presided over the largest increase in government since the Great Society.Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we’re giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China.I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how to eliminate programs.SCHIEFFER: Which ones?MCCAIN: I have fought against — well, one of them would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be a number of subsidies for ethanol.I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies.I would eliminate the tariff on imported sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil.I know how to save billions. I saved the taxpayer $6.8 billion by fighting a deal for a couple of years, as you might recall, that was a sweetheart deal between an aircraft manufacturer, DOD, and people ended up in jail.But I would fight for a line-item veto, and I would certainly veto every earmark pork-barrel bill. Senator Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in pork-barrel earmark projects…SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.MCCAIN: … including $3 million for an overhead projector in a planetarium in his hometown. That’s not the way we cut — we’ll cut out all the pork.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.OBAMA: Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It’s proposed periodically. It doesn’t happen.And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don’t work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded. And I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work.Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That’s one of the centerpieces of his campaign.Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.Now, the last thing I think we have to focus on is a little bit of history, just so that we understand what we’re doing going forward.When President Bush came into office, we had a budget surplus and the national debt was a little over $5 trillion. It has doubled over the last eight years.OBAMA: And we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.So one of the things that I think we have to recognize is pursuing the same kinds of policies that we pursued over the last eight years is not going to bring down the deficit. And, frankly, Senator McCain voted for four out of five of President Bush’s budgets.We’ve got to take this in a new direction, that’s what I propose as president.SCHIEFFER: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Senator McCain.MCCAIN: Sure I do. And let me tell you…SCHIEFFER: You can still do that?MCCAIN: Yes. Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I’m going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.Senator Obama talks about voting for budgets. He voted twice for a budget resolution that increases the taxes on individuals making $42,000 a year. Of course, we can take a hatchet and a scalpel to this budget. It’s completely out of control.The mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, just imposed an across- the-board spending freeze on New York City. They’re doing it all over America because they have to. Because they have to balance their budgets. I will balance our budgets and I will get them and I will…SCHIEFFER: In four years?MCCAIN: … reduce this — I can — we can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence.Now, look, Americans are hurting tonight and they’re angry and I understand that, and they want a new direction. I can bring them in that direction by eliminating spending.Senator Obama talks about the budgets I voted for. He voted for the last two budgets that had that $24 billion more in spending than the budget that the Bush administration proposed. He voted for the energy bill that was full of goodies for the oil companies that I opposed. So the fact is, let’s look at our records, Senator Obama. Let’s look at it as graded by the National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens Against Government Waste and the other watchdog organizations.I have fought against spending. I have fought against special interests. I have fought for reform. You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.SCHIEFFER: Barack.OBAMA: Well, there’s a lot of stuff that was put out there, so let me try to address it. First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn’t very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party. I support…MCCAIN: An overwhelming vote.OBAMA: I support charter schools and pay for performance for teachers. Doesn’t make me popular with the teachers union. I support clean coal technology. Doesn’t make me popular with environmentalists. So I’ve got a history of reaching across the aisle.Now with respect to a couple of things Senator McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making.Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn’t happen very often when it comes to accusations about me. So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush’s policies, it’s because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.Now, you’ve shown independence — commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you’re proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn’t worked.And I think the American people understand it hasn’t worked. We need to move in a new direction.SCHIEFFER: All right…MCCAIN: Let me just say, Bob.SCHIEFFER: OK. About 30 seconds.MCCAIN: OK. But it’s very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I’ve got the scars to prove it.Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient’s bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate.SCHIEFFER: All right.MCCAIN: Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to the leadership of your party isn’t very convincing.SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to move to another question and the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign yet it has turned very nasty.SCHIEFFER: Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like “erratic,” “out of touch,” “lie,” “angry,” “losing his bearings” to describe Senator McCain.Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like “disrespectful,” “dangerous,” “dishonorable,” “he lied.” Your running mate said he “palled around with terrorists.”Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other’s face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?And, Senator McCain, you’re first.MCCAIN: Well, this has been a tough campaign. It’s been a very tough campaign. And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Senator Obama had asked — responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now.When Senator Obama was first asked, he said, “Any place, any time,” the way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do, before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas. So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.And the fact is, it’s gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect — I’ve written about him — Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful.And, Senator Obama, you didn’t repudiate those remarks. Every time there’s been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it’s a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history. And I can prove it. And, Senator Obama, when he said — and he signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did — that was back when he was a long-shot candidate — you didn’t keep your word.And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Senator Clinton and said, “I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision,” you didn’t tell the American people the truth because you didn’t.And that’s — that’s — that’s an unfortunate part. Now we have the highest spending by Senator Obama’s campaign than any time since Watergate.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up. All right.OBAMA: Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that, if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people — Bob, your network just did a poll, showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Senator McCain is running a negative campaign versus one-third of mine.And 100 percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative.MCCAIN: It’s not true.OBAMA: It absolutely is true. And, now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply.And there is nothing wrong with us having a vigorous debate like we’re having tonight about health care, about energy policy, about tax policy. That’s the stuff that campaigns should be made of.The notion, though, that because we’re not doing town hall meetings that justifies some of the ads that have been going up, not just from your own campaign directly, John, but 527s and other organizations that make some pretty tough accusations, well, I don’t mind being attacked for the next three weeks.What the American people can’t afford, though, is four more years of failed economic policies. And what they deserve over the next four weeks is that we talk about what’s most pressing to them: the economic crisis.Senator McCain’s own campaign said publicly last week that, if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we lose, so we need to change the subject.And I would love to see the next three weeks devoted to talking about the economy, devoted to talking about health care, devoted to talking about energy, and figuring out how the American people can send their kids to college. And that is something that I would welcome. But it requires, I think, a recognition that politics as usual, as been practiced over the last several years, is not solving the big problems here in America.MCCAIN: Well, if you’ll turn on the television, as I — I watched the Arizona Cardinals defeat the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.OBAMA: Congratulations.MCCAIN: Every other ad — ever other ad was an attack ad on my health care plan. And any objective observer has said it’s not true. You’re running ads right now that say that I oppose federal funding for stem cell research. I don’t.You’re running ads that misportray completely my position on immigration. So the fact is that Senator Obama is spending unprecedented — unprecedented in the history of American politics, going back to the beginning, amounts of money in negative attack ads on me.And of course, I’ve been talking about the economy. Of course, I’ve talked to people like Joe the plumber and tell him that I’m not going to spread his wealth around. I’m going to let him keep his wealth. And of course, we’re talking about positive plan of action to restore this economy and restore jobs in America.That’s what my campaign is all about and that’s what it’ll continue to be all about.But again, I did not hear a repudiation of Congressman…OBAMA: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign’s awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like “terrorist” and “kill him,” and that you’re running mate didn’t mention, didn’t stop, didn’t say “Hold on a second, that’s kind of out of line.”And I think Congressman Lewis’ point was that we have to be careful about how we deal with our supporters.Now…MCCAIN: You’ve got to read what he said…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Let — let — let… MCCAIN: You’ve got to read what he said.OBAMA: Let me — let me complete…SCHIEFFER: Go ahead.OBAMA: … my response. I do think that he inappropriately drew a comparison between what was happening there and what had happened during the civil rights movement, and we immediately put out a statement saying that we don’t think that comparison is appropriate.And, in fact, afterwards, Congressman Lewis put out a similar statement, saying that he had probably gone over the line.The important point here is, though, the American people have become so cynical about our politics, because all they see is a tit- for-tat and back-and-forth. And what they want is the ability to just focus on some really big challenges that we face right now, and that’s what I have been trying to focus on this entire campaign.MCCAIN: I cannot…OBAMA: We can have serious differences about our health care policy, for example, John, because we do have a difference on health care policy, but we…MCCAIN: We do and I hope…OBAMA: … talking about it this evening.MCCAIN: Sure.OBAMA: But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we’re not talking about issues. What we’re talking about…MCCAIN: Well, let me just say I would…SCHIEFFER: (inaudible)MCCAIN: Let me just say categorically I’m proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you’re going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I’ve — and we’ve always said that that’s not appropriate.But to somehow say that group of young women who said “Military wives for McCain” are somehow saying anything derogatory about you, but anything — and those veterans that wear those hats that say “World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq,” I’m not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they’re great citizens.And I’m not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally — there’s a lot of things that have been yelled at your rallies, Senator Obama, that I’m not happy about either.In fact, some T-shirts that are very…OBAMA: John, I…MCCAIN: … unacceptable. So the point is — the point is that I have repudiated every time someone’s been out of line, whether they’ve been part of my campaign or not, and I will continue to do that.But the fact is that we need to absolutely not stand for the kind of things that have been going on. I haven’t.OBAMA: Well, look, Bob, as I said…SCHIEFFER: I mean, do you take issue with that?OBAMA: You know, here’s what I would say. I mean, we can have a debate back and forth about the merits of each other’s campaigns. I suspect we won’t agree here tonight.What I think is most important is that we recognize that to solve the key problems that we’re facing, if we’re going to solve two wars, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, if we can — if we’re going to focus on lifting wages that have declined over the last eight years and create jobs here in America, then Democrats, independents and Republicans, we’re going to have to be able to work together.OBAMA: And what is important is making sure that we disagree without being disagreeable. And it means that we can have tough, vigorous debates around issues. What we can’t do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad people. And that has been a culture in Washington that has been taking place for too long. And I think…MCCAIN: Well, Bob, you asked me a direct question.SCHIEFFER: Short answer, yes, short answer.MCCAIN: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for “lighting and site selection.” So all of these things need to be examined, of course.SCHIEFFER: All right. I’m going to let you respond and we’ll extend this for a moment.OBAMA: Bob, I think it’s going to be important to just — I’ll respond to these two particular allegations that Senator McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention.In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let’s get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper.Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that’s Mr. Ayers.Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they’ve done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.Now, the reason I think that it’s important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Senator McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling.Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I’m interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So — and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living room.OBAMA: That’s absolutely not true.MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.OBAMA: And that’s not the facts.MCCAIN: And it’s not the fact — it’s not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It’s the fact that all the — all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama’s relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that’s what my campaign is about and I’m not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that’s really what this campaign is going to be about.SCHIEFFER: All right. Let’s go to the next topic and you — we may want to get back into some of this during this next discussion. I want to ask both of you about the people that you’re going to bring into the government. And our best insight yet is who you have picked as your running mates.SCHIEFFER: So I’ll begin by asking both of you this question, and I’ll ask you to answer first, Senator Obama. Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?OBAMA: Well, Joe Biden, I think, is one of the finest public servants that has served in this country. It’s not just that he has some of the best foreign policy credentials of anybody. And Democrats and Republicans alike, I think, acknowledge his expertise there.But it’s also that his entire life he has never forgotten where he came from, coming from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, remembering what it’s like to see his father lose his job and go through a downward spiral economically.And, as a consequence, his consistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. That’s what he’s done when it comes to economic policies that will help working families get a leg up.That’s what he’s done when it comes to, for example, passing the landmark 1994 crime bill, the Violence Against Women’s Act. Joe has always made sure that he is fighting on behalf of working families, and I think he shares my core values and my sense of where the country needs to go.Because after eight years of failed policies, he and I both agree that what we’re going to have to do is to reprioritize, make sure that we’re investing in the American people, give tax cuts not to the wealthiest corporations, but give them to small businesses and give them to individuals who are struggling right now, make sure that we finally get serious about energy independence, something that has been languishing in Washington for 30 years, and make sure that our kids get a great education and can afford to go to college.So, on the key issues that are of importance to American families, Joe Biden’s always been on the right side, and I think he will make an outstanding president if, heaven forbid, something happened to me.SCHIEFFER: Senator?MCCAIN: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. They know that she’s a role model to women and other — and reformers all over America. She’s a reformer. She is — she took on a governor who was a member of her own party when she ran for governor. When she was the head of their energy and natural resources board, she saw corruption, she resigned and said, “This can’t go on.”She’s given money back to the taxpayers. She’s cut the size of government. She negotiated with the oil companies and faced them down, a $40 billion pipeline of natural gas that’s going to relieve the energy needs of the United — of what they call the lower 48.She’s a reformer through and through. And it’s time we had that bresh of freth air (sic) — breath of fresh air coming into our nation’s capital and sweep out the old-boy network and the cronyism that’s been so much a part of it that I’ve fought against for all these years.She’ll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we’ve got to find out what’s causing it, and we’ve got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I’m proud of her.And she has ignited our party and people all over America that have never been involved in the political process. And I can’t tell how proud I am of her and her family.Her husband’s a pretty tough guy, by the way, too.SCHIEFFER: Do you think she’s qualified to be president?OBAMA: You know, I think it’s — that’s going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she’s a capable politician who has, I think, excited the — a base in the Republican Party.And I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John.I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we’re not going to be able to do it. That’s an example of, I think, the kind of use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we’re funding some of those programs.SCHIEFFER: Do you think Senator Biden is qualified?MCCAIN: I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects. But I do point out that he’s been wrong on many foreign policy and national security issues, which is supposed to be his strength.He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would’ve threatened the Middle Eastern world supply.In Iraq, he had this cockamamie idea about dividing Iraq into three countries. We’re seeing Iraq united as Iraqis, tough, hard, but we’re seeing them. We’re now about to have an agreement for status of forces in Iraq coming up.There are several issues in which, frankly, Joe Biden and I openly and honestly disagreed on national security policy, and he’s been wrong on a number of the major ones.But again, I want to come back to, notice every time Senator Obama says, “We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that’s the answer” — why do we always have to spend more?Why can’t we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government? Maybe that’s why he’s asked for 860 — sought and proposed $860 billion worth of new spending and wants to raise people’s taxes in a time of incredible challenge and difficulty and heartache for the American families.SCHIEFFER: Let’s go to — let’s go to a new topic. We’re running a little behind.Let’s talk about energy and climate control. Every president since Nixon has said what both of you…MCCAIN: Climate change.SCHIEFFER: Climate change, yes — has said what both of you have said, and, that is, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.When Nixon said it, we imported from 17 to 34 percent of our foreign oil. Now, we’re importing more than 60 percent.Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?And I believe the first question goes to you, Senator McCain. MCCAIN: I believe we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine.By the way, when Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, “Yes, and we’ll sell our oil to China.”You don’t tell countries you’re going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 new nuclear plants, power plants, right away. We can store and we can reprocess.Senator Obama will tell you, in the — as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe.Look, we’ve sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Senator Obama, no problem.So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that’s hurting rather badly.So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don’t achieve our independence.SCHIEFFER: All right. Can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and by how much in the first term, in four years?OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that’s about a realistic timeframe.And this is the most important issue that our future economy is going to face. Obviously, we’ve got an immediate crisis right now. But nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700 billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia. It’s mortgaging our children’s future.Now, from the start of this campaign, I’ve identified this as one of my top priorities and here is what I think we have to do.Number one, we do need to expand domestic production and that means, for example, telling the oil companies the 68 million acres that they currently have leased that they’re not drilling, use them or lose them.And I think that we should look at offshore drilling and implement it in a way that allows us to get some additional oil. But understand, we only have three to four percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil, which means that we can’t drill our way out of the problem.That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that’s built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America.We invented the auto industry and the fact that we have fallen so far behind is something that we have to work on.OBAMA: Now I just want to make one last point because Senator McCain mentioned NAFTA and the issue of trade and that actually bears on this issue. I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn’t have — did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.And what I said was we should include those and make them enforceable. In the same way that we should enforce rules against China manipulating its currency to make our exports more expensive and their exports to us cheaper.And when it comes to South Korea, we’ve got a trade agreement up right now, they are sending hundreds of thousands of South Korean cars into the United States. That’s all good. We can only get 4,000 to 5,000 into South Korea. That is not free trade. We’ve got to have a president who is going to be advocating on behalf of American businesses and American workers and I make no apology for that.SCHIEFFER: Senator?MCCAIN: Well, you know, I admire so much Senator Obama’s eloquence. And you really have to pay attention to words. He said, we will look at offshore drilling. Did you get that? Look at. We can offshore drill now. We’ve got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the world that we have a supply of our own. It’s doable. The technology is there and we have to drill now.Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need — we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges.But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is — there’s a billion dollars that we — our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that’s helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that’s killing young Americans.And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay — without us having to pay the billions of dollars — the billion dollars and more that we’ve already paid.Free trade with Colombia is something that’s a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.And what I have said, because the free trade — the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn’t being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.But I think that the important point is we’ve got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.And the last point I’ll make, because we started on energy. When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis, car dealerships are closing and people can’t get car loans.That’s why I think it’s important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future.And Detroit had dragged its feet too long in terms of getting that done. It’s going to be one of my highest priorities because transportation accounts for about 30 percent of our total energy consumption.If we can get that right, then we can move in a direction not only of energy independence, but we can create 5 million new jobs all across America, including in the heartland where we can retool some of these plants to make these highly fuel-efficient cars and also to make wind turbines and solar panels, the kinds of clean energy approaches that should be the driver of our economy for the next century.MCCAIN: Well, let me just said that that this is — he — Senator Obama doesn’t want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table without precondition to — with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.Free trade between ourselves and Colombia, I just recited to you the benefits of concluding that agreement, a billion dollars of American dollars that could have gone to creating jobs and businesses in the United States, opening up those markets.So I don’t — I don’t think there’s any doubt that Senator Obama wants to restrict trade and he wants to raise taxes. And the last president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.We’re not going to follow that path while I’m — when I’m president of the United States.SCHIEFFER: All right, let’s go to a new topic, health care. Given the current economic situation, would either of you now favor controlling health care costs over expanding health care coverage? The question is first to Senator Obama.OBAMA: We’ve got to do both, and that’s exactly what my plan does.Look, as I travel around the country, this is the issue that will break your heart over and over again. Just yesterday, I was in Toledo shaking some hands in a line. Two women, both of them probably in their mid- to late-50s, had just been laid off of their plant. Neither of them have health insurance.And they were desperate for some way of getting coverage, because, understandably, they’re worried that, if they get sick, they could go bankrupt.So here’s what my plan does. If you have health insurance, then you don’t have to do anything. If you’ve got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan.The only thing we’re going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, then what we’re going to do is to provide you the option of buying into the same kind of federal pool that both Senator McCain and I enjoy as federal employees, which will give you high-quality care, choice of doctors, at lower costs, because so many people are part of this insured group.We’re going to make sure that insurance companies can’t discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. We’ll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price on drugs.We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.And we are going to make sure that we manage chronic illnesses, like diabetes and heart disease, that cost a huge amount, but could be prevented. We’ve got to put more money into preventive care.This will cost some money on the front end, but over the long term this is the only way that not only are we going to make families healthy, but it’s also how we’re going to save the federal budget, because we can’t afford these escalating costs.SCHIEFFER: All right.Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, it is a terribly painful situation for Americans. They’re seeing their premiums, their co-pays go up. Forty-seven million Americans are without health insurance in America today.And it really is the cost, the escalating costs of health care that are inflicting such pain on working families and people across this country. And I am convinced we need to do a lot of things.We need to put health care records online. The V.A. does that. That will — that will reduce costs. We need to have more community health centers. We need to have walk-in clinics.The rise of obesity amongst young Americans is one of the most alarming statistics that there is. We should have physical fitness programs and nutrition programs in schools. Every parent should know what’s going on there.We — we need to have — we need to have employers reward employees who join health clubs and practice wellness and fitness.But I want to give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit. Take it and get anywhere in America the health care that you wish.Now, my old buddy, Joe, Joe the plumber, is out there. Now, Joe, Senator Obama’s plan, if you’re a small business and you are able — and your — the guy that sells to you will not have his capital gains tax increase, which Senator Obama wants, if you’re out there, my friend, and you’ve got employees, and you’ve got kids, if you don’t get — adopt the health care plan that Senator Obama mandates, he’s going to fine you.MCCAIN: Now, Senator Obama, I’d like — still like to know what that fine is going to be, and I don’t think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America’s economy.Senator Obama wants to set up health care bureaucracies, take over the health care of America through — as he said, his object is a single payer system.If you like that, you’ll love Canada and England. So the point is…SCHIEFFER: So that’s your objective?OBAMA: It is not and I just described it…MCCAIN: No, you stated it.OBAMA: I just…MCCAIN: Excuse me.OBAMA: I just described what my plan is. And I’m happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you’re out there. Here’s your fine — zero. You won’t pay a fine, because…MCCAIN: Zero?OBAMA: Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I’ll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it.I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we’ve got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they’re going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.The average family is paying an additional $900 a year in higher premiums because of the uninsured.So here’s what we do. We exempt small businesses. In fact, what, Joe, if you want to do the right thing with your employees and you want to provide them health insurance, we’ll give you a 50 percent credit so that you will actually be able to afford it.If you don’t have health insurance or you want to buy into a group plan, you will be able to buy into the plan that I just described.Now, what we haven’t talked about is Senator McCain’s plan. He says he’s going to give you all a $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. And you can go out and buy your own insurance.Here’s the problem — that for about 20 million people, you may find yourselves no longer having employer-based health insurance. This is because younger people might be able to get health insurance for $5,000, young and healthy folks.Older folks, less healthy folks, what’s going to end up happening is that you’re going to be the only ones left in your employer-based system, your employers won’t be able to afford it.And once you’re out on your own with this $5,000 credit, Senator McCain, for the first time, is going to be taxing the health care benefits that you have from your employer.And this is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people’s health care benefits.By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you’ve got $5,000 and it’s going to cost you $12,000, that’s a loss for you.Last point about Senator McCain’s plan is that insurers right now, the main restrictions on what they do is primarily state law and, under Senator McCain’s plan, those rules would be stripped away and you would start seeing a lot more insurance companies cherry-picking and excluding people from coverage.That, I think, is a mistake and I think that this is a fundamental difference in our campaign and how we would approach health care.SCHIEFFER: What about that?MCCAIN: Hey, Joe, you’re rich, congratulations, because what Joe wanted to do was buy the business that he’s been working for 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, and you said that you wanted to spread the wealth, but — in other words, take Joe’s money and then you decide what to do with it.Now, Joe, you’re rich, congratulations, and you will then fall into the category where you’ll have to pay a fine if you don’t provide health insurance that Senator Obama mandates, not the kind that you think is best for your family, your children, your employees, but the kind that he mandates for you.That’s big government at its best. Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.And the good thing about this is they’ll be able to go across America. The average cost of a health care insurance plan in America today is $5,800. I’m going to give them $5,000 to take with them wherever they want to go, and this will give them affordability.This will give them availability. This will give them a chance to choose their own futures, not have Senator Obama and government decide that for them.This really gets down to the fundamental difference in our philosophies. If you notice that in all of this proposal, Senator — government wants — Senator Obama wants government to do the job.Senator Obama wants government to do the job. I want, Joe, you to do the job.MCCAIN: I want to leave money in your pocket. I want you to be able to choose the health care for you and your family. That’s what I’m all about. And we’ve got too much government and too much spending and the government is — the size of government has grown by 40 percent in the last eight years.We can’t afford that in the next eight years and Senator Obama, with the Democrats in charge of Congress, things have gotten worse. Have you noticed, they’ve been in charge the last two years.SCHIEFFER: All right. A short response.OBAMA: Very briefly. You all just heard my plan. If you’ve got an employer-based health care plan, you keep it. Now, under Senator McCain’s plan there is a strong risk that people would lose their employer-based health care.That’s the choice you’ll have is having your employer no longer provide you health care. And don’t take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which generally doesn’t support a lot of Democrats, said that this plan could lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system.All I want to do, if you’ve already got health care, is lower your costs. That includes you, Joe.SCHIEFFER: All right. Let’s stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn’t.Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do.SCHIEFFER: But you don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, “conservative judges.”I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we’re talking about.Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn’t meet his ideological standards. That’s not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that’s what I will do.I will find the best people in the world — in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.SCHIEFFER: All right.OBAMA: Well, I think it’s true that we shouldn’t apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.OBAMA: So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.I’ll just give you one quick example. Senator McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination.For years, she had been getting paid less than a man had been paid for doing the exact same job. And when she brought a suit, saying equal pay for equal work, the judges said, well, you know, it’s taken you too long to bring this lawsuit, even though she didn’t know about it until fairly recently.We tried to overturn it in the Senate. I supported that effort to provide better guidance to the courts; John McCain opposed it.I think that it’s important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.MCCAIN: Obviously, that law waived the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer’s dream.Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision.Senator Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that.And then, on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state senator, he voted present.Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really — one of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the Illinois State Senate, he voted present.I don’t know how you vote “present” on some of that. I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that’s his record, and that’s a matter of his record.And he’ll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Senator Obama voted, I think, in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream America.SCHIEFFER: Response?OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views.But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.OBAMA: We should try to reduce these circumstances.SCHIEFFER: Let’s give Senator McCain a short response…MCCAIN: Just again…SCHIEFFER: … and then…MCCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we’ll help take care of it.SCHIEFFER: Let’s stop there, because I want to get in a question on education and I’m afraid this is going to have to be our last question, gentlemen.The question is this: the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world.The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security.Do you feel that way and what do you intend to do about it?The question to Senator Obama first.OBAMA: This probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also has a national security implication, because there’s never been a nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military power. So we’ve got to get our education system right. Now, typically, what’s happened is that there’s been a debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both.In some cases, we are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, which closes the achievement gap, so that every child is prepared for school, every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates.I think it’s going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, an army of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability.And I think it’s important for us to make college affordable. Right now, I meet young people all across the country who either have decided not to go to college or if they’re going to college, they are taking on $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, $60,000 worth of debt, and it’s very difficult for them to go into some fields, like basic research in science, for example, thinking to themselves that they’re going to have a mortgage before they even buy a house.And that’s why I’ve proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year, in exchange for some form of community service, whether it’s military service, whether it’s Peace Corps, whether it’s working in a community.If we do those things, then I believe that we can create a better school system.But there’s one last ingredient that I just want to mention, and that’s parents. We can’t do it just in the schools. Parents are going to have to show more responsibility. They’ve got to turn off the TV set, put away the video games, and, finally, start instilling that thirst for knowledge that our students need.SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, it’s the civil rights issue of the 21st century. There’s no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after a long and difficult and terrible struggle.But what is the advantage in a low income area of sending a child to a failed school and that being your only choice?So choice and competition amongst schools is one of the key elements that’s already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places, where we have charter schools, where we take good teachers and we reward them and promote them.And we find bad teachers another line of work. And we have to be able to give parents the same choice, frankly, that Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama had and Cindy and I had to send our kids to the school — their kids to the school of their choice. Charter schools aren’t the only answer, but they’re providing competition. They are providing the kind of competitions that have upgraded both schools — types of schools.Now, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. You will find that some of the worst school systems in America get the most money per student.So I believe that we need to reward these good teachers.MCCAIN: We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which — or have the certification that some are required in some states.Look, we must improve education in this country. As far as college education is concerned, we need to make those student loans available. We need to give them a repayment schedule that they can meet. We need to have full student loan program for in-state tuition. And we certainly need to adjust the certain loan eligibility to inflation.SCHIEFFER: Do you think the federal government should play a larger role in the schools? And I mean, more federal money?OBAMA: Well, we have a tradition of local control of the schools and that’s a tradition that has served us well. But I do think that it is important for the federal government to step up and help local school districts do some of the things they need to do.Now we tried to do this under President Bush. He put forward No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, they left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. And local school districts end up having more of a burden, a bunch of unfunded mandates, the same kind of thing that happened with special education where we did the right thing by saying every school should provide education to kids with special needs, but we never followed through on the promise of funding, and that left local school districts very cash-strapped.So what I want to do is focus on early childhood education, providing teachers higher salaries in exchange for more support. Senator McCain and I actually agree on two things that he just mentioned.Charter schools, I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions. I think it’s important to foster competition inside the public schools.And we also agree on the need for making sure that if we have bad teachers that they are swiftly — after given an opportunity to prove themselves, if they can’t hack it, then we need to move on because our kids have to have their best future.Where we disagree is on the idea that we can somehow give out vouchers — give vouchers as a way of securing the problems in our education system. And I also have to disagree on Senator McCain’s record when it comes to college accessibility and affordability.Recently his key economic adviser was asked about why he didn’t seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can’t give money to every interest group that comes along.I don’t think America’s youth are interest groups, I think they’re our future. And this is an example of where we are going to have to prioritize. We can’t say we’re going to do things and then not explain in concrete terms how we’re going to pay for it.And if we’re going to do some of the things you mentioned, like lowering loan rates or what have you, somebody has got to pay for it. It’s not going to happen on its own.SCHIEFFER: What about that, Senator?MCCAIN: Well, sure. I’m sure you’re aware, Senator Obama, of the program in the Washington, D.C., school system where vouchers are provided and there’s a certain number, I think it’s a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that.Because they wanted to have the same choice that you and I and Cindy and your wife have had. And that is because they wanted to choose the school that they thought was best for their children.And we all know the state of the Washington, D.C., school system. That was vouchers. That was vouchers, Senator Obama. And I’m frankly surprised you didn’t pay more attention to that example.Now as far as the No Child Left Behind is concerned, it was a great first beginning in my view. It had its flaws, it had its problems, the first time we had looked at the issue of education in America from a nationwide perspective. And we need to fix a lot of the problems. We need to sit down and reauthorize it.But, again, spending more money isn’t always the answer. I think the Head Start program is a great program. A lot of people, including me, said, look, it’s not doing what it should do. By the third grade many times children who were in the Head Start program aren’t any better off than the others.Let’s reform it. Let’s reform it and fund it. That was, of course, out-of-bounds by the Democrats. We need to reform these programs. We need to have transparency. We need to have rewards. It’s a system that cries out for accountability and transparency and the adequate funding.And I just said to you earlier, town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children — precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. And we’ll find and we’ll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism. And we’ll care for these young children. And all Americans will open their wallets and their hearts to do so.MCCAIN: But to have a situation, as you mentioned in our earlier comments, that the most expensive education in the world is in the United States of America also means that it cries out for reform, as well.And I will support those reforms, and I will fund the ones that are reformed. But I’m not going to continue to throw money at a problem. And I’ve got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system. And it’s been proven.OBAMA: I’ll just make a quick comment about vouchers in D.C. Senator McCain’s absolutely right: The D.C. school system is in terrible shape, and it has been for a very long time. And we’ve got a wonderful new superintendent there who’s working very hard with the young mayor there to try…MCCAIN: Who supports vouchers.OBAMA: … who initiated — actually, supports charters.MCCAIN: She supports vouchers, also.OBAMA: But the — but here’s the thing, is that, even if Senator McCain were to say that vouchers were the way to go — I disagree with him on this, because the data doesn’t show that it actually solves the problem — the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots.That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Senator McCain.So if we are going to be serious about this issue, we’ve got to have a president who is going to tackle it head-on. And that’s what I intend to do as president.SCHIEFFER: All right.MCCAIN: Because there’s not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn’t do it, even though it’s working. I got it.SCHIEFFER: All right.Gentlemen, we have come to the close. Before I ask both of you for your closing statements tonight, I’d like to invite our viewers and listeners to go to MyDebates.org, where you will find this evening’s debates and the three that preceded tonight’s debate.Now, for the final statements, by a coin toss, Senator McCain goes first.MCCAIN: Well, thank you again, Bob.Thanks to Hofstra.And it’s great to be with you again. I think we’ve had a very healthy discussion.My friends, as I said in my opening remarks, these are very difficult times and challenges for America. And they were graphically demonstrated again today.America needs a new direction. We cannot be satisfied with what we’ve been doing for the last eight years.I have a record of reform, and taking on my party, the other party, the special interests, whether it be an HMO Patients’ Bill of Rights, or trying to clean up the campaign finance system in — in this country, or whether it be establishment of a 9/11 Commission, I have a long record of it.And I’ve been a careful steward of your tax dollars. We have to make health care affordable and available. We have to make quality education there for all of our citizens, not just the privileged few.We have to stop the spending. We have to stop the spending, which has mortgaged your children’s futures.All of these things and all the promises and commitments that Senator Obama and I made (inaudible) made to you tonight will base — will be based on whether you can trust us or not to be careful stewards of your tax dollar, to make sure America is safe and secure and prosperous, to make sure we reform the institutions of government.That’s why I’ve asked you not only to examine my record, but my proposals for the future of this country.I’ve spent my entire life in the service of this nation and putting my country first. There’s a long line of McCains that have served our country for a long time in war and in peace, it’s been the great honor of my life, and I’ve been proud to serve.And I hope you’ll give me an opportunity to serve again. I’d be honored and humbled.SCHIEFFER: Senator?OBAMA: Well, I want to thank Senator McCain and Bob for moderating.I think we all know America is going through tough times right now. The policies of the last eight years and — and Washington’s unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.And that’s why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we’ve seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.We need fundamental change in this country, and that’s what I’d like to bring.You know, over the last 20 months, you’ve invited me into your homes. You’ve shared your stories with me. And you’ve confirmed once again the fundamental decency and generosity of the American people.And that’s why I’m sure that our brighter days are still ahead.But we’re going to have to invest in the American people again, in tax cuts for the middle class, in health care for all Americans, and college for every young person who wants to go. In businesses that can create the new energy economy of the future. In policies that will lift wages and will grow our middle class.These are the policies I have fought for my entire career. And these are the policies I want to bring to the White House.But it’s not going to be easy. It’s not going to be quick. It is going to be requiring all of us — Democrats, Republicans, independents — to come together and to renew a spirit of sacrifice and service and responsibility.I’m absolutely convinced we can do it. I would ask for your vote, and I promise you that if you give me the extraordinary honor of serving as your president, I will work every single day, tirelessly, on your behalf and on the behalf of the future of our children.Thank you very much.SCHIEFFER: Senator Obama, Senator McCain, thank you very much.This concludes the final debate. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News, and I will leave you tonight with what my mother always said — go vote now. It will make you feel big and strong. Good night, everyone.ENDTranscription by: CQ Transcriptions/Morningside",
    "id": "ca0e27e2-e4b3-4da4-9b04-b9a1592f4c68"
  },
  {
    "year": 2016,
    "date": "October 19, 2016",
    "title": "The Third Clinton-Trump Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 19, 2016 Debate TranscriptPresidential Debate at the University of Nevada in Las VegasOctober 19, 2016PARTICIPANTS:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) andBusinessman Donald Trump (R)MODERATOR:Chris Wallace (Fox News)WALLACE: Good evening from the Thomas and Mack Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I’m Chris Wallace of Fox News, and I welcome you to the third and final of the 2016 presidential debates between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission has designed the format: Six roughly 15-minute segments with two-minute answers to the first question, then open discussion for the rest of each segment. Both campaigns have agreed to those rules.For the record, I decided the topics and the questions in each topic. None of those questions has been shared with the commission or the two candidates. The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. No cheers, boos, or other interruptions so we and you can focus on what the candidates have to say.No noise, except right now, as we welcome the Democratic nominee for president, Secretary Clinton, and the Republican nominee for president, Mr. Trump. [applause]Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let’s get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court.You both talked briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this, because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely or possibly two or three appointments.Which means that you will, in effect, determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century.First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders’ words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes.CLINTON: Thank you very much, Chris. And thanks to UNLV for hosting us.You know, I think when we talk about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election, namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have?And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us.That’s how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.And I look forward to having that opportunity. I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President Obama has sent to them. That’s the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, thank you.Mr. Trump, same question. Where do you want to see the court take the country? And how do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted?TRUMP: Well, first of all, it’s great to be with you, and thank you, everybody. The Supreme Court: It’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, so—it’s just so imperative that we have the right justices.Something happened recently where Justice Ginsburg made some very, very inappropriate statements toward me and toward a tremendous number of people, many, many millions of people that I represent. And she was forced to apologize. And apologize she did. But these were statements that should never, ever have been made.We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment, and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we uphold, because of the fact that it is under such trauma.I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint—and I’ve named 20 of them—the justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important.I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It’s all about the Constitution of—of—and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, thank you.We now have about 10 minutes for an open discussion. I want to focus on two issues that, in fact, by the justices that you name could end up changing the existing law of the land. First is one that you mentioned, Mr. Trump, and that is guns.Secretary Clinton, you said last year, let me quote, “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” And now, in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the Judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?CLINTON: Well, first of all, I support the Second Amendment. I lived in Arkansas for 18 wonderful years. I represented upstate New York. I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country.But I also believe that there can be and must be reasonable regulation. Because I support the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that I want people who shouldn’t have guns to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family.And so when I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns. I think we need comprehensive background checks, need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole. There’s other matters that I think are sensible that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment.You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.WALLACE: Let me bring Mr. Trump in here. The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition got millions of votes on questions to ask here, and this was, in fact, one of the top questions that they got. How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected? You just heard Secretary Clinton’s answer. Does she persuade you that, while you may disagree on regulation, that, in fact, she supports a Second Amendment right to bear arms?TRUMP: Well, the D.C. vs. Heller decision was very strongly—and she was extremely angry about it. I watched. I mean, she was very, very angry when upheld. And Justice Scalia was so involved. And it was a well-crafted decision. But Hillary was extremely upset, extremely angry. And people that believe in the Second Amendment and believe in it very strongly were very upset with what she had to say.WALLACE: Well, let me bring in Secretary Clinton. Were you extremely upset?CLINTON: Well, I was upset because, unfortunately, dozens of toddlers injure themselves, even kill people with guns, because, unfortunately, not everyone who has loaded guns in their homes takes appropriate precautions.But there’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms. That is not in conflict with sensible, commonsense regulation.And, you know, look, I understand that Donald’s been strongly supported by the NRA. The gun lobby’s on his side. They’re running millions of dollars of ads against me. And I regret that, because what I would like to see is for people to come together and say: of course we’re going to protect and defend the Second Amendment. But we’re going to do it in a way that tries to save some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year.WALLACE: Let me bring Mr. Trump back into this, because, in fact, you oppose any limits on assault weapons, any limits on high-capacity magazines. You support a national right to carry law. Why, sir?TRUMP: Well, let me just tell you before we go any further. In Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, probably you could say by far, they have more gun violence than any other city. So we have the toughest laws, and you have tremendous gun violence.I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment. And I am—I don’t know if Hillary was saying it in a sarcastic manner, but I’m very proud to have the endorsement of the NRA. And it’s the earliest endorsement they’ve ever given to anybody who ran for president. So I’m very honored by all of that.We are going to appoint justices—this is the best way to help the Second Amendment. We are going to appoint justices that will feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, that will not do damage to the Second Amendment.WALLACE: Well, let’s pick up on another issue which divides you and the justices that whoever ends up winning this election appoints could have a dramatic effect there, and that’s the issue of abortion.TRUMP: Right.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, you’re pro-life. But I want to ask you specifically: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes—in fact, states—a woman’s right to abortion?TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states.WALLACE: But I’m asking you specifically. Would you like to…TRUMP: If they overturned it, it will go back to the states.WALLACE: But what I’m asking you, sir, is, do you want to see the court overturn—you just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment. Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?TRUMP: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that’s really what’s going to be—that will happen. And that’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I strongly support Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make the most intimate, most difficult, in many cases, decisions about her health care that one can imagine. And in this case, it’s not only about Roe v. Wade. It is about what’s happening right now in America.So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice to the extent that they are defunding Planned Parenthood, which, of course, provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country.Donald has said he’s in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. He even supported shutting the government down to defund Planned Parenthood. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade, and I will defend women’s rights to make their own health care decisions.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: And we have come too far to have that turned back now. And, indeed, he said women should be punished, that there should be some form of punishment for women who obtain abortions. And I could just not be more opposed to that kind of thinking.WALLACE: I’m going to give you a chance to respond, but I want to ask you, Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?CLINTON: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your reaction? And particularly on this issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions.TRUMP: Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.CLINTON: Well, that is not what happens in these cases. And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate. You should meet with some of the women that I have met with, women I have known over the course of my life. This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. And I do not believe the government should be making it.You know, I’ve had the great honor of traveling across the world on behalf of our country. I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children, like they used to do in Romania. And I can tell you: The government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice. And I will stand up for that right.WALLACE: All right. But just briefly, I want to move on to another segment…TRUMP: And, honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that, as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that.WALLACE: All right. Let’s move on to the subject of immigration. And there is almost no issue that separates the two of you more than the issue of immigration. Actually, there are a lot of issues that separate the two of you.Mr. Trump, you want to build a wall. Secretary Clinton, you have offered no specific plan for how you want to secure our southern border. Mr. Trump, you are calling for major deportations. Secretary Clinton, you say that within your first 100 days as president you’re going to offer a package that includes a pathway to citizenship. The question, really, is, why are you right and your opponent wrong?Mr. Trump, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.TRUMP: Well, first of all, she wants to give amnesty, which is a disaster and very unfair to all of the people that are waiting in line for many, many years. We need strong borders.In the audience tonight, we have four mothers of—I mean, these are unbelievable people that I’ve gotten to know over a period of years whose children have been killed, brutally killed by people that came into the country illegally. You have thousands of mothers and fathers and relatives all over the country. They’re coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border.Hillary wants to give amnesty. She wants to have open borders. The border—as you know, the Border Patrol agents, 16,500-plus ICE last week, endorsed me. First time they’ve ever endorsed a candidate. It means their job is tougher. But they know what’s going on. They know it better than anybody. They want strong borders. They feel we have to have strong borders.I was up in New Hampshire the other day. The biggest complaint they have—it’s with all of the problems going on in the world, many of the problems caused by Hillary Clinton and by Barack Obama. All of the problems—the single biggest problem is heroin that pours across our southern border. It’s just pouring and destroying their youth. It’s poisoning the blood of their youth and plenty of other people. We have to have strong borders. We have to keep the drugs out of our country. We are—right now, we’re getting the drugs, they’re getting the cash. We need strong borders. We need absolute—we cannot give amnesty.Now, I want to build the wall. We need the wall. And the Border Patrol, ICE, they all want the wall. We stop the drugs. We shore up the border. One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones—we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We’re going to get them out; we’re going to secure the border. And once the border is secured, at a later date, we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here, and we’re going to get them out.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, thank you. Same question to you, Secretary Clinton. Basically, why are you right and Mr. Trump is wrong?CLINTON: Well, as he was talking, I was thinking about a young girl I met here in Las Vegas, Carla, who is very worried that her parents might be deported, because she was born in this country but they were not. They work hard, they do everything they can to give her a good life.And you’re right. I don’t want to rip families apart. I don’t want to be sending parents away from children. I don’t want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country.We have 11 million undocumented people. They have 4 million American citizen children, 15 million people. He said as recently as a few weeks ago in Phoenix that every undocumented person would be subject to deportation. Now, here’s what that means. It means you would have to have a massive law enforcement presence, where law enforcement officers would be going school to school, home to home, business to business, rounding up people who are undocumented. And we would then have to put them on trains, on buses to get them out of our country.I think that is an idea that is not in keeping with who we are as a nation. I think it’s an idea that would rip our country apart.I have been for border security for years. I voted for border security in the United States Senate. And my comprehensive immigration reform plan of course includes border security. But I want to put our resources where I think they’re most needed: Getting rid of any violent person. Anybody who should be deported, we should deport them.When it comes to the wall that Donald talks about building, he went to Mexico, he had a meeting with the Mexican president. Didn’t even raise it. He choked and then got into a Twitter war because the Mexican president said we’re not paying for that wall.So I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws and that we can act accordingly. And that’s why I’m introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first 100 days with a path to citizenship.WALLACE: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. I want to follow up…TRUMP: Chris, I think it’s…WALLACE: OK.TRUMP: I think I should respond to that. First of all, I had a very good meeting with the president of Mexico. Very nice man. We will be doing very much better with Mexico on trade deals. Believe me. The NAFTA deal signed by her husband is one of the worst deals ever made of any kind, signed by anybody. It’s a disaster.Hillary Clinton wanted the wall. Hillary Clinton fought for the wall in 2006 or thereabouts. Now, she never gets anything done, so naturally the wall wasn’t built. But Hillary Clinton wanted the wall.WALLACE: Well, let me—wait, wait, sir, let me…TRUMP: We are a country of laws. We either have—and by the way…WALLACE: Now, wait. I’d like to hear from…TRUMP: Well—well, but she said one thing.WALLACE: I’d like to hear—I’d like to hear from Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: I voted for border security, and there are…TRUMP: And the wall.CLINTON: There are some limited places where that was appropriate. There also is necessarily going to be new technology and how best to deploy that.But it is clear, when you look at what Donald has been proposing, he started his campaign bashing immigrants, calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and drug dealers, that he has a very different view about what we should do to deal with immigrants.Now, what I am also arguing is that bringing undocumented immigrants out from the shadows, putting them into the formal economy will be good, because then employers can’t exploit them and undercut Americans’ wages.And Donald knows a lot about this. He used undocumented labor to build the Trump Tower. He underpaid undocumented workers, and when they complained, he basically said what a lot of employers do: “You complain, I’ll get you deported.”I want to get everybody out of the shadows, get the economy working, and not let employers like Donald exploit undocumented workers, which hurts them, but also hurts American workers.WALLACE: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it, nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported. She doesn’t want to say that, but that’s what’s happened, and that’s what happened big league.As far as moving these people out and moving—we either have a country or we don’t. We’re a country of laws. We either have a border or we don’t.Now, you can come back in and you can become a citizen. But it’s very unfair. We have millions of people that did it the right way. They’re on line. They’re waiting. We’re going to speed up the process, big league, because it’s very inefficient. But they’re on line and they’re waiting to become citizens.Very unfair that somebody runs across the border, becomes a citizen, under her plan, you have open borders. You would have a disaster on trade, and you will have a disaster with your open borders.WALLACE: I want to…TRUMP: But what she doesn’t say is that President Obama has deported millions and millions of people just the way it is.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, I want to…CLINTON: We will not have open borders. That is…WALLACE: Well, let me—Secretary…CLINTON: That is a rank mischaracterization.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: We will have secure borders, but we’ll also have reform. And this used to be a bipartisan issue. Ronald Reagan was the last president…WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, excuse me. Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: … to sign immigration reform, and George W. Bush supported it, as well.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” So that’s the question…TRUMP: Thank you.WALLACE: That’s the question. Please quiet, everybody. Is that your dream, open borders?CLINTON: Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past. Those are the questions we need answered. We’ve never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.WALLACE: Well?TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?WALLACE: Hold on—hold on, wait. Hold on, folks. Because we—this is going to end up getting out of control. Let’s try to keep it quiet so—for the candidates and for the American people.TRUMP: So just to finish on the borders…WALLACE: Yes?TRUMP: She wants open borders. People are going to pour into our country. People are going to come in from Syria. She wants 550 percent more people than Barack Obama, and he has thousands and thousands of people. They have no idea where they come from.And you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won’t even mention the words, and neither will President Obama. So I just want to tell you, she wants open borders.Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I’ll tell you what: We’re in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads—1,800, by the way—where they expanded and we didn’t, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she’s playing chicken. Look, Putin…WALLACE: Wait, but…TRUMP: … from everything I see, has no respect for this person.CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear…TRUMP: You’re the puppet!CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet.CLINTON: … that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17—17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand…TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else.CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.TRUMP: She has no idea.CLINTON: I am quoting 17…TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.CLINTON: … 17 intelligence—do you doubt 17 military and civilian…TRUMP: And our country has no idea.CLINTON: … agencies.TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely…[crosstalk]TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.WALLACE: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her in Syria.WALLACE: Mr. Trump…[crosstalk]TRUMP: He’s outsmarted her every step of the way.WALLACE: I’m not a potted plant here, I do get to ask some questions.TRUMP: Yes, that’s fine.WALLACE: And I would like to ask you this direct question. The top national security officials of this country do believe that Russia has been behind these hacks. Even if you don’t know for sure whether they are, do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else.WALLACE: You condemn their interference?TRUMP: Of course I condemn. Of course I—I don’t know Putin. I have no idea.WALLACE: I’m not asking—I’m asking do you condemn?TRUMP: I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad.Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way. Whether it’s Syria, you name it. Missiles. Take a look at the “startup” that they signed. The Russians have said, according to many, many reports, I can’t believe they allowed us to do this. They create warheads, and we can’t. The Russians can’t believe it. She has been outsmarted by Putin.And all you have to do is look at the Middle East. They’ve taken over. We’ve spent $6 trillion. They’ve taken over the Middle East. She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I’ve ever seen in any government whatsoever.WALLACE: We’re a long way away from immigration, but I’m going to let you finish this topic. You got about 45 seconds.TRUMP: And she always will be.CLINTON: I—I find it ironic that he’s raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons. He’s…TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: … advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.TRUMP: I have 200 generals…WALLACE: Very quickly.TRUMP: … and admirals, 21 endorsing me, 21 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the—we’re defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century.All I said is, we have to renegotiate these agreements, because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford—she took that as saying nuclear weapons.WALLACE: OK.TRUMP: Look, she’s been proven to be a liar on so many different ways. This is just another lie.CLINTON: Well, I’m just quoting you when you were asked…TRUMP: There’s no quote. You’re not going to find a quote from me.CLINTON: … about a potential nuclear—nuclear competition in Asia, you said, you know, go ahead, enjoy yourselves, folks. That kind…TRUMP: And defend yourselves.CLINTON: … of language—well…TRUMP: And defend yourselves. I didn’t say nuclear. And defend yourself.CLINTON: The United States has kept the peace—the United States has kept the peace through our alliances. Donald wants to tear up our alliances. I think it makes the world safer and, frankly, it makes the United States safer. I would work with our allies in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to keep the peace.WALLACE: We’re going to—no, we are going to move on to the next topic, which is the economy. And I hope we handle that as well as we did immigration. You also have very different ideas about how to get the economy growing faster. Secretary Clinton, in your plan, government plays a big role. You see more government spending, more entitlements, more tax credits, more tax penalties. Mr. Trump, you want to get government out with lower taxes and less regulation.TRUMP: Yes.WALLACE: We’re going to drill down into this a little bit more. But in this overview, please explain to me why you believe that your plan will create more jobs and growth for this country and your opponent’s plan will not. In this round, you go first, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: Well, I think when the middle class thrives, America thrives. And so my plan is based on growing the economy, giving middle-class families many more opportunities. I want us to have the biggest jobs program since World War II, jobs in infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. I think we can compete with high-wage countries, and I believe we should. New jobs and clean energy, not only to fight climate change, which is a serious problem, but to create new opportunities and new businesses.I want us to do more to help small business. That’s where two-thirds of the new jobs are going to come from. I want us to raise the national minimum wage, because people who live in poverty should not—who work full-time should not still be in poverty. And I sure do want to make sure women get equal pay for the work we do.I feel strongly that we have to have an education system that starts with preschool and goes through college. That’s why I want more technical education in high schools and in community colleges, real apprenticeships to prepare young people for the jobs of the future. I want to make college debt-free and for families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted.And we’re going to work hard to make sure that it is, because we are going to go where the money is. Most of the gains in the last years since the Great Recession have gone to the very top. So we are going to have the wealthy pay their fair share. We’re going to have corporations make a contribution greater than they are now to our country.That is a plan that has been analyzed by independent experts which said that it could produce 10 million new jobs. By contrast, Donald’s plan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose 3.5 million jobs. Why? Because his whole plan is to cut taxes, to give the biggest tax breaks ever to the wealthy and to corporations, adding $20 trillion to our debt, and causing the kind of dislocation that we have seen before, because it truly will be trickle-down economics on steroids.So the plan I have I think will actually produce greater opportunities. The plan he has will cost us jobs and possibly lead to another Great Recession.WALLACE: Secretary, thank you. Mr. Trump, why will your plan create more jobs and growth than Secretary Clinton’s?TRUMP: Well, first of all, before I start on my plan, her plan is going to raise taxes and even double your taxes. Her tax plan is a disaster. And she can say all she wants about college tuition. And I’m a big proponent. We’re going to do a lot of things for college tuition. But the rest of the public’s going to be paying for it. We will have a massive, massive tax increase under Hillary Clinton’s plan.But I’d like to start off where we left, because when I said Japan and Germany, and I’m—not to single them out, but South Korea, these are very rich, powerful countries. Saudi Arabia, nothing but money. We protect Saudi Arabia. Why aren’t they paying?She immediately—when she heard this, I questioned it, and I questioned NATO. Why aren’t the NATO questioned—why aren’t they paying? Because they weren’t paying.Since I did this—this was a year ago—all of a sudden, they’re paying. And I’ve been given a lot—a lot of credit for it. All of a sudden, they’re starting to pay up. They have to pay up. We’re protecting people, they have to pay up. And I’m a big fan of NATO. But they have to pay up.She comes out and said, we love our allies, we think our allies are great. Well, it’s awfully hard to get them to pay up when you have somebody saying we think how great they are.We have to tell Japan in a very nice way, we have to tell Germany, all of these countries, South Korea, we have to say, you have to help us out. We have, during his regime, during President Obama’s regime, we’ve doubled our national debt. We’re up to $20 trillion.So my plan—we’re going to renegotiate trade deals. We’re going to have a lot of free trade. We’re going to have free trade, more free trade than we have right now. But we have horrible deals. Our jobs are being taken out by the deal that her husband signed, NAFTA, one of the worst deals ever. Our jobs are being sucked out of our economy.You look at all of the places that I just left, you go to Pennsylvania, you go to Ohio, you go to Florida, you go to any of them. You go upstate New York. Our jobs have fled to Mexico and other places. We’re bringing our jobs back.I am going to renegotiate NAFTA. And if I can’t make a great deal—then we’re going to terminate NAFTA and we’re going to create new deals. We’re going to have trade, but we’re going—we’re going to terminate it, we’re going to make a great trade deal.And if we can’t, we’re going to do it—we’re going to go a separate way, because it has been a disaster. We are going to cut taxes massively. We’re going to cut business taxes massively. They’re going to start hiring people. We’re going to bring the $2.5 trillion…WALLACE: Time, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: … that’s offshore back into the country. We are going to start the engine rolling again, because…WALLACE: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: … right now, our country is dying at 1 percent GDP.CLINTON: Well, let me translate that, if I can, Chris, because…TRUMP: You can’t.CLINTON: … the fact is, he’s going to advocate for the largest tax cuts we’ve ever seen, three times more than the tax cuts under the Bush administration. I have said repeatedly throughout this campaign: I will not raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less.I also will not add a penny to the debt. I have costed out what I’m going to do. He will, through his massive tax cuts, add $20 trillion to the debt.Well, he mentioned the debt. We know how to get control of the debt. When my husband was president, we went from a $300 billion deficit to a $200 billion surplus and we were actually on the path to eliminating the national debt. When President Obama came into office, he inherited the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. He has cut the deficit by two-thirds.So, yes, one of the ways you go after the debt, one of the ways you create jobs is by investing in people. So I do have investments, investments in new jobs, investments in education, skill training, and the opportunities for people to get ahead and stay ahead. That’s the kind of approach that will work.WALLACE: Secretary…CLINTON: Cutting taxes on the wealthy, we’ve tried that. It has not worked the way that it has been promised.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, I want to pursue your plan, because in many ways it is similar to the Obama stimulus plan in 2009, which has led to the slowest GDP growth since 1949.TRUMP: Correct.WALLACE: Thank you, sir.You told me in July when we spoke that the problem is that President Obama didn’t get to do enough in what he was trying to do with his stimulus. So is your plan basically more—even more of the Obama stimulus?CLINTON: Well, it’s a combination, Chris. And let me say that when you inherit the level of economic catastrophe that President Obama inherited, it was a real touch-and-go situation. I was in the Senate before I became secretary of state. I’ve never seen people as physically distraught as the Bush administration team was because of what was happening to the economy.I personally believe that the steps that President Obama took saved the economy. He doesn’t get the credit he deserves for taking some very hard positions. But it was a terrible recession.So now we’ve dug ourselves out of it, we’re standing, but we’re not yet running. So what I am proposing is that we invest from the middle out and the ground up, not the top down. That is not going to work.That’s why what I have put forward doesn’t add a penny to the debt, but it is the kind of approach that will enable more people to take those new jobs, higher-paying jobs. We’re beginning to see some increase in incomes, and we certainly have had a long string of increasing jobs. We’ve got to do more to get the whole economy moving, and that’s what I believe I will be able to do.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, even conservative economists who have looked at your plan say that the numbers don’t add up, that your idea, and you’ve talked about 25 million jobs created, 4 percent…TRUMP: Over a 10-year period.WALLACE: … growth is unrealistic. And they say—you talk a lot about growing the energy industry. They say with oil prices as low as they are right now, that’s unrealistic, as well. Your response, sir?TRUMP: So I just left some high representatives of India. They’re growing at 8 percent. China is growing at 7 percent. And that for them is a catastrophically low number.We are growing—our last report came out—and it’s right around the 1 percent level. And I think it’s going down. Last week, as you know, the end of last week, they came out with an anemic jobs report. A terrible jobs report. In fact I said, is that the last jobs report before the election? Because if it is, I should win easily, it was so bad. The report was so bad.Look, our country is stagnant. We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore, relatively speaking. Our product is pouring in from China, pouring in from Vietnam, pouring in from all over the world.I’ve visited so many communities. This has been such an incredible education for me, Chris. I’ve gotten to know so many—I’ve developed so many friends over the last year. And they cry when they see what’s happened. I pass factories that were thriving 20, 25 years ago, and because of the bill that her husband signed and she blessed 100 percent, it is just horrible what’s happened to these people in these communities.Now, she can say that her husband did well, but, boy, did they suffer as NAFTA kicked in, because it didn’t really kick in very much, but it kicked in after they left. Boy, did they suffer. That was one of the worst things that’s ever been signed by our country.Now she wants to sign Trans-Pacific Partnership. And she wants it. She lied when she said she didn’t call it the gold standard in one of the debates. She totally lied. She did call it the gold standard. And they actually fact-checked, and they said I was right. I was so honored.WALLACE: I want you to give you a chance to briefly speak to that, and then I want to pivot to one-sixth of the economy…TRUMP: And that will be as bad as NAFTA.WALLACE: … which is Obamacare. But go ahead, briefly.CLINTON: Well, first, let me say, number one, when I saw the final agreement for TPP, I said I was against it. It didn’t meet my test. I’ve had the same test. Does it create jobs, raise incomes, and further our national security? I’m against it now. I’ll be against it after the election. I’ll be against it when I’m president.There’s only one of us on this stage who’s actually shipped jobs to Mexico, because that’s Donald. He’s shipped jobs to 12 countries, including Mexico.But he mentioned China. And, you know, one of the biggest problems we have with China is the illegal dumping of steel and aluminum into our markets. I have fought against that as a senator. I’ve stood up against it as secretary of state.Donald has bought Chinese steel and aluminum. In fact, the Trump Hotel right here in Las Vegas was made with Chinese steel. So he goes around with crocodile tears about how terrible it is, but he has given jobs to Chinese steelworkers, not American steelworkers.WALLACE: Mr. Trump?CLINTON: That’s the kind of approach that is just not going to work.TRUMP: Well, let me just say—let me just say.CLINTON: We’re going to pull the country together. We’re going to have trade agreements that we enforce. That’s why I’m going to have a trade prosecutor for the first time in history. And we’re going to enforce those agreements, and we’re going to look for businesses to help us by buying American products.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton? Go ahead, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: I ask a simple question. She’s been doing this for 30 years. Why the hell didn’t you do it over the last 15, 20 years?CLINTON: No, I voted.TRUMP: You were very much involved—excuse me. My turn. You were very much involved in every aspect of this country. Very much. And you do have experience. I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it’s bad experience, because what you’ve done has turned out badly.For 30 years, you’ve been in a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I—make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind.The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You don’t. Just like when you ran the State Department, $6 billion was missing. How do you miss $6 billion? You ran the State Department, $6 billion was either stolen. They don’t know. It’s gone, $6 billion. If you become president, this country is going to be in some mess. Believe me.CLINTON: Well, first of all, what he just said about the State Department is not only untrue, it’s been debunked numerous times.But I think it’s really an important issue. He raised the 30 years of experience, so let me just talk briefly about that. You know, back in the 1970s, I worked for the Children’s Defense Fund. And I was taking on discrimination against African-American kids in schools. He was getting sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings.In the 1980s, I was working to reform the schools in Arkansas. He was borrowing $14 million from his father to start his businesses. In the 1990s, I went to Beijing and I said women’s rights are human rights. He insulted a former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado, called her an eating machine.TRUMP: Give me a break.CLINTON: And on the day when I was in the Situation Room, monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, he was hosting the “Celebrity Apprentice.” So I’m happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I’ve done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years, and I’ll let the American people make that decision.TRUMP: Well, I think I did a much better job. I built a massive company, a great company, some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, worth many, many billions of dollars. I started with a $1 million loan. I agree with that. It’s a $1 million loan. But I built a phenomenal company.And if we could run our country the way I’ve run my company, we would have a country that you would be so proud of. You would even be proud of it.And frankly, when you look at her real record, take a look at Syria. Take a look at the migration. Take a look at Libya. Take a look at Iraq. She gave us ISIS, because her and Obama created this huge vacuum, and a small group came out of that huge vacuum because when—we should have never been in Iraq, but once we were there, we should have never got out the way they wanted to get out. She gave us ISIS as sure as you are sitting there. And what happened is now ISIS is in 32 countries. And now I listen how she’s going to get rid of ISIS. She’s going to get rid of nobody.WALLACE: All right. We are going to get to foreign hot spots in a few moments, but the next segment is fitness to be president of the United States. Mr. Trump, at the last debate, you said your talk about grabbing women was just that, talk, and that you’d never actually done it. And since then, as we all know, nine women have come forward and said that you either groped them or kissed them without their consent.Why would so many different women from so many different circumstances over so many different years, why would they all in this last couple of weeks make up—you deny this—why would they all make up these stories?And, since this is a question for both of you, Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump says what your husband did and that you defended was even worse. Mr. Trump, you go first.TRUMP: Well, first of all, those stories have been largely debunked. Those people—I don’t know those people. I have a feeling how they came. I believe it was her campaign that did it.Just like if you look at what came out today on the clips where I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence? She’s the one and Obama that caused the violence. They hired people—they paid them $1,500, and they’re on tape saying be violent, cause fights, do bad things.I would say the only way—because those stories are all totally false, I have to say that. And I didn’t even apologize to my wife, who’s sitting right here, because I didn’t do anything. I didn’t know any of these—I didn’t see these women.These women—the woman on the plane, the—I think they want either fame or her campaign did it. And I think it’s her campaign. Because what I saw what they did, which is a criminal act, by the way, where they’re telling people to go out and start fist-fights and start violence.And I’ll tell you what, in particular in Chicago, people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot. And that was now all on tape, started by her. I believe, Chris, that she got these people to step forward. If it wasn’t, they get their 10 minutes of fame. But they were all totally—it was all fiction. It was lies, and it was fiction.CLINTON: Well…WALLACE: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: At the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women. And after that, a number of women have come forward saying that’s exactly what he did to them. Now, what was his response? Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for them to be assaulted.TRUMP: I did not say that. I did not say that.CLINTON: In fact, he went on to say…WALLACE: Her two minutes—sir, her two minutes. Her two minutes.TRUMP: I did not say that.WALLACE: It’s her two minutes.CLINTON: He went on to say, “Look at her. I don’t think so.” About another woman, he said, “That wouldn’t be my first choice.” He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her “disgusting,” as he has called a number of women during this campaign.Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like. So we now know what Donald thinks and what he says and how he acts toward women. That’s who Donald is.I think it’s really up to all of us to demonstrate who we are and who our country is, and to stand up and be very clear about what we expect from our next president, how we want to bring our country together, where we don’t want to have the kind of pitting of people one against the other, where instead we celebrate our diversity, we lift people up, and we make our country even greater.America is great, because America is good. And it really is up to all of us to make that true, now and in the future, and particularly for our children and our grandchildren.WALLACE: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody. [laughter]Nobody has more respect…WALLACE: Please, everybody.TRUMP: And frankly, those stories have been largely debunked. And I really want to just talk about something slightly different.She mentions this, which is all fiction, all fictionalized, probably or possibly started by her and her very sleazy campaign. But I will tell you what isn’t fictionalized are her e-mails, where she destroyed 33,000 e-mails criminally, criminally, after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress.What happened to the FBI, I don’t know. We have a great general, four-star general, today you read it in all of the papers, going to potentially serve five years in jail for lying to the FBI. One lie. She’s lied hundreds of times to the people, to Congress, and to the FBI. He’s going to probably go to jail. This is a four-star general. And she gets away with it, and she can run for the presidency of the United States? That’s really what you should be talking about, not fiction, where somebody wants fame or where they come out of her crooked campaign.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, every time Donald is pushed on something which is obviously uncomfortable, like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility. And it’s not just about women. He never apologizes or says he’s sorry for anything.So we know what he has said and what he’s done to women. But he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television.TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: He went after Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the parents of a young man who died serving our country, a Gold Star family, because of their religion. He went after John McCain, a prisoner of war, said he prefers “people who aren’t captured.” He went after a federal judge, born in Indiana, but who Donald said couldn’t be trusted to try the fraud and racketeering case against Trump University because his parents were Mexican.So it’s not one thing. This is a pattern, a pattern of divisiveness, of a very dark and in many ways dangerous vision of our country, where he incites violence, where he applauds people who are pushing and pulling and punching at his rallies. That is not who America is.And I hope that as we move in the last weeks of this campaign, more and more people will understand what’s at stake in this election. It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have.TRUMP: So sad when she talks about violence at my rallies, and she caused the violence. It’s on tape.WALLACE: During the last…TRUMP: The other things are false, but honestly, I’d love to talk about getting rid of ISIS, and I’d love to talk about other things…WALLACE: OK.TRUMP: … but those other charges, as she knows, are false.WALLACE: In this bucket about fitness to be president, there’s been a lot of developments over the last 10 days since the last debate. I’d like to ask you about them. These are questions that the American people have.Secretary Clinton, during your 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the Clinton Foundation while you were secretary of state, but e-mails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money.Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn’t what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn’t it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?CLINTON: Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country’s interests and our values. The State Department has said that. I think that’s been proven.But I am happy, in fact I’m thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does. You know, I could talk for the rest of the debate—I know I don’t have the time to do that.But just briefly, the Clinton Foundation made it possible for 11 million people around the world with HIV-AIDS to afford treatment, and that’s about half of all the people in the world who are getting treatment. In partnership with the American Health Association…WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…CLINTON: … we have made environments in schools healthier for kids, including healthier lunches…WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, respectfully, this is—this is an open discussion.CLINTON: Well, it is an open discussion. And you…WALLACE: And the specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to talk about that?CLINTON: Well, but there is no—but there is no evidence—but there is…[crosstalk]TRUMP: I think that it’s been very well…WALLACE: Let’s ask Mr. Trump.CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work…TRUMP: It’s been very well studied.CLINTON: … and the high rankings…[crosstalk]WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.TRUMP: … and it’s a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.[crosstalk]TRUMP: It’s a criminal enterprise. Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. You talk about women and women’s rights? So these are people that push gays off business—off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you take their money.So I’d like to ask you right now, why don’t you give back the money that you’ve taken from certain countries that treat certain groups of people so horribly? Why don’t you give back the money? I think it would be a great gesture.Because she takes a tremendous amount of money. And you take a look at the people of Haiti. I was at a little Haiti the other day in Florida. And I want to tell you, they hate the Clintons, because what’s happened in Haiti with the Clinton Foundation is a disgrace. And you know it, and they know it, and everybody knows it.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, very quickly, we at the Clinton Foundation spend 90 percent—90 percent of all the money that is donated on behalf of programs of people around the world and in our own country. I’m very proud of that. We have the highest rating from the watchdogs that follow foundations. And I’d be happy to compare what we do with the Trump Foundation, which took money from other people and bought a six-foot portrait of Donald. I mean, who does that? It just was astonishing.But when it comes to Haiti, Haiti is the poorest country in our hemisphere. The earthquake and the hurricanes, it has devastated Haiti. Bill and I have been involved in trying to help Haiti for many years. The Clinton Foundation raised $30 million to help Haiti after the catastrophic earthquake and all of the terrible problems the people there had.We have done things to help small businesses, agriculture, and so much else. And we’re going to keep working to help Haiti…WALLACE: All right.CLINTON: … because it’s an important part of the American experience.TRUMP: They don’t want you to help them anymore.[crosstalk]TRUMP: I’d like to mention one thing. Trump Foundation, small foundation. People contribute, I contribute. The money goes 100 percent—100 percent goes to different charities, including a lot of military. I don’t get anything. I don’t buy boats. I don’t buy planes. What happens—the money goes to them.WALLACE: Wasn’t some of the money used to settle your lawsuits, sir?TRUMP: No, it was—we put up the American flag. And that’s it. They put up the American flag. We fought for the right in Palm Beach to put up the American flag.WALLACE: Right. But there was a penalty that was imposed by Palm Beach County, and the money came from your foundation…TRUMP: There was. There was. And, by the way…WALLACE: … instead of Mar-a-Lago or yourself, sir.TRUMP: … the money—the money went to Fisher House, where they build houses—the money that you’re talking about went to Fisher House, where they build houses for veterans and disabled vets.WALLACE: I want to get into one…CLINTON: But, of course, there’s no way we can know whether any of that is true, because he hasn’t released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the last 40-plus years who has not released his tax returns, so everything he says about charity or anything else, we can’t prove it. You can look at our tax returns. We’ve got them all out there.But what is really troubling is that we learned in the last debate he has not paid a penny in federal income tax. And we were talking about immigrants a few minutes ago, Chris. You know, half of all immigrants—undocumented immigrants in our country—actually pay federal income tax. So we have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire. I find that just astonishing.WALLACE: I want…TRUMP: So let me just tell you very quickly, we’re entitled because of the laws that people like her passed to take massive amounts of depreciation on other charges, and we do it. And all of her donors—just about all of them—I know Buffett took hundreds of millions of dollars, Soros, George Soros, took hundreds of millions of dollars…WALLACE: We…TRUMP: Let me just explain.WALLACE: But, no, we heard this…TRUMP: Most of her donors have done the same thing as I do.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, we—OK.TRUMP: You know what she should have done?WALLACE: Folks, we heard this…TRUMP: And you know, Hillary, what you should have done, you should have changed the law when you were a United States senator…WALLACE: Folks, we heard this…TRUMP: … because your donors and your special interests are doing the same thing as I do, except even more so.CLINTON: Well, you know…TRUMP: You should have changed the law. But you won’t change the law, because you take in so much money. I mean, I sat in my apartment today on a very beautiful hotel down the street known as Trump…CLINTON: Made with Chinese steel.TRUMP: But I will tell you, I sat there…[laughter]… I sat there watching ad after ad after ad, false ad. All paid for by your friends on Wall Street that gave so much money because they know you’re going to protect them. And, frankly, you should have changed the laws.WALLACE: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: If you don’t like what I did, you should have changed the laws.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You have been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you.Your running mate, Governor Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you—his words—”will absolutely accept the result of this election.” Today your daughter, Ivanka, said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely—sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?TRUMP: I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time.What I’ve seen—what I’ve seen is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt, and the pile-on is so amazing. The New York Times actually wrote an article about it, but they don’t even care. It’s so dishonest. And they’ve poisoned the mind of the voters.But unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they’re going to see through it. We’ll find out on November 8th. But I think they’re going to see through it.WALLACE: But, sir, there’s…TRUMP: If you look—excuse me, Chris—if you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote—millions, this isn’t coming from me—this is coming from Pew Report and other places—millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn’t be registered to vote.So let me just give you one other thing. So I talk about the corrupt media. I talk about the millions of people—tell you one other thing. She shouldn’t be allowed to run. It’s crooked—she’s—she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run.And just in that respect, I say it’s rigged, because she should never…WALLACE: But…TRUMP: Chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things.WALLACE: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country—in fact, one of the prides of this country—is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?TRUMP: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?CLINTON: Well, Chris, let me respond to that, because that’s horrifying. You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him.The FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case; he said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus. He lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering; he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn’t get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged against him.TRUMP: Should have gotten it. [laughter]CLINTON: This is—this is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks. And it’s funny, but it’s also really troubling.WALLACE: OK.CLINTON: So that is not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you’re whining before the game is even finished… [applause]WALLACE: Hold on. Hold on, folks. Hold on, folks.CLINTON: … it just shows you’re not up to doing the job. And let’s—you know, let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.TRUMP: I think what the FBI did and what the Department of Justice did, including meeting with her husband, the attorney general, in the back of an airplane on the tarmac in Arizona, I think it’s disgraceful. I think it’s a disgrace.WALLACE: All right.TRUMP: I think we’ve never had a situation so bad in this country. [applause]WALLACE: Hold on, folks. This doesn’t do any good for anyone. Let’s please continue the debate, and let’s move on to the subject of foreign hot spots.The Iraqi offensive to take back Mosul has begun. If they are successful in pushing ISIS out of that city and out of all of Iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? And that’s something that whichever of you ends up—whoever of you ends up as president is going to have to confront.Will you put U.S. troops into that vacuum to make sure that ISIS doesn’t come back or isn’t replaced by something even worse? Secretary Clinton, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don’t think that is in our interest, and I don’t think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off and that we will see a real—a really successful military operation. But we know we’ve got lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.So I have said, look, we need to keep our eye on ISIS. That’s why I want to have an intelligence surge that protects us here at home, why we have to go after them from the air, on the ground, online, why we have to make sure here at home we don’t let terrorists buy weapons. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.And I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians so that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary to bring the conflict to an end and go forward on a political track.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, same question. If we are able to push ISIS out of Mosul and out of Iraq, will—would you be willing to put U.S. troops in there to prevent their return or something else?TRUMP: Let me tell you, Mosul is so sad. We had Mosul. But when she left, when she took everybody out, we lost Mosul. Now we’re fighting again to get Mosul. The problem with Mosul and what they wanted to do is they wanted to get the leaders of ISIS who they felt were in Mosul.About three months ago, I started reading that they want to get the leaders and they’re going to attack Mosul. Whatever happened to the element of surprise, OK? We announce we’re going after Mosul. I have been reading about going after Mosul now for about—how long is it, Hillary, three months? These people have all left. They’ve all left.The element of surprise. Douglas MacArthur, George Patton spinning in their graves when they see the stupidity of our country. So we’re now fighting for Mosul, that we had. All she had to do was stay there, and now we’re going in to get it.But you know who the big winner in Mosul is going to be after we eventually get it? And the only reason they did it is because she’s running for the office of president and they want to look tough. They want to look good. He violated the red line in the sand, and he made so many mistakes, made all mistakes. That’s why we have the great migration. But she wanted to look good for the election. So they’re going in.But who’s going to get Mosul, really? We’ll take Mosul eventually. But the way—if you look at what’s happening, much tougher than they thought. Much, much tougher. Much more dangerous. Going to be more deaths that they thought.But the leaders that we wanted to get are all gone because they’re smart. They say, what do we need this for? So Mosul is going to be a wonderful thing. And Iran should write us a letter of thank you, just like the really stupid—the stupidest deal of all time, a deal that’s going to give Iran absolutely nuclear weapons. Iran should write us yet another letter saying thank you very much, because Iran, as I said many years ago, Iran is taking over Iraq, something they’ve wanted to do forever, but we’ve made it so easy for them.So we’re now going to take Mosul. And you know who’s going to be the beneficiary? Iran. Oh, yeah, they’re making—I mean, they are outsmarting—look, you’re not there, you might be involved in that decision. But you were there when you took everybody out of Mosul and out of Iraq. You shouldn’t have been in Iraq, but you did vote for it. You shouldn’t have been in Iraq, but once you were in Iraq, you should have never left the way.WALLACE: Sir, your two minutes are up.TRUMP: The point is, the big winner is going to be Iran.CLINTON: Well, you know, once again, Donald is implying that he didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I’ve said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is…TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: … a very clear fact that…TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: … before the invasion, he supported it. And, you know, I just want everybody to go Google it. Google “Donald Trump Iraq.” And you will see the dozens of sources which verify that he was for the invasion of Iraq.TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: And you can actually hear the audio of him saying that. Now, why does that matter? Well, it matters because he has not told the truth about that position. I guess he believes it makes him look better now to contrast with me because I did vote for it.But what’s really important here is to understand all the interplay. Mosul is a Sunni city. Mosul is on the border of Syria. And, yes, we do need to go after Baghdadi, and—just like we went after bin Laden, while you were doing “Celebrity Apprentice,” and we brought him to justice. We need to go after the leadership.But we need to get rid of them, get rid of their fighters. There are an estimated several thousand fighters in Mosul. They’ve been digging underground. They’ve been prepared to defend. It’s going to be tough fighting. But I think we can take back Mosul, and then we can move on into Syria and take back Raqqa.This is what we have to do. I’m just amazed that he seems to think that the Iraqi government and our allies and everybody else launched the attack on Mosul to help me in this election, but that’s how Donald thinks. You know, he always is looking for some conspiracy.TRUMP: Chris, we don’t gain anything.CLINTON: He has all the conspiracy theories…[crosstalk]TRUMP: Iran is taking over Iraq.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, it’s…[crosstalk]TRUMP: Iran is taking over Iraq. We don’t gain anything.CLINTON: This conspiracy theory, which he’s been spewing out for quite some time.TRUMP: We would’ve gained if they did it by surprise…[crosstalk]WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait, Secretary Clinton, it’s an open discussion.CLINTON: He says…[crosstalk]TRUMP: We would have gained if they did it by surprise.WALLACE: Secretary, please let Mr. Trump speak.CLINTON: … unfit, and he proves it every time he talks.TRUMP: No, you are the one that’s unfit. You know, WikiLeaks just actually came out—John Podesta said some horrible things about you, and, boy, was he right. He said some beauties. And you know, Bernie Sanders, he said you have bad judgment. You do.And if you think that going into Mosul after we let the world know we’re going in, and all of the people that we really wanted—the leaders—they’re all gone. If you think that was good, then you do. Now, John Podesta said you have terrible instincts. Bernie Sanders said you have bad judgment. I agree with both.CLINTON: Well, you should ask Bernie Sanders who he’s supporting for president. And he has said…TRUMP: Which is a big mistake.CLINTON: … as he has campaigned for me around the country, you are the most dangerous person to run for president in the modern history of America. I think he’s right.WALLACE: Let’s turn to Aleppo. Mr. Trump, in the last debate, you were both asked about the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo. And I want to follow up on that, because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir. You said that Aleppo has basically fallen. In fact, there—in fact, there are…TRUMP: It’s a catastrophe. I mean…WALLACE: It’s a catastrophe, but there…TRUMP: … it’s a mess.WALLACE: There are a quarter of…TRUMP: Have you seen it? Have you seen it?WALLACE: Sir…TRUMP: Have you seen what’s happened to Aleppo?WALLACE: Sir, if I may finish my question…TRUMP: OK, so it hasn’t fallen. Take a look at it.WALLACE: Well, there are a quarter of a million people still living there and being slaughtered.TRUMP: That’s right. And they are being slaughtered…WALLACE: Yes.TRUMP: … because of bad decisions.WALLACE: If I may just finish here, and you also said that—that Syria and Russia are busy fighting ISIS. In fact, they have been the ones who’ve been bombing and shelling eastern Aleppo, and they just announced a humanitarian pause, in effect, admitting that they have been bombing and shelling Aleppo. Would you like to clear that up, sir?TRUMP: Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It’s a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from the—from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what’s happened.And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton, because what’s happened is, by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she’s going to say, oh, he loves Assad, she’s—he’s just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He—he aligned with Russia.He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean, cash. Bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.Now they have—he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don’t want ISIS, but they have other things, because we’re backing—we’re backing rebels. We don’t know who the rebels are. We’re giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don’t know who the rebels are. And when and if—and it’s not going to happen, because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up with—as bad as Assad is, and he’s a bad guy, but you may very well end up with worse than Assad.If she did nothing, we’d be in much better shape. And this is what’s caused the great migration, where she’s taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, who probably in many cases—not probably, who are definitely…WALLACE: Let me…TRUMP: … in many cases, ISIS-aligned, and we now have them in our country, and wait until you see—this is going to be the great Trojan horse. And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, you have talked about—and in the last debate and again today—that you would impose a no-fly zone to try to protect the people of Aleppo and to stop the killing there. President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict.And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you’re going to get into a war—his words—with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone—first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?CLINTON: Well, Chris, first of all, I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict. I’m well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general.This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.We’ve had millions of people leave Syria and those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.But I want to respond to what Donald said about refugees. He’s made these claims repeatedly. I am not going to let anyone into this country who is not vetted, who we do not have confidence in. But I am not going to slam the door on women and children. That picture of that little 4-year-old boy in Aleppo, with the blood coming down his face while he sat in an ambulance, is haunting. And so we are going to do very careful, thorough vetting. That does not solve our internal challenges with ISIS and our need to stop radicalization, to work with American Muslim communities who are on the front lines to identify and prevent attacks. In fact, the killer of the dozens of people at the nightclub in Orlando, the Pulse nightclub, was born in Queens, the same place Donald was born. So let’s be clear about what the threat is and how we are best going to be able to meet it.And, yes, some of that threat emanates from over in Syria and Iraq, and we’ve got to keep fighting, and I will defeat ISIS, and some of it is we have to up our game and be much smarter here at home.WALLACE: Folks, I want to get into our final segment.TRUMP: But I just have to…WALLACE: Real quick.TRUMP: It’s so ridiculous what she—she will defeat ISIS. We should have never let ISIS happen in the first place. And right now, they’re in 32 countries.WALLACE: OK.TRUMP: We should have—wait one second. They had a cease-fire three weeks ago. A cease-fire, United States, Russia, and Syria. And during the cease-fire, Russia took over vast swatches of land, and then they said we don’t want the cease-fire anymore.We are so outplayed on missiles, on cease-fires. They are outplayed. Now, she wasn’t there. I assume she had nothing to do with it. But our country is so outplayed by Putin and Assad, and by the way—and by Iran. Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is.WALLACE: Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton—no, we need to move on to our final segment, and that is the national debt, which has not been discussed until tonight.Our national debt, as a share of the economy, our GDP, is now 77 percent. That’s the highest since just after World War II. But the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says, Secretary Clinton, under your plan, debt would rise to 86 percent of GDP over the next 10 years. Mr. Trump, under your plan, they say it would rise to 105 percent of GDP over the next 10 years. The question is, why are both of you ignoring this problem? Mr. Trump, you go first.TRUMP: Well, I say they’re wrong, because I’m going to create tremendous jobs. And we’re bringing GDP from, really, 1 percent, which is what it is now, and if she got in, it will be less than zero. But we’re bringing it from 1 percent up to 4 percent. And I actually think we can go higher than 4 percent. I think you can go to 5 percent or 6 percent. And if we do, you don’t have to bother asking your question, because we have a tremendous machine. We will have created a tremendous economic machine once again. To do that, we’re taking back jobs. We’re not going to let our companies be raided by other countries where we lose all our jobs, we don’t make our product anymore. It’s very sad. But I’m going to create a—the kind of a country that we were from the standpoint of industry. We used to be there. We’ve given it up. We’ve become very, very sloppy.We’ve had people that are political hacks making the biggest deals in the world, bigger than companies. You take these big companies, these trade deals are far bigger than these companies, and yet we don’t use our great leaders, many of whom back me and many of whom back Hillary, I must say. But we don’t use those people. Those are the people—these are the greatest negotiators in the world. We have the greatest businesspeople in the world. We have to use them to negotiate our trade deals.We use political hacks. We use people that get the position because they gave—they made a campaign contribution and they’re dealing with China and people that are very much smarter than they are. So we have to use our great people.But that being said, we will create an economic machine the likes of which we haven’t seen in many decades. And people, Chris, will again go back to work and they’ll make a lot of money. And we’ll have companies that will grow and expand and start from new.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, first, when I hear Donald talk like that and know that his slogan is “Make America Great Again,” I wonder when he thought America was great. And before he rushes and says, “You know, before you and President Obama were there,” I think it’s important to recognize that he has been criticizing our government for decades.You know, back in 1987, he took out a $100,000 ad in the New York Times, during the time when President Reagan was president, and basically said exactly what he just said now, that we were the laughingstock of the world. He was criticizing President Reagan. This is the way Donald thinks about himself, puts himself into, you know, the middle and says, “You know, I alone can fix it,” as he said on the convention stage.But if you look at the debt, which is the issue you asked about, Chris, I pay for everything I’m proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt. I take that very seriously, because I do think it’s one of the issues we’ve got to come to grips with.So when I talk about how we’re going to pay for education, how we’re going to invest in infrastructure, how we’re going to get the cost of prescription drugs down, and a lot of the other issues that people talk to me about all the time, I’ve made it very clear we are going where the money is. We are going to ask the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.And there is no evidence whatsoever that that will slow down or diminish our growth. In fact, I think just the opposite. We’ll have what economists call middle-out growth. We’ve got to get back to rebuilding the middle class, the families of America. That’s where growth will come from. That’s why I want to invest in you. I want to invest in your family.And I think that’s the smartest way to grow the economy, to make the economy fairer. And we just have a big disagreement about this. It may be because of our experiences. You know, he started off with his dad as a millionaire…TRUMP: Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard—we’ve heard this before, Hillary.CLINTON: I started off with—my dad was a small-business man.TRUMP: We’ve heard this before.CLINTON: And I think it—you know, it’s a difference that affects how we see the world and what we want to do with the economy.WALLACE: Time.TRUMP: Thank you, Hillary. Could I just respond?WALLACE: Well, no, sir, because we’re running out of time…TRUMP: Because I did disagree with Ronald Reagan very strongly on trade. I disagreed with him. We should have been much tougher on trade even then. I’ve been waiting for years. Nobody does it right.WALLACE: OK.TRUMP: And frankly, now we’re going to do it right.WALLACE: All right. The one last area I want to get into with you in this debate is the fact that the biggest driver of our debt is entitlements, which is 60 percent of all federal spending. Now, the Committee for federal—a Responsible Federal Budget has looked at both of your plans and they say neither of you has a serious plan that is going to solve the fact that Medicare’s going to run out of money in the 2020s, Social Security is going to run out of money in the 2030s, and at that time, recipients are going to take huge cuts in their benefits.So, in effect, the final question I want to ask you in this regard is—and let me start with you, Mr. Trump, would President Trump make a deal to save Medicare and Social Security that included both tax increases and benefit cuts, in effect, a grand bargain on entitlements?TRUMP: I’m cutting taxes. We’re going to grow the economy. It’s going to grow at a record rate of growth.WALLACE: That’s not going to help in the entitlements.TRUMP: No, it’s going to totally help you. And one thing we have to do: Repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare. It’s destroying our country. It’s destroying our businesses, our small business and our big businesses. We have to repeal and replace Obamacare.You take a look at the kind of numbers that that will cost us in the year ’17, it is a disaster. If we don’t repeal and replace—now, it’s probably going to die of its own weight. But Obamacare has to go. It’s—the premiums are going up 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent. Next year they’re going to go up over 100 percent.And I’m really glad that the premiums have started—at least the people see what’s happening, because she wants to keep Obamacare and she wants to make it even worse, and it can’t get any worse. Bad health care at the most expensive price. We have to repeal and replace Obamacare.WALLACE: And, Secretary Clinton, same question, because at this point, Social Security and Medicare are going to run out, the trust funds are going to run out of money. Will you as president entertain—will you consider a grand bargain, a deal that includes both tax increases and benefit cuts to try to save both programs?CLINTON: Well, Chris, I am on record as saying that we need to put more money into the Social Security Trust Fund. That’s part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy. My Social Security payroll contribution will go up, as will Donald’s, assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it. But what we want to do is to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund…TRUMP: Such a nasty woman.CLINTON: … by making sure that we have sufficient resources, and that will come from either raising the cap and/or finding other ways to get more money into it. I will not cut benefits. I want to enhance benefits for low-income workers and for women who have been disadvantaged by the current Social Security system.But what Donald is proposing with these massive tax cuts will result in a $20 trillion additional national debt. That will have dire consequences for Social Security and Medicare.And I’ll say something about the Affordable Care Act, which he wants to repeal. The Affordable Care Act extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. So if he repeals it, our Medicare problem gets worse. What we need to do is go after…TRUMP: Your husband disagrees with you.CLINTON: … the long-term health care drivers. We’ve got to get costs down, increase value, emphasize wellness. I have a plan for doing that. And I think that we will be able to get entitlement spending under control by with more resources and smarter decisions.WALLACE: This is—this is the final time, probably to both of your delight, that you’re going to be on a stage together in this campaign. I would like to end it on a positive note. You had not agreed to closing statements, but it seems to me in a funny way that might make it more interesting because you haven’t prepared closing statements.So I’d like you each to take—and we’re going to put a clock up, a minute, as the final question in the final debate, to tell the American people why they should elect you to be the next president. This is another new mini-segment. Secretary Clinton, it’s your turn to go first.CLINTON: Well, I would like to say to everyone watching tonight that I’m reaching out to all Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—because we need everybody to help make our country what it should be, to grow the economy, to make it fairer, to make it work for everyone. We need your talents, your skills, your commitments, your energy, your ambition.You know, I’ve been privileged to see the presidency up close. And I know the awesome responsibility of protecting our country and the incredible opportunity of working to try to make life better for all of you. I have made the cause of children and families really my life’s work.That’s what my mission will be in the presidency. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, against corporations. I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have good jobs, with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college. I hope you will give me a chance to serve as your president.WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, thank you.Mr. Trump?TRUMP: She’s raising the money from the people she wants to control. Doesn’t work that way.But when I started this campaign, I started it very strongly. It’s called “Make America Great Again.” We’re going to make America great. We have a depleted military. It has to be helped, has to be fixed. We have the greatest people on Earth in our military. We don’t take care of our veterans. We take care of illegal immigrants, people that come into the country illegally, better than we take care of our vets. That can’t happen.Our policemen and women are disrespected. We need law and order, but we need justice, too. Our inner cities are a disaster. You get shot walking to the store. They have no education. They have no jobs. I will do more for African-Americans and Latinos than she can ever do in 10 lifetimes.All she’s done is talk to the African-Americans and to the Latinos, but they get the vote, and then they come back, they say, we’ll see you in four years. We are going to make America strong again, and we are going to make America great again, and it has to start now. We cannot take four more years of Barack Obama, and that’s what you get when you get her.WALLACE: Thank you both. [applause]Secretary Clinton—hold on just a moment, folks. Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, I want to thank you both for participating in all three of these debates.That brings to an end this year’s debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. We want to thank the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and its students for having us. Now the decision is up to you.While millions have already voted, Election Day, November 8th, is just 20 days away. One thing everyone here can agree on: We hope you will go vote. It is one of the honors and obligations of living in this great country. Thank you, and good night.",
    "id": "e7a185ed-e5b1-4db4-8d6f-c76941cd88fa"
  },
  {
    "year": 1960,
    "date": "October 13, 1960",
    "title": "The Third Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 13, 1960 Debate TranscriptOctober 13, 1960The Third Kennedy-Nixon Presidential DebateBILL SHADEL, MODERATOR: Good evening. I’m Bill Shadel of ABC News. It’s my privilege this evening to preside at this the third in the series of meetings on radio and television of the two major presidential candidates. Now like the last meeting the subjects to be discussed will be suggested by questions from a panel of correspondents. Unlike the first two programs, however, the two candidates will not be sharing the same platform. In New York the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John F. Kennedy; separated by three thousand miles in a Los Angeles studio, the Republican presidential nominee, Vice President Richard M. Nixon; now joined for tonight’s discussion by a network of electronic facilities which permits each candidate to see and hear the other. Good evening, Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Good evening, Mr. Shadel.MR. SHADEL: And good evening to you, Vice President Nixon.MR. NIXON: Good evening, Mr. Shadel.MR. SHADEL: And now to meet the panel of correspondents. Frank McGee, NBC News; Charles Van Fremd, CBS News; Douglass Cater, Reporter magazine; Roscoe Drummond, New York Herald Tribune. Now, as you’ve probably noted, the four reporters include a newspaper man and a magazine reporter; these two selected by lot by the press secretaries of the candidates from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. The broadcasting representatives were chosen by their companies. The rules for this evening have been agreed upon by the representatives of both candidates and the radio and television networks and I should like to read them. There will be no opening statements by the candidates nor any closing summation. The entire hour will be devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate to be questioned in turn with opportunity for comment by the other. Each answer will be limited to two and one-half minutes, each comment to one and a half minutes. The reporters are free to ask any question they choose on any subject. Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked. Time alone will dete- determine who will be asked the final question. Now the first question is from Mr. McGee and is for Senator Kennedy.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy, yesterday you used the words “trigger-happy” in referring to Vice President Richard Nixon’s stand on defending the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Last week on a program like this one, you said the next president would come face to face with a serious crisis in Berlin. So the question is: would you take military action to defend Berlin?MR. KENNEDY: Mr. McGee, we have a contractual right to be in Berlin coming out of the conversations at Potsdam and of World War II. That has been reinforced by direct commitments of the president of the United States; it’s been reinforced by a number of other nations under NATO. I’ve stated on many occasions that the United States must meet its commitment on Berlin. It is a commitment that we have to meet if we’re going to protect the security of Western Europe. And therefore on this question I don’t think that there is any doubt in the mind of any American; I hope there is not any doubt in the mind of any member of the community of West Berlin; I’m sure there isn’t any doubt in the mind of the Russians. We will meet our commitments to maintain the freedom and independence of West Berlin.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President, do you wish to comment?MR. NIXON: Yes. As a matter of fact, the statement that Senator Kennedy made was that – to the effect that there were trigger-happy Republicans, that my stand on Quemoy and Matsu was an indication of trigger-happy Republicans. I resent that comment. I resent it because th- it’s an implication that Republicans have been trigger-happy and, therefore, would lead this nation into war. I would remind Senator Kennedy of the past fifty years. I would ask him to name one Republican president who led this nation into war. There were three Democratic presidents who led us into war. I do not mean by that that one party is a war party and the other party is a peace party. But I do say that any statement to the effect that the Republican party is trigger-happy is belied by the record. We had a war when we came into power in 1953. We got rid of that; we’ve kept out of other wars; and certainly that doesn’t indicate that we’re trigger-happy. We’ve been strong, but we haven’t been trigger-happy. As far as Berlin is concerned, there isn’t any question about the necessity of defending Berlin; the rights of people there to be free; and there isn’t any question about what the united American people – Republicans and Democrats alike – would do in the event there were an attempt by the Communists to take over Berlin.MR. SHADEL: The next question is by Mr. Von Fremd for Vice President Nixon.MR. VON FREMD: Mr. Vice President, a two-part question concerning the offshore islands in the Formosa Straits. If you were president and the Chinese Communists tomorrow began an invasion of Quemoy and Matsu, would you launch the uh – United States into a war by sending the Seventh Fleet and other military forces to resist this aggression; and secondly, if the uh – regular conventional forces failed to halt such uh – such an invasion, would you authorize the use of nuclear weapons?MR. NIXON: Mr. Von Fremd, it would be completely irresponsible for a candidate for the presidency, or for a president himself, to indicate the course of action and the weapons he would use in the event of such an attack. I will say this: in the event that such an attack occurred and in the event the attack was a prelude to an attack on Formosa – which would be the indication today because the Chinese Communists say over and over again that their objective is not the offshore islands, that they consider them only steppingstones to taking Formosa – in the event that their attack then were a prelude to an attack on Formosa, there isn’t any question but that the United States would then again, as in the case of Berlin, honor our treaty obligations and stand by our ally of Formosa. But to indicate in advance how we would respond, to indicate the nature of this response would be incorrect; it would certainly be inappropriate; it would not be in the best interests of the United States. I will only say this, however, in addition: to do what Senator Kennedy has suggested – to suggest that we will surrender these islands or force our Chinese Nationalist allies to surrender them in advance – is not something that would lead to peace; it is something that would lead, in my opinion, to war. This is the history of dealing with dictators. This is something that Senator Kennedy and all Americans must know. We tried this with Hitler. It didn’t work. He wanted first uh – we know, Austria, and then he went on to the Sudetenland and then Danzig, and each time it was thought this is all that he wanted. Now what do the Chinese Communists want? They don’t want just Quemoy and Matsu; they don’t want just Formosa; they want the world. And the question is if you surrender or indicate in advance that you’re not going to defend any part of the free world, and you figure that’s going to satisfy them, it doesn’t satisfy them. It only whets their appetite; and then the question comes, when do you stop them? I’ve often heard President Eisenhower in discussing this question, make the statement that if we once start the process of indicating that this point or that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world, where do we stop them? And I say that those of us who stand against surrender of territory – this or any others – in the face of blackmail, in the s- face of force by the Communists are standing for the course that will lead to peace.MR. SHADEL: Senator Kennedy, do you wish to comment?MR. KENNEDY: Yes. The whole th- the United States now has a treaty – which I voted for in the United States Senate in 1955 – to defend Formosa and the Pescadores Island. The islands which Mr. Nixon is discussing are five or four miles, respectively, off the coast of China. Now when Senator Green, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to the President, he received back on the second of October, 1958 – “neither you nor any other American need feel the U.S. will be involved in military hostilities merely in the defense of Quemoy and Matsu.” Now, that is the issue. I believe we must meet our commitment to uh – Formosa. I support it and the Pescadores Island. That is the present American position. The treaty does not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggests uh – that the United States should go to war if these two islands are attacked. I suggest that if Formosa is attacked or the Pescadores, or if there’s any military action in any area which indicates an attack on Formosa and the Pescadores, then of course the United States is at war to defend its treaty. Now, I must say what Mr. Nixon wants to do is commit us – as I understand him, so that we can be clear if there’s a disagreement – he wants us to be committed to the defense of these islands merely as the defense of these islands as free territory, not as part of the defense of Formosa. Admiral Yarnell, the commander of the Asiatic fleet, has said that these islands are not worth the bones of a single American. The President of the United States has indicated they are not within the treaty area. They were not within the treaty area when the treaty was passed in fifty-five. We have attempted to persuade Chiang Kai-shek as late as January of 1959 to reduce the number of troops he has on them. This is a serious issue, and I think we ought to understand completely if we disagree, and if so, where.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Cater has the next question for Senator Kennedy.MR. CATER: Senator Kennedy, last week you said that before we should hold another summit conference, that it was important that the United States build its strength. Modern weapons take quite a long time to build. What sort of prolonged period do you envisage before there can be a summit conference? And do you think that there can be any new initiatives on the grounds of nuclear disarmament uh – nuclear control or weapons control d- uh – during this period?MR. KENNEDY: Well I think we should st- strengthen our conventional forces, and we should attempt in January, February, and March of next year to increase the airlift capacity of our conventional forces. Then I believe that we should move full time on our missile production, particularly on Minuteman and on Polaris. It may be a long period, but we must – we must get started immediately. Now on the question of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, I must say that I feel that another effort should be made by a new Administration in January of 1961, to renew negotiations with the Soviet Union and see whether it’s possible to come to some conclusion which will lessen the chances of contamination of the atmosphere, and also lessen the chances that other powers will begin to possess a nuclear capacity. There are indications, because of new inventions, that ten, fifteen, or twenty nations will have a nuclear capacity – including Red China – by the end of the presidential office in 1964. This is extremely serious. There have been many wars in the history of mankind. And to take a chance uh – now be – and not make every effort that we could make to provide for some control over these weapons, I think would be a great mistake. One of my disagreements with the present Administration has been that I don’t feel a real effort has been made an this very sensitive subject, not only of nuclear controls, but also of general disarmament. Less than a hundred people have been working throughout the entire federal government on this subject, and I believe it’s been reflected in our success and failures at Geneva. Now, we may not succeed. The Soviet Union may not agree to an inspection system. We may be able to get satisfactory assurances. It may be necessary for us to begin testing again. But I hope the next Administration – and if I have anything to do with it, the next Administration will – make one last great effort to provide for control of nuclear testing, control of nuclear weapons, if possible, control of outer space, free from weapons, and also to begin again the subject of general disarmament levels. These must be done. If we cannot succeed, then we must strengthen ourselves. But I would make the effort because I think the fate not only of our own civilization, but I think the fate of world and the future of the human race is involved in preventing a nuclear war.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President, your comment?MR. NIXON: Yes. I am going to make a major speech on this whole subject next week before the next debate, and I will have an opportunity then to answer any other questions that may arise with regard to my position on it. There isn’t any question but that we must move forward in every possible way to reduce the danger of war; to move toward controlled disarmament; to control tests; but also let’s have in mind this: when Senator Kennedy suggests that we haven’t been making an effort, he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It isn’t a question of the number of people who are working in an Administration. It’s a question of who they are. This has been one of the highest level operations in the whole State Department right under the President himself. We have gone certainly the extra mile and then some in making offers to the Soviet Union on control of tests, on disarmament, and in every other way. And I just want to make one thing very clear. Yes, we should make a great effort. But under no circumstances must the United States ever make an agreement based on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee. Now, just a comment on Senator Kennedy’s last answer. He forgets that in this same debate on the Formosa resolution, which he said he voted for – which he did – that he voted against an amendment, or was recorded against an amendment – and on this particular – or for an amendment, I should say – which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, seventy to twelve. And that amendment put the Senate of the United States on record with a majority of the Senator’s own party voting for it, as well as the majority of Republicans – put them on record – against the very position that the Senator takes now of surrendering, of indicating in advance, that the United States will not defend the offshore islands.MR. SHADEL: The next question is by Mr. Drummond for Vice President Nixon.MR. DRUMMOND: Mr. Nixon, I would like to ask eh – one more aspect or raise another aspect of this same question. Uh – it is my understanding that President Eisenhower never advocated that Quemoy and Matsu should be defended under all circumstances as a matter of principle. I heard Secretary Dulles at a press conference in fifty-eight say that he thought that it was a mistake for Chiang Kai-shek to deploy troops to these islands. I would like to ask what has led you to take what appears to be a different position on this subject.MR. NIXON: Well Mr. Drummond, first of all, referring to Secretary Dulles’ press conference, I think if you read it all – and I know that you have – you will find that Secretary Dulles also indicated in that press conference that when the troops were withdrawn from Quemoy, that the implication was certainly of everything that he said, that Quemoy could better be defended. There were too many infantrymen there, not enough heavy artillery; and certainly I don’t think there was any implication in Secretary Dulles’ statement that Quemoy and Matsu should not be defended in the event that they were attacked, and that attack was a preliminary to an attack on Formosa. Now as far as President Eisenhower is concerned, I have often heard him discuss this question. As I uh – related a moment ago, the President has always indicated that we must not make the mistake in dealing with the dictator of indicating that we are going to make a concession at the point of a gun. Whenever you do that, inevitably the dictator is encouraged to try it again. So first it will be Quemoy and Matsu, next it may be Formosa. What do we do then? My point is this: that once you do this – follow this course of action – of indicating that you are not going to defend a particular area, the inevitable result is that it encourages a man who is determined to conquer the world to press you to the point of no return. And that means war. We went through this tragic experience leading to World War II. We learned our lesson again in Korea, We must not learn it again. That is why I think the Senate was right, including a majority of the Democrats, a majority of the Republicans, when they rejected Senator Kennedy’s position in 1955. And incidentally, Senator Johnson was among those who rejected that position – voted with the seventy against the twelve. The Senate was right because they knew the lesson of history. And may I say, too, that I would trust that Senator Kennedy would change his position on this – change it; because as long as he as a major presidential candidate continues to suggest that we are going to turn over these islands, he is only encouraging the aggressors – the Chinese Communist and the Soviet aggressors – to press the United States, to press us to the point where war would be inevitable. The road to war is always paved with good intentions. And in this instance the good intentions, of course, are a desire for peace. But certainly we’re not going to have peace by giving in and indicating in advance that we are not going to defend what has become a symbol of freedom.MR. SHADEL: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: I don’t think it’s possible for Mr. Nixon to state the record in distortion of the facts with more precision than he just did. In 1955, Mr. Dulles at a press conference said: “The treaty that we have with the Republic of China excludes Quemoy and Matsu from the treaty area.” That was done with much thought and deliberation. Therefore that treaty does not commit the United States to defend anything except Formosa and the Pescadores, and to deal with acts against that treaty area. I completely sustained the treaty. I voted for it. I would take any action necessary to defend the treaty, Formosa, and the Pescadores Island. What we’re now talking about is the Vice President’s determination to guarantee Quemoy and Matsu, which are four and five miles off the coast of Red China, which are not within the treaty area. I do not suggest that Chiang Kai-shek – and this Administration has been attempting since 1955 to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to lessen his troop commitments. Uh – He sent a mission – the President – in 1955 of Mr. uh – Robertson and Admiral Radford. General Twining said they were still doing it in 1959. General Ridgway said – who was Chief of Staff: “To go to war for Quemoy and Matsu to me would seem an unwarranted and tragic course to take. To me that concept is completely repugnant.” So I stand with them. I stand with the Secretary of State, Mr. Herter, who said these islands were indefensible. I believe that we should meet our commitments, and if the Chinese Communists attack the Pescadores and Formosa, they know that it will mean a war. I would not ho- hand over these islands under any point of gun. But I merely say that the treaty is quite precise and I sustain the treaty. Mr. Nixon would add a guarantee to islands five miles off the coast of the re- Republic of China when he’s never really protested the Communists seizing Cuba, ninety miles off the coast of the United States.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Von Fremd has a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. VON FREMD: Senator Kennedy, I’d like to uh – shift the conversation, if I may, to a domestic uh – political argument. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senator Thruston Morton, declared earlier this week that you owed Vice President Nixon and the Republican party a public apology for some strong charges made by former President Harry Truman, who bluntly suggested where the Vice President and the Republican party could go. Do you feel that you owe the Vice President an apology?MR. KENNEDY: Well, I must say that uh – Mr. Truman has uh – his methods of expressing things; he’s been in politics for fifty years; he’s been president of the United States. They may – are not my style. But I really don’t think there’s anything that I could say to President Truman that’s going to cause him, at the age of seventy-six, to change his particular speaking manner. Perhaps Mrs. Truman can, but I don’t think I can. I’ll just have to tell Mr. Morton that. If you’d pass that message on to him.MR. SHADEL: Any comment, Mr. Vice President?MR. NIXON: Yes, I think so. Of course, both er – Senator Kennedy and I have felt Mr. Truman’s ire; and uh – consequently, I think he can speak with some feeling on this subject. I just do want to say one thing, however. We all have tempers; I have one; I’m sure Senator Kennedy has one. But when a man’s president of the United States, or a former president, he has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. One thing I’ve noted as I’ve traveled around the country are the tremendous number of children who come out to see the presidential candidates. I see mothers holding their babies up, so that they can see a man who might be president of the United States. I know Senator Kennedy sees them, too. It makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man that all the children of America will either look up to, or will look down to. And I can only say that I’m very proud that President Eisenhower restored dignity and decency and, frankly, good language to the conduct of the presidency of the United States. And I only hope that, should I win this election, that I could approach President Eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office; in seeing to it that whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look at the man in the White House and, whatever he may think of his policies, he will say: “Well, there is a man who maintains the kind of standards personally that I would want my child to follow.”MR. SHADEL: Mr. Cater’s question is for Vice President Nixon.MR. CATER: Mr. Vice President, I’d like to return just once more, if I may, to this area of dealing with the Communists. Critics have claimed that on at least three occasions in recent years – on the sending of American troops to Indochina in 1954, on the matter of continuing the U-2 flights uh – in May, and then on this definition of the – of our commitment to the offshore island – that you have overstated the Administration position, that you have taken a more bellicose position than President Eisenhower. Just two days ago you said that you called on uh – Senator Kennedy to serve notice to Communist aggressors around the world that we’re not going to retreat one inch more any place, where as we did retreat from the Tachen Islands, or at least Chiang Kai-shek did. Would you say this was a valid criticism of your statement of foreign policy?MR. NIXON: Well, Mr. Cater, of course it’s a criticism that uh – is being made. Uh – I obviously don’t think it’s valid. I have supported the Administration’s position and I think that that position has been correct; I think my position has been correct. As far as Indochina was concerned, I stated over and over again that it was essential during that period that the United States make it clear that we would not tolerate Indochina falling under Communist domination. Now, as a result of our taking the strong stand that we did, the civil war there was ended; and today, at least in the south of Indochina, the Communists have moved out and we do have a strong, free bastion there. Now, looking to the U-2 flights, I would like to point out that I have been supporting the President’s position throughout. I think the President was correct in ordering these flights. I think the President was correct, certainly, in his decision to continue the flights while the conference was going on. I noted, for example, in reading a – uh – a – a particular discussion that Senator Kennedy had with Dave Garroway shortly after the uh – his statement about regrets, that uh – he made the statement that he felt that these particular flights uh – were ones that shouldn’t have occurred right at that time, and the indication was how would Mr. Khrushchev had felt if we had uh – had a flight over the uni- how would we have felt if Mr. Khrushchev ha – uh – had a flight over the United States while uh – he was visiting here. And the answer, of course, is that Communist espionage goes on all the time. The answer is that the United States can’t afford to have a es- an es – a espionage lack or should we s- uh – lag – or should I say uh – an intelligence lag – any more than we can afford to have a missile lag. Now, referring to your question with regard to Quemoy and Matsu. What I object to here is the constant reference to surrendering these islands. Senator Kennedy quotes the record, which he read from a moment ago, but what he forgets to point out is that the key vote – a uh – vote which I’ve referred to several times – where he was in the minority was one which rejected his position. Now, why did they reject it? For the very reason that those Senators knew, as the President of the United States knew, that you should not indicate to the Communists in advance that you’re going to surrender an area that’s free. Why? Because they know as Senator Kennedy will have to know that if you do that you encourage them to more aggression.MR. SHADEL: Senator Kennedy?MR. KENNEDY: Well number one on Indochina, Mr. Nixon talked in – before the newspaper editors in the spring of 1954 about putting, and I quote him, “American boys into Indochina.” The reason Indochina was preserved was the result of the Geneva Conference which Indochina. Number two, on the question of the U-2 flights. I thought the. U-2 flight in May just before the conference was a mistake in timing because of the hazards involved, if the summit conference had any hope for success. I never criticized the U-2 flights in general, however. I never suggested espionage should stop. It still goes on, I would assume, on both sides. Number three, the Vice President – on May fifteenth after the U-2 flight – indicated that the flights were going on, even though the Administration and the President had canceled the flights on May twelfth. Number three, the pre – Vice President suggests that we should keep the Communists in doubt about whether we would fight on Quemoy and Matsu. That’s not the position he’s taking. He’s indicating that we should fight for these islands come what may because they are, in his words, in the area of freedom. He didn’t take that position on Tibet. He didn’t take that position on Budapest. He doesn’t take that position that I’ve seen so far in Laos. Guinea and Ghana have both moved within the Soviet sphere of influence in foreign policy; so has Cuba. I merely say that the United States should meet its commitments to Que- to uh – Formosa and the Pescadores. But as Admiral Yarnell has said, and he’s been supported by most military authority, these islands that we’re now talking about are not worth the bones of a single American soldier; and I know how difficult it is to sustain troops close to the shore under artillery bombardment. And therefore, I think, we should make it very clear the disagreement between Mr. Nixon and myself. He’s extending the Administration’s commitment.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Drummond’s question is for Senator Kennedy.MR. DRUMMOND: Uh – Mr. Kennedy, Representative Adam Clayton Powell, in the course of his speaking tour in your behalf, is saying, and I quote: “The Ku Klux Klan is riding again in this campaign. If it doesn’t stop, all bigots will vote for Nixon and all right-thinking Christians and Jews will vote for Kennedy rather than be found in the ranks of the Klan-minded.” End quotation. Governor Michael DiSalle is saying much the same thing. What I would like to ask, Senator Kennedy, is what is the purpose of this sort of thing and how do you feel about it?MR. KENNEDY: Well the que- the – Mr. Griffin, I believe, who is the head of the Klan, who lives in Tampa, Florida, indicated a – in a statement, I think, two or three weeks ago that he was not going to vote for me, and that he was going to vote for Mr. Nixon. I do not suggest in any way, nor have I ever, that that indicates that Mr. Nixon has the slightest sympathy, involvement, or in any way imply any inferences in regard to the Ku Klux Klan. That’s absurd. I don’t suggest that, I don’t support it. I would disagree with it. Mr. Nixon knows very well that in this – in this whole matter that’s been involved with the so-called religious discussion in this campaign, I’ve never suggested, even by the vaguest implication, that he did anything but disapprove it. And that’s my view now. I disapprove of the issue. I do not suggest that Mr. Nixon does in any way.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Well I welcome this opportunity to join Senator Kennedy completely on that statement and to say before this largest television audience in history something that I have been saying in the past and want to – will always say in the future. On our last television debate, I pointed out that it was my position that Americans must choose the best man that either party could produce. We can’t settle for anything but the best. And that means, of course, the best man that this nation can produce. And that means that we can’t have any test of religion. We can’t have any test of race. It must be a test of a man. Also as far as religion is concerned. I have seen Communism abroad. I see what it does. Communism is the enemy of all religions; and we who do believe in God must join together. We must not be divided on this issue. The worst thing that I can think can happen in this campaign would be for it to be decided on religious issues. I obviously repudiate the Klan; I repudiate anybody who uses the religious issue; I will not tolerate it, I have ordered all of my people to have nothing to do with it and I say – say to this great audience, whoever may be listening, remember, if you believe in America, if you want America to set the right example to the world, that we cannot have religious or racial prejudice. We cannot have it in our hearts. But we certainly cannot have it in a presidential campaign.MR. SHADEL: Mr. McGee has a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President, some of your early campaign literature said you were making a study to see if new laws were needed to protect the public against excessive use of power by labor unions. Have you decided whether such new laws are needed, and, if so, what would they do?MR. NIXON: Mr. McGee, I am planning a speech on that subject next week. Uh – Also, so that we can get the uh – opportunity for the questioners to question me, it will be before the next television debate. Uh – I will say simply, in advance of it, that I believe that in this area, the laws which should be passed uh – as far as the big national emergency strikes are concerned, are ones that will give the president more weapons with which to deal with those strikes. Now, I have a basic disagreement with Senator Kennedy, though, on this point. He has taken the position, when he first indicated in October of last year, that he would even favor compulsory arbitration as one of the weapons the president might have to stop a national emergency strike. I understand in his last speech before the Steelworkers Union, that he changed that position and indicated that he felt that government seizure might be the best way to stop a strike which could not be settled by collective bargaining. I do not believe we should have either compulsory arbitration or seizure. I think the moment that you give to the union, on the one side, and to management, on the other side, the escape hatch of eventually going to government to get it settled, that most of these great strikes will end up being settled by government, and that will be a – be in the end, in my opinion, wage control; it would mean price control – all the things that we do not want. I do believe, however, that we can give to the president of the United States powers, in addition to what he presently has in the fact finding area, which would enable him to be more effective than we have been in handling these strikes. One last point I should make. The record in handling them has been very good during this Administration. We have had less man-hours lost by strikes in these last seven years than we had in the previous seven years, by a great deal. And I only want to say that however good the record is, it’s got to be better. Because in this critical year – period of the sixties we’ve got to move forward, all Americans must move forward together, and we have to get the greatest cooperation possible between labor and management. We cannot afford stoppages of massive effect on the economy when we’re in the terrible competition we’re in with the Soviets.MR. SHADEL: Senator, your comment.MR. KENNEDY: Well, I always have difficulty recognizing my positions when they’re stated by the Vice President. I never suggested that compulsory arbitration was the solution for national emergency disputes. I’m opposed to that, was opposed to it in October, 1958. I have suggested that the president should be given other weapons to protect the national interest in case of national emergency strikes beyond the injunction provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. I don’t know what other weapons the Vice President is talking about. I’m talking about giving him four or five tools – not only the fact-finding committee that he now has under the injunction provision, not only the injunction, but also the power of the fact-finding commission to make recommendations – recommendations which would not be binding, but nevertheless would have great force of public opinion behind them. One of the additional powers that I would suggest would be seizure. There might be others. By the president having five powers – four or five powers – and he only has very limited powers today, neither the company nor the union would be sure which power would be used; and therefore, there would be a greater incentive on both sides to reach an agreement themselves without taking it to the government. The difficulty now is the president’s course is quite limited. He can set up a fact-finding committee. The fact-finding committee’s powers are limited. He can provide an injunction if there’s a national emergency for eighty days, then the strike can go on; and there are no other powers or actions that the president could take unless he went to the Congress. This is a difficult and sensitive matter. But to state my view precisely, the president should have a variety of things he could do. He could leave the parties in doubt as to which one he would use; and therefore there would be incentive, instead of as now – the steel companies were ready to take the strike because they felt the injunction of eighty days would break the union, which didn’t happen.MR. SHADEL: The next question is by Mr. Cater for Senator Kennedy.MR. CATER: Uh – Mr. Kennedy, uh – Senator – uh – Vice President Nixon says that he has costed the two party platforms and that yours would run at least ten billion dollars a year more than his. You have denied his figures. He has called on you to supply your figures. Would you do that?MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I have stated in both uh – debates and state again that I believe in a balanced budget and have supported that concept during my fourteen years in the Congress. The only two times when an unbalanced budget is warranted would be during a serious recession – and we had that in fifty-eight in an unbalanced budget of twelve billion dollars – or a national emergency where there should be large expenditures for national defense, which we had in World War II and uh – during part of the Korean War. On the question of the cost of our budget, I have stated that it’s my best judgment that our agricultural program will cost a billion and a half, possibly two billion dollars less than the present agricultural program. My judgment is that the program the Vice President put forward, which is an extension of Mr. Benson’s program, will cost a billion dollars more than the present program, which costs about six billion dollars a year, the most expensive in history. We’ve spent more money on agriculture in the last eight years than the hundred years of the Agricultural Department before that. Secondly, I believe that the high interest-rate policy that this Administration has followed has added about three billion dollars a year to interest on the debt – merely funding the debt – which is a burden an the taxpayers. I would hope, under a different monetary policy, that it would be possible to reduce that interest-rate burden, at least a billion dollars. Third, I think it’s possible to gain a seven hundred million to a billion dollars through tax changes which I believe would close up loof- loopholes on dividend withholding, on expense accounts. Fourthly, I have suggested that the medical care for the aged – and the bill which the Congress now has passed and the President signed if fully implemented would cost a billion dollars on the Treasury – out of Treasury funds and a billion dollars by the states – the proposal that I have put forward and which many of the members of my party support is for medical care financed under Social Security; which would be financed under the Social Security taxes; which is less than three cents a day per person for medical care, doctors’ bills, nurses, hospitals, when they retire. It is actuarially sound. So in my judgment we would spend more money in this Administration on aid to education, we’d spend more money on housing, we’d spend more money and I hope more wisely on defense than this Administration has. But I believe that the next Administration should work for a balanced budget, and that would be my intention. Mr. Nixon misstates my figures constantly, which uh – is of course his right, but the fact of the matter is: here is where I stand and I just want to have it on the public record.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President?MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy has indicated on several occasions in this program tonight that I have been misstating his record and his figures. I will issue a white paper after this broadcast, quoting exactly what he said on compulsory arbitration, for example, and the record will show that I have been correct. Now as far as his figures are concerned here tonight, he again is engaging in this, what I would call, mirror game of “here-it-is-and-here-it-isn’t.” Uh – On the one hand, for example, he suggests that as far as his medical care program is concerned that that really isn’t a problem because it’s from Social Security. But Social Security is a tax. The people pay it. It comes right out of your paycheck. This doesn’t mean that the people aren’t going to be paying the bill. He also indicates as far as his agricultural program is concerned that he feels it will cost less than ours. Well, all that I can suggest is that all the experts who have studied the program indicate that it is the most fantastic program, the worst program, insofar as its effect on the farmers, that the – America has ever had foisted upon it in an election year or any other time. And I would also point out that Senator Kennedy left out a part of the cost of that program – a twenty-five percent rise in food prices that the people would have to pay. Now are we going to have that when it isn’t going to help the farmers? I don’t think we should have that kind of a program. Then he goes on to say that he’s going to change the interest-rate situation and we’re going to get some more money that way. Well, what he is saying there in effect, we’re going to have inflation. We’re going to go right back to what we had under Mr. Truman when he had political control of the Federal Reserve Board. I don’t believe we ought to pay our bills through inflation, through a phony interest rate.MR. SHADEL: Next, Mr. Drummond’s question for Vice President Nixon.MR. DRUMMOND: Uh – Mr. Nixon uh – before the convention you and Governor Rockefeller said jointly that the nation’s economic growth ought to be accelerated; and the Republican platform states that uh – the nation needs to quicken the pace of economic growth. Uh – Is it fair, therefore, Mr. Vice President, to conclude that you feel that there has been insufficient economic growth during the past eight years; and if so, what would you do beyond uh – present Administration policies uh – to step it up?MR. NIXON: Mr. Drummond, I am never satisfied with the economic growth of this country. I’m not satisfied with it even if there were no Communism in the world, but particularly when we’re in the kind of a race we’re in, we have got to see that America grows just as fast as we can, provided we grow soundly. Because even though we have maintained, as I pointed out in our first debate, the absolute gap over the Soviet Union; even though the growth in this Administration has been twice as much as it was in the Truman Administration; that isn’t good enough. Because America must be able to grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home for better education and housing and health – all these things we want. We’ve got to grow enough to maintain the forces that we have abroad and to wage the non-military battle for the war – uh – for the world in Asia, in Africa and Latin America. It’s going to cost more money, and growth will help us to win that battle. Now, what do we do about it? And here I believe basically that what we have to do is to stimulate that sector of America, the private enterprise sector of the economy, in which there is the greatest possibility for expansion. So that is why I advocate a program of tax reform which will stimulate more investment in our economy. In addition to that, we have to move on other areas that are holding back growth. I refer, for example, to distressed areas. We have to move into those areas with programs so that we make adequate use of the resources of those areas. We also have to see that all of the people of the United States – the tremendous talents that our people have – are used adequately. That’s why in this whole area of civil rights, the equality of opportunity for employment and education is not just for the benefit of the minority groups, it’s for the benefit of the nation so that we can get the scientists and the engineers and all the rest that we need. And in addition to that, we need programs, particularly in higher education, which will stimulate scientific breakthroughs which will bring more growth. Now what all this, of course, adds up to is this: America has not been standing still. Let’s get that straight. Anybody who says America’s been standing still for the last seven and a half years hasn’t been traveling around America. He’s been traveling in some other country. We have been moving. We have been moving much faster than we did in the Truman years. But we can and must move faster, and that’s why I stand so strongly for programs that will move America forward in the sixties, move her forward so that we can stay ahead of the Soviet Union and win the battle for freedom and peace.MR. SHADEL: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well first may I correct a statement which was made before, that under my agricultural program food prices would go up twenty-five percent. That’s untrue. The fa- the farmer who grows wheat gets about two and a half cents out of a twenty-five-cent loaf of bread. Even if you put his income up ten percent, that would be two and three-quarters percent three pers- or three cents out of that twenty-five cents. The t- man who grows tomatoes – it costs less for those tomatoes than it does for the label on the can. And I believe when the average hour for many farmers’ wage is about fifty cents an hour, he should do better. But anybody who suggests that that program would c- come to any figure indicated by the Vice President is in error. The Vice President suggested a number of things. He suggested that we aid distressed areas. The Administration has vetoed that bill passed by the Congress twice. He suggested we pass an aid to education bill. But the Administration and the Republican majority in the Congress has opposed any realistic aid to education. And the Vice President cast the deciding vote against federal aid for teachers’ salaries in the Senate, which prevented that being added. This Administration and this country last year had the lowest rate of economic growth – which means jobs – of any major industrialized society in the world in 1959. And when we have to find twenty-five thousand new jobs a week for the next ten years, we’re going to have to grow more. Governor Rockefeller says five per cent. The Democratic platform and others say five per cent. Many say four and a half per cent. The last eight years the average growth has been about two and a half per cent. That’s why we don’t have full employment today.MR. SHADEL: Mr. McGee has the next question for Senator Kennedy.MR. McGEE: Uh – Senator Kennedy, a moment ago you mentioned tax loopholes. Now your running mate, Senator Lyndon Johnson, is from Texas, an oil-producing state and one that many political leaders feel is in doubt in this election year. And reports from there say that oil men in Texas are seeking assurance from Senator Johnson that the oil depletion allowance will not be cut. The Democratic platform pledges to plug holes in the tax laws and refers to inequitable depletion allowance as being conspicuous loopholes. My question is, do you consider the twenty-seven and a half per cent depletion allowance inequitable, and would you ask that it be cut?MR. KENNEDY: Uh – Mr. McGee, there are about a hundred and four commodities that have some kind of depletion allowance – different kind of minerals, including oil. I believe all of those should be gone over in detail to make sure that no one is getting a tax break; to make sure that no one is getting away from paying the taxes he ought to pay. That includes oil; it includes all kinds of minerals; it includes everything within the range of taxation. We want to be sure it’s fair and equitable. It includes oil abroad. Perhaps that oil abroad should be treated differently than the oil here at home. Now the oil industry recently has had hard times. Particularly some of the smaller producers. They’re moving about eight or nine days in Texas. But I can assure you that if I’m elected president, the whole spectrum of taxes will be gone through carefully. And if there is any inequities in oil or any other commodity, then I would vote to close that loophole, I have voted in the past to reduce the depletion allowance for the largest producers; for those from five million dollars down, to maintain it at twenty-seven and a half per cent. I believe we should study this and other allowances; tax expense, dividend expenses and all the rest, and make a determination of how we can stimulate growth; how we can provide the revenues needed to move our country forward.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy’s position and mine completely different on this. I favor the present depletion allowance. I favor it not because I want to make a lot of oil men rich, but because I want to make America rich. Why do we have a depletion allowance? Because this is the stimulation, the incentive for companies to go out and explore for oil, to develop it. If we didn’t have a depletion allowance of certainly, I believe, the present amount, we would have our oil exploration cut substantially in this country. Now, as far as my position then is concerned, it is exactly opposite to the Senator’s. And it’s because of my belief that if America is going to have the growth that he talks about and that I talk about and that we want, the thing to do is not to discourage individual enterprise, not to discourage people to go out and discover more oil and minerals, but to encourage them. And so he would be doing exactly the wrong thing. One other thing. He suggests that there are a number of other items in this whole depletion field that could be taken into account. He also said a moment ago that we would get more money to finance his programs by revising the tax laws, including depletion. I should point out that as far as depletion allowances are concerned, the oil depletion allowance is one that provides eighty percent of all of those involved in depletion, so you’re not going to get much from revenue insofar as depletion allowances are concerned, unless you move in the area that he indicated. But I oppose it. I oppose it for the reasons that I mentioned. I oppose it because I want us to have more oil exploration and not less.MR. SHADEL: Gentlemen, if I may remind you, time is growing short, so please keep your questions and answers as brief as possible consistent with clarity. Mr. Von Fremd for Vice President Nixon.MR. VON FREMD: Mr. Vice President, in the past three years, there has been an exodus of more than four billion dollars of gold from the United States, apparently for two reasons: because exports have slumped and haven’t covered imports, and because of increased American investments abroad. If you were president, how would you go about stopping this departure of gold from our shores?MR. NIXON: Well, Mr. Von Fremd, the first thing we have to do is to continue to keep confidence abroad in the American dollar. That means that we must continue to have a balanced budget here at home in every possible circumstance that we can; because the moment that we have loss of confidence in our own fiscal policies at home, it results in gold flowing out. Secondly, we have to increase our exports, as compared with our imports. And here we have a very strong program going forward in the Department of Commerce. This one must be stepped up. Beyond that, as far as the gold supply is concerned, and as far as the movement of gold is concerned, uh – we have to bear in mind that we must get more help from our allies abroad in this great venture in which all free men are involved of winning the battle for freedom. Now America has been carrying a tremendous load in this respect. I think we have been right in carrying it. I have favored our programs abroad for economic assistance and for military assistance. But now we find that the countries of Europe for example, that we have aided, and Japan, that we’ve aided in the Far East; these countries – some our former enemies, have now recovered completely. They have got to bear a greater share of this load of economic assistance abroad. That’s why I am advocating, and will develop during the course of the next Administration – if, of course, I get the opportunity – a program in which we enlist more aid from these other countries on a concerted basis in the programs of economic development for Africa, Asia and Latin America. The United States cannot continue to carry the major share of this burden by itself. We can a big share of it, but we’ve got to have more help from our friends abroad; and these three factors, I think, will be very helpful in reversing the gold flow which you spoke about.MR. SHADEL: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Just to uh – correct the record, Mr. Nixon said on depletion that his record was the opposite of mine. What I said was that this matter should be thoroughly gone into to make sure that there aren’t loopholes. If his record is the opposite of that, that means that he doesn’t want to go into it. Now on the question of gold. The difficulty, of course, is that we do have heavy obligations abroad, that we therefore have to maintain not only a favorable balance of trade but also send a good deal of our dollars overseas to pay our troops, maintain our bases, and sustain other economies. In other words, if we’re going to continue to maintain our position in the sixties, we have to maintain a sound monetary and fiscal policy. We have to have control over inflation, and we also have to have a favorable balance of trade. We have to be able to compete in the world market. We have to be able to sell abroad more than we consume uh – from abroad if we’re going to be able to meet our obligations. In addition, many of the countries around the world still keep restrictions against our goads, going all the way back to the days when there was a dollar shortage. Now there isn’t a dollar shortage, and yet many of these countries continue to move against our goods. I believe that we must be able to compete in the market – steel and in all the basic commodities abroad – we must be able to compete against them because we always did because of our technological lead. We have to be sure to maintain that. We have to persuade these other countries not to restrict our goods coming in, not to act as if there was a dollar gap; and third, we have to persuade them to assume some of the responsibilities that up till now we’ve maintained, to assist underdeveloped countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia make an economic breakthrough on their own.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Drummond’s question now for Senator Kennedy.MR. DRUMMOND: Senator Kennedy, a question on American prestige. In light of the fact that the Soviet Ambassador was recently expelled from the Congo, and that Mr. Khrushchev has this week canceled his trip to Cuba for fear of stirring resentment throughout all Latin America, I would like to ask you to spell out somewhat more fully how you think we should measure American prestige, to determine whether it is rising or whether it is falling.MR. KENNEDY: Well, I think there are many uh – tests, Mr. Drummond, of prestige. And the significance of prestige, really, is because we’re so identified with the cause of freedom. Therefore, if we are on the mount, if we are rising, if our influence is spreading, if our prestige is spreading, then those uh – who stand now on the razor edge of decision between us or between the Communist system, wondering whether they should use the system of freedom to develop their countries or the system of Communism, they’ll be persuaded to follow our example. There have been several indications that our prestige is not as high as it once was. Mr. George Allen, the head of our information service, said that a result of our being second in space, in the sputnik in 1957, and I quote him, I believe I paraphrase him accurately. He said that many of these countries equate space developments with scientific productivity and scientific advancement. And therefore, he said, many of these countries now feel that the Soviet Union, which was once so backward, is now on a par with the United States. Secondly, the economic growth of the Soviet Union is greater than ours. Mr. Dulles has suggested it’s from two to three times as great as ours. This has a great effect on the s- underdeveloped world, which faces problems of low income and high population density and inadequate resources. Three, a Gallup Poll taken in February asked people in ten countries which country they thought would be first in 1970, both scientifically and militarily. And a majority in every country except Greece, felt that it would be the Soviet Union by l970. Four, in the votes at the U.N., particularly the vote dealing with Red China last Saturday, we received the support on the position that we had taken of only two African countries – one, Liberia, which had been tied to us for more than a century, and the other, Union of South Africa, which is not a popular country in Africa. Every other ca- African country either abstained or voted against us. A – More countries voted against us in Asia on this issue than voted with us. On the neutralists’ resolution, which we were so much opposed to, the same thing happened. The candidate who was a candidate for the president of Brazil, took a trip to Cuba to call on Mr. Castro during the election in order to get the benefit of the Castro supporters uh – within Brazil. There are many indications. Guinea and Ghana, two independent countries within the last three years – Guinea in fifty-seven, Ghana within the last eighteen months – both now are supporting the Soviet foreign policy at the U.N. Mr. Herter said so himself. Laos is moving in that direction. So I would say our prestige is not so high. No longer do we give the image of being on the rise. No longer do we give an image of vitality.MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Well, I would say first of all that Senator’s – Kennedy’s statement that he’s just made is not going to help our Gallup Polls abroad and it isn’t going to help our prestige either. Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Let’s look at the vote on the Congo, the vote was seventy to nothing against the Soviet Union. Let’s look at the situation with regard to economic growth as it really is. We find that the Soviet Union is a very primitive economy. Its growth rate is not what counts; it’s whether it is catching up with us and it is not catching up with us. We’re well ahead and we can stay ahead, provided we have confidence in America and don’t run her down in order to build her up. We could look also at other items which Senator Kennedy has named, but I will only conclude by saying this: in this whole matter of prestige, in the final analysis, its whether you stand for what’s right. And getting back to this matter that we discussed at the outset, the matter of Quemoy and Matsu. I can think of nothing that will be a greater blow to the prestige of the United States among the free nations in Asia than for us to take Senator Kennedy’s advan- advice to go – go against what a majority of the members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, did – said in 1955, and to say in advance we will surrender an area to the Communists. In other words, if the United States is going to maintain its strength and its prestige, we must not only be strong militarily and economically, we must be firm diplomatically. Thi- Certainly we have been speaking, I know, of whether we should have retreat or defeat. Let’s remember the way to win is not to retreat and not to surrender.MR. SHADEL: Thank you gentlemen. As we mentioned at the opening of this program, the candidates agreed that the clock alone would determine who had the last word. The two candidates wish to thank the networks for the opportunity to appear for this discussion. I would repeat the ground rules likewise agreed upon by representatives of the two candidates and the radio and television networks. The entire hour was devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate was questioned in turn and each had the opportunity to comment on the answer of his opponent. The reporters were free to ask any question on any subject. Neither candidate was given any advance information on any question that would be asked. Those were the conditions agreed upon for this third meeting of the candidates tonight. Now I might add that also agreed upon was the fact that when the hour got down to the last few minutes, if there was not sufficient time left for another question and suitable time for answers and comment, the questioning would end at that point. That is the situation at this moment. And after reviewing the rules for this evening I might use the remaining moments of the hour to tell you something about the other arrangements for this debate with the participants a continent apart. I would emphasize first that each candidate was in a studio alone except for three photographers and three reporters of the press and the television technicians. Those studios identical in every detail of lighting, background, physical equipment, even to the paint used in decorating. We newsmen in a third studio have also experienced a somewhat similar isolation. Now, I would remind you the fourth in the series of these historic joint appearances, scheduled for Friday, October twenty-first. At that time the candidates will again share the same platform to discuss foreign policy. This is Bill Shadel. Goodnight.",
    "id": "b892bd19-0a26-4979-b46e-023a085d70d3"
  },
  {
    "year": 1984,
    "date": "October 21, 1984",
    "title": "The Second Reagan-Mondale Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 21, 1984 Debate TranscriptOctober 21, 1984The Second Reagan-Mondale Presidential DebateMS. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of this final Presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale.Our panelists for tonight’s debate on defense and foreign policy issues are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate; Marvin Kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for NBC News; Morton Kondracke, executive editor of the New Republic magazine; and Henry Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Edwin Newman, formerly of NBC News and now a syndicated columnist for King Features, is our moderator.Ed.MR. NEWMAN: Dorothy Ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to Mr. Mondale. He’ll have 2\\1/2\\ minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to 1 minute. After that, the same question will be put to President Reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have 1 minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to President Reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be 4-minute summations, with President Reagan going last.We have asked the questioners to be brief. Let’s begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale.Central AmericaMS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the economic development and negotiations, with perhaps a quarantine of Marxist Nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all? Are not the solutions to Central America’s gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late?MR. MONDALE: I believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop Communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that we need a three-pronged attack: one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured; secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us; and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area.That’s one of the big disagreements that we have with the President — that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within El Salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve a peaceThis brings up the whole question of what Presidential leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in Nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals, and the rest — all of this has strengthened our opponents.A President must not only assure that we’re tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in Lebanon, where we spent a good deal of America’s assets. But because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger.The bottom line of national strength is that the President must be in command, he must lead. And when a President doesn’t know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 percent of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers 3 years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn’t know that most Soviet missiles were on land — these are things a President must know to command.A President is called the Commander in Chief. And he’s called that because he’s supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation.MS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, if I could broaden the question just a little bit: Since World War II, every conflict that we as Americans have been involved with has been in non-conventional or irregular terms. And yet, we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms.The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as China, as Lebanon, as Iran, as Cuba, in their early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time, or react to it in those terms?MR. MONDALE: We absolutely must, which is why I responded to your first question the way I did. It’s much more complex. You must understand the region; you must understand the politics in the area; you must provide a strong alternative; and you must show strength — and all at the same time.That’s why I object to the covert action in Nicaragua. That’s a classic example of a strategy that’s embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. We’ve seen in the Nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism?THE PRESIDENT: No, but I’m glad you asked that question, because I know it’s on many peoples’ minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know that the CIA is already going forward with one. We have a gentleman down in Nicaragua who is on contract to the CIA, advising — supposedly on military tactics — the contras. And he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the CIA in Nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to CIA, where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some way or other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the CIA.Now, those are the details as we have them. And as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. We’ll take the proper action at the proper time.I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and I thought for a moment that instead of a debate I was going to find Mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what we’re doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one we’ve been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America and working closely with the Contadora group.So, I can only tell you about the manual — that we’re not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. But if guilt is established, whoever is guilty we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed.MS. GEYER: Well, Mr. President, you are implying then that the CIA in Nicaragua is directing the contras there. I’d also like to ask whether having the CIA investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time?THE PRESIDENT: I’m afraid I misspoke when I said a CIA head in Nicaragua. There’s not someone there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, CIA men stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to, and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own Executive order, in December of 1981, that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: What is a President charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land. A President can’t know everything, but a President has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws.This manual — several thousands of which were produced — was distributed, ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals, and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen? How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a President of the United States in a situation like this say he didn’t know? A President must know these things. I don’t know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it.And what about the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua which violated international law? This has hurt this country, and a President’s supposed to command.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I have so many things there to respond to, I’m going to pick out something you said earlier. You’ve been all over the country repeating something that, I will admit, the press has also been repeating — that I believed that nuclear missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing.In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, I said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional-type weapons, not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles, and that they were also weapons that — or carriers — that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles.But I hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, I think is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So, thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. I’m sure that you appreciate that. [Laughter]MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan.Soviet UnionMR. KALB: Mr. President, you have often described the Soviet Union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination. But this year you have said, and I quote. “If they want to keep their Mickey Mouse system, that’s okay with me.” Which is it, Mr. President? Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente — or what goes for detente — or do you really want to roll back their empire?THE PRESIDENT: I have said on a number of occasions exactly what I believe about the Soviet Union. I retract nothing that I have said. I believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But I also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And I told Mr. Gromyko we don’t like their system. They don’t like ours. And we’re not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And I suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. And I think that perhaps we established a little better understanding.I think that in dealing with the Soviet Union one has to be realistic. I know that Mr. Mondale, in the past, has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmament. We canceled the B – 1 under the previous administration. What did we get for it? Nothing.The Soviet Union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own. And I’ve made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they’re not. And I made it plain to them, we’re not. There’s been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when I came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the Soviet Union. And we did get their attention.Regions Vital to U.S. InterestsMR. KALB: Mr. President, perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since World War II, the vital interests of the United States have always been defined by treaty commitments and by Presidential proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as NATO, for example, which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send American troops to fight there if they were in danger?THE PRESIDENT: Ah, well, now you’ve added a hypothetical there at the end, Mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the Middle East, and that is of interest to the whole Western World and the industrialized nations, because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in America are vital to us. We’re working right now in trying to be of help in southern Africa with regard to the independence of Namibia and the removal of the Cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from Angola.So, I can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the Pacific Basin. That is where I think the future of the world lies. But I am not going to pick out one and, in advance, hypothetically say, “Oh, yes, we would send troops there.” I don’t want to send troops any place.MR. NEWMAN: I’m sorry, Mr. President. Sir, your time was up.THE PRESIDENT: All right.Soviet UnionMR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, you have described the Soviet leaders as, and I’m quoting, “. . . cynical, ruthless, and dangerous,” suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. In that case, what makes you think that the annual summit meetings with them that you have proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country?MR. MONDALE: Because the only type of agreements to reach with the Soviet Union are the types that are specifically defined, so we know exactly what they must do; subject to full verification, which means we know every day whether they’re living up to it; and followups, wherever we find suggestions that they’re violating it; and the strongest possible terms.I have no illusions about the Soviet Union leadership or the nature of that state. They are a tough and a ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and I would. Where I part with the President is that despite all of those differences we must, as past Presidents before this one have done, meet on the common ground of survival. And that’s where the President has opposed practically every arms control agreement, by every President, of both political parties, since the bomb went off. And he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us.We must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways of reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of Soviet power.There will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the Soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of national strength. To do that, a President must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength.And that’s where the President’s failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. He’s 3 years into this administration. He said he just discovered that most Soviet missiles are on land, and that’s why his proposal didn’t work.I invite the American people tomorrow — because I will issue the statement quoting President Reagan — he said exactly what I said he said. He said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them, and you could recall them if you decided there’d been a miscalculation.MR. NEWMAN: I’m sorry, sir — —MR. MONDALE: A President must know those things.Eastern EuropeMR. KALB: A related question, Mr. Mondale, on Eastern Europe. Do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that Eastern Europe is a Soviet sphere of influence? And if you do, what could a Mondale administration realistically do to help the people of Eastern Europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the Helsinki accords?MR. MONDALE: I think the essential strategy of the United States ought not accept any Soviet control over Eastern Europe. We ought to deal with each of these countries separately. We ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away from their dependence upon the Soviet Union.Where the Soviet Union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially, recently, in Poland, I believe we ought to insist that Western credits extended to the Soviet Union bear the market rate. Make the Soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective — to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I’m not going to continue trying to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have already been stated here. But with regard to whether Mr. Mondale would be strong, as he said he would be, I know that he has a commercial out where he’s appearing on the deck of the Nimitz and watching the F – 14’s take off. And that’s an image of strength — except that if he had had his way when the Nimitz was being planned, he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldn’t have been any Nimitz to stand on — he was against it. [Laughter]He was against the F – 14 fighter, he was against the M – 1 tank, he was against the B – 1 bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of all of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the American forces in Europe. And he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none.AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hear, hear!THE PRESIDENT: Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the Senate. And he opposed even President Carter, when toward the end of his term President Carter wanted to increase the defense budget.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Mr. President, I accept your commitment to peace, but I want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. [Applause] I propose a budget — I have proposed a budget which would increase our nation’s strength, in real terms, by double that of the Soviet Union.I’ll tell you where we disagree. It is true over 10 years ago I voted to delay production of the F – 14, and I’ll tell you why. The plane wasn’t flying the way it was supposed to be; it was a waste of money.Your definition of national strength is to throw money at the Defense Department. My definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar’s worth of defense. There’s a big difference between the two of us. A President must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but you’ll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. You pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you’re not buying strength.MR. NEWMAN: I would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate.Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale.Use of Military ForceMR. KONDRACKE: Mr. Mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before this country resorts to military force, and I’m quoting, “American interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history.” Now, aren’t you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as President you would never use force to protect American interests?MR. MONDALE: No. As a matter of fact, I believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. And we can see that in both Lebanon and in Central America.In Lebanon, this President exercised American power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the Soviet Union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened. And it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American public with them on a plan that worked, that we ended up the way we did.Similarly, in Central America: What we’re doing in Nicaragua with this covert war — which the Congress, including many Republicans, have tried to stop — is finally end up with a public definition of American power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. We have to decline, for the first time in modern history, jurisdiction in the World Court because they’ll find us guilty of illegal actions. And our enemies are strengthened from all of this.We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy. We are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere.NicaraguaMR. KONDRACKE: You’ve been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I’d like to know what that means. Would you stop Soviet ships, as President Kennedy did in 1962? And wouldn’t that be more dangerous than President Reagan’s covert war?MR. MONDALE: What I’m referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the Inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps — diplomatic and otherwise — to prevent Nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it.The Nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region — unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the President said, they have not supported negotiations in that region — we will be much stronger, because we’ll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts.LebanonMR. KONDRACKE: President Reagan, you introduced U.S. forces into Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the Lebanese Government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now Syria, a Soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesn’t Lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as Commander in Chief?THE PRESIDENT: No, Morton, I don’t agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies — the Italians, the French, and the United Kingdom — went into Lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the Lebanese Government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government.But the first — pardon me — the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in Beirut between Israel and the PLO terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and Israel chased them all the way to there.Then we went in with the multinational force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from Lebanon. We departed. And then the Government of Lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of Lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders.And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action; we defended ourselves there.But we were succeeding to the point that the Lebanese Government had been organized — if you will remember, there were the meetings in Geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there — and that includes Syria, in my mind — who don’t want us to succeed, who don’t want that kind of a peace with a dominant Lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so, the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason: We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep Israel and Syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And I have no apologies for our going on a peace mission.MR. KONDRACKE: Mr. President, 4 years ago you criticized President Carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in Iran might be taken hostage. Haven’t you done exactly the same thing in Lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 Americans, not hostages, but dead? And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn’t our lack of response suggest that you’re just bluffing?THE PRESIDENT: Morton, no. I think there’s a great difference between the Government of Iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in Brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of Beirut where these terrorists are operating.I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And it’s going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago.Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: Groucho Marx said, “Who do you believe? — me, or your own eyes?” And what we have in Lebanon is something that the American people have seen. The Joint Chiefs urged the President not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him 5 days before they were killed and said, “Please, take them out of there.” The Secretary of State admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time.Then the Embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned 5 days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren’t taken. The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn’t. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal?THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First of all, Mr. Mondale should know that the President of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one.On the other things that you’ve just said about the terrorists, I’m tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they’re blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they’re going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we’re busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we’re not going to simply kill some people to say, “Oh, look, we got even.” We want to know when we retaliate that we’re retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States Capitol in Washington has been bombed twice.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan?The President’s AgeMr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?THE PRESIDENT: Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don’t know which, that said, “If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.”Strategic MissilesMr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I’d like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but I’ll go on to another question.You and Mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine-launched missiles. There’s another, a similar issue out there that relates to your — it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the Soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. First, is that correct? Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime? And third, is it even necessary for the President to be so intimately involved in strategic details?THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks. And the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the land-based. You put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. So, we thought that it would be simpler to negotiate first with those. And then we made it plain, a second phase, take up the submarine-launched or the airborne missiles.The Soviet Union, to our surprise — and not just mine — made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the land-based missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three. And we agreed. We said, “All right, if that’s what you want to do.” But it was a surprise to us, because they outnumbered us 64 to 36 in submarines and 20 percent more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. So, why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on land-based?But even after we gave in and said, “All right, let’s discuss it all,” they walked away from the table. We didn’t.The President’s AgeMr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, I’m going to hang in there. Should the President’s age and stamina be an issue in the political campaign?MR. MONDALE: No. And I have not made it an issue, nor should it be. What’s at issue here is the President’s application of his authority to understand what a President must know to lead this nation, secure our defense, and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary.A minute ago the President quoted Cicero, I believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, Harry Truman. He said, “The buck stops here.” We just heard the President’s answer for the problems at the barracks in Lebanon, where 241 marines were killed. What happened? First, the Joint Chiefs of Staff went to the President, said, “Don’t put those troops there.” They did it. And then 5 days before the troops were killed, they went back to the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and said, “Please, Mr. President, take those troops out of there because we can’t defend them.” They didn’t do it. And we know what happened.After that, once again, our Embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened — an identical attack, in the same region, despite warnings — even public warnings — from the terrorists. Who’s in charge? Who’s handling this matter? That’s my main point.Now, on arms control, we’re completing 4 years. This is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead.A President has to lead his government or it won’t be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For 3\\1/2\\ years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on medium-range weapons. And we have this arms race underway. And a recent book that just came out by perhaps the Nation’s most respected author in this field, Strobe Talbott, called “Deadly Gambits,” concludes that this President has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us, both in terms of security and terms of arms control. That’s why they call the President the Commander in Chief.Good intentions, I grant. But it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart.The President’s LeadershipMr. Trewhitt. This question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the President, Mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases — weak, I believe. It is a question of leadership. And he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the Reverend Jackson, particularly in Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity? And are you prepared to repudiate him now?MR. MONDALE: I read his statement the other day. I don’t admire Fidel Castro at all. And I’ve said that. Che Guevara was a contemptible figure in civilization’s history. I know the Cuban state as a police state, and all my life I’ve worked in a way that demonstrates that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I don’t control him.And let’s talk about people we do control. In the last debate,\\1\\ (FOOTNOTE) the Vice President of the United States said that I said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in Lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President Bush because I had, instead, honored these young men, grieved for their families, and think they were wonderful Americans that honored us all. What does the President have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who won’t apologize for something like that?(FOOTNOTE) \\1\\Mr. Mondale was referring to an earlier debate between George Bush and Geraldine Ferarro, the Vice-Presidential candidates.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal?THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it’ll come as a surprise to Mr. Mondale, but I am in charge. And, as a matter of fact, we haven’t avoided arms control talks with the Soviet Union. Very early in my administration I proposed — and I think something that had never been proposed by any previous administration — I proposed a total elimination of intermediate-range missiles, where the Soviets had better than a 10 — and still have — better than a 10-to-1 advantage over the allies in Europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, I went along with that.The so-called negotiation that you said I walked out on was the so-called walk in the woods between one of our representatives and one of the Soviet Union, and it wasn’t me that turned it down, the Soviet Union disavowed it.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: There are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country — there are many others, but two that I want to cite tonight. One is Strobe Talbott in his classic book, “Deadly Gambits.” The other is John Neuhaus, who’s one of the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country. Both said that this administration turned down the “walk in the woods” agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States in Europe and our security.When Mr. Nitze, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked, and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that we’ve had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. Now we have a runaway arms race. All they’ve got to show for 4 years in U.S.-Soviet relations is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration, and nothing before.They’re tough negotiators, but all previous Presidents have made progress. This one has not.MR. NEWMAN: Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale.Illegal ImmigrationMS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized: massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the American nation-state. You, yourself, said in the 1970’s that we had a “hemorrhage on our borders.” Yet today you have backed off any immigration reform, such as the balanced and highly crafted Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Why? What would you do instead today, if anything?MR. MONDALE: This is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which I think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they’re hired. I’m convinced that the result of this would be that people who are Hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent, would find it difficult to be employed. I think that’s wrong. We’ve never had citizenship tests in our country before, and I don’t think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive.I do support the other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status.I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way that’s responsible and within the Constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an American answer that is consistent with justice and due process.Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure — and I will support a measure — that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that I think is very serious.The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And that’s why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and a good-faith way with Mexico, with Costa Rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well.MS. GEYER: Sir, people as well-balanced and just as Father Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame, who headed the select commission on immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions, because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the Hispanic groups — or Hispanic leadership groups — who actually do not represent what the Hispanic-Americans want, because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this? And how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the American nation?MR. MONDALE: I think you’re right that the polls show that the majority of Hispanics want that bill, so I’m not doing it for political reasons. I’m doing it because all my life I’ve fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every American has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an American or not. And just inevitably, they’re going to be reluctant to hire Hispanics or people with a different accent.If I were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American people want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, but all my life I’ve fought for a fair nation. And despite the politics of it, I stand where I stand, and I think I’m right, and before this fight is over we’re going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, you, too, have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall you allowed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill — which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship — because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the States for legalized aliens. Given that, may I ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? How sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation-state that is the United States?THE PRESIDENT: Georgie Anne, we, believe me, supported the Simpson-Mazzoli bill strongly — and the bill that came out of the Senate. However, there were things added in in the House side that we felt made it less of a good bill; as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference — we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even Senator Simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. I can’t go into detail about them here.But it is true our borders are out of control. It is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. And I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn’t be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can’t complain because of their illegal status. We don’t think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free.And this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions, and so forth — and I’m going to do everything I can, and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when Congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us, once again, control of our borders.And with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that I know has established the relationship that we have with our Latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively — qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, Mexico’s population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens, but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that Armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an Armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world?THE PRESIDENT: No. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated — over exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. It’s almost like going back to the Malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one, here, with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here, in Mexico, where their population is increasing and they don’t have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what we’re trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: One of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don’t come north, come north despite all the risks. And if we’re going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity, so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And that’s why this enormous national debt, engineered by this administration, is harming these countries in fueling this immigration. These high interest rates — real rates that have doubled under this administration — have had the same effect on Mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship, and heartache. And that drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we need to end those deficits as well.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Well, my rebuttal is I’ve heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border — [laughter] — and it has nothing to do with it.But with regard to these high interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, Mr. Mondale, they were 21\\1/2\\ — the prime rate. It’s now 12\\1/4\\, and I predict it’ll be coming down a little more shortly. So, we’re trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. [Applause]MR. NEWMAN: No applause, please.Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan.ArmageddonMR. KALB: Mr. President, I’d like to pick up this Armageddon theme. You’ve been quoted as saying that you do believe, deep down, that we are heading for some kind of biblical Armageddon. Your Pentagon and your Secretary of Defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps, for some kind of nuclear Armageddon? And do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity?THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Kalb, I think what has been hailed as something I’m supposedly, as President, discussing as principle is the recall of just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things; and that is the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of Armageddon, and so forth, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies mean that Armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. So, I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon.Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world, in Europe and in Asia, I have made a statement to each one of them, and I’ll repeat it here: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage.But the deterrent — and that’s what it is for — is also what led me to propose what is now being called the Star Wars concept, but propose that we research to see if there isn’t a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. And if such a defense could be found, wouldn’t it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people?Strategic Defense InitiativeMR. KALB: Mr. President, when you made that proposal, the so-called Star Wars proposal, you said, if I’m not mistaken, that you would share this very super-sophisticated technology with the Soviet Union. After all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the Soviet Union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of America’s technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary?THE PRESIDENT: Why not? What if we did — and I hope we can; we’re still researching — what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive, a counterweapon. But suppose we came up with that?Now, some people have said, “Ah, that would make war imminent, because they would think that we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy.” But why not do what I have offered to do and asked the Soviet Union to do? Say, “Look, here’s what we can do. We’ll even give it to you. Now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat?” I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon.MR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, you’ve been very sharply critical of the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative. And yet, what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible?MR. MONDALE: First of all, let me sharply disagree with the President on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in America with the Soviet Union. We have had for many years, understandably, a system of restraints on high technology because the Soviets are behind us. And any research or development along the Star Wars schemes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, our most advanced engineering. And the thought that we would share this with the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, a total non-STARTer. I would not let the Soviet Union get their hands on it at all.Now, what’s wrong with Star Wars? There’s nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, I suppose it’s a good idea. But the fact of it is we’re so far away from research that even comes close to that, that the Director of Engineering Research at the Defense Department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project. It would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy weapons.The second thing is this all assumes that the Soviets wouldn’t respond in kind. And they always do. We don’t get behind. They won’t get behind. And that’s been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop, right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons — and the President’s proposals go clear beyond research; if it was just research we wouldn’t have any argument, because maybe someday, somebody will think of something — but to commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite and space weapons at this time, in their crude state, would bring about an arms race that’s very dangerous indeed.One final point. The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is, for the first time, we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. That’s dead wrong. There wouldn’t be time for a President to decide; it would be decided by these remote computers. It might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it’s a missile — and off we go.Why don’t we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [Applause]Nuclear FreezeMR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, “A nuclear freeze is a hoax.” Yet the basis of your arms proposals, as I understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not?MR. MONDALE: Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the Soviet Union that we couldn’t verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which the United States security interest was not fully recognized and supported. That’s why we say mutual and verifiable freezes.Now, why do I support the freeze? Because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. It’s more difficult to defend this nation. It’s putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. This administration, by going into the Star Wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. We have to be tough on the Soviet Union, but I think the American people — —MR. NEWMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Mondale.MR. MONDALE: — — and the people of the Soviet Union want it to stop.MR. NEWMAN: President Reagan, your rebuttal?THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how I would go about rolling over for the Soviet Union — no, Mr. Mondale, my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, “Now, are you willing to join us? Here’s what we” — give them a demonstration and then say — “Here’s what we can do. Now, if you’re willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we’ll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat; that we’re both got something that if anyone tries to cheat . . . .”But when you keep star-warring it — I never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind; I’m not a scientist. I said, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. And suddenly somebody says, “Oh, it’s got to be up there, and it’s Star Wars,” and so forth. I don’t know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, I think the world will be better off.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Well, that’s what a President’s supposed to know — where those weapons are going to be. If they’re space weapons, I assume they’ll be in space. [Laughter] If they’re antisatellite weapons, I assume they’re going to be aimed against satellites.Now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. The Soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. And to give them technology of this kind, I disagree with. You haven’t just accepted research, Mr. President. You’ve set up a Strategic Defense Initiative, an agency, you’re beginning to test, you’re talking about deploying, you’re asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. This is an arms escalation. And we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. If someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that’s something else. But that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable.Why do we start things that we know the Soviets will match and make us all less secure? That’s what a President’s for.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale.Strategic WeaponsMR. KONDRACKE: Mr. Mondale, you say that with respect to the Soviet Union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the MX missile and the B – 1 bomber before the talks have even begun. And you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the Soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. Now, aren’t you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk?MR. MONDALE: No. As a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. And I support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the Pershing missile, the Trident submarine, the D – 5 submarine, Stealth technology, the Midgetman — we have a whole range of technology. Why I disagree with the MX is that it’s a sitting duck. It’ll draw an attack. It puts a hair-trigger, and it is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. And the B – 1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B – 1. The Secretary of Defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built.Instead, I want to build the Midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. That’s why I’m for Stealth technology, to build a Stealth bomber — which I’ve supported for years — that can penetrate the Soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. In other words, a President has to make choices. This makes us stronger.The final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in Europe is under strength. We need to strengthen that in order to assure our Western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. It’s in this way, by making wise choices, that we’re stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. Every President until this one has been able to do it, and this nation — or the world is more dangerous as a result.Nuclear FreezeMR. KONDRACKE: I want to follow up on Mr. Kalb’s question. It seems to me on the question of verifiability, that you do have some problems with the extent of the freeze. It seems to me, for example, that testing would be very difficult to verify because the Soviets encode their telemetry. Research would be impossible to verify. Numbers of warheads would be impossible to verify by satellite, except for with onsite inspection, and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. Now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen?MR. MONDALE: I will not agree to any arms control agreement, including a freeze, that’s not verifiable. Let’s take your warhead principle. The warhead principle — there have been counting rules for years. Whenever a weapon is tested we count the number of warheads on it, and whenever that warhead is used we count that number of warheads, whether they have that number or less on it, or not. These are standard rules. I will not agree to any production restrictions — or agreements, unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. I don’t trust the Russians. I believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable, and I will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. In other words, we’ve got to be tough. But in order to stop this arms madness, we’ve got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the Soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement.Support for U.S. AlliesMR. KONDRACKE: Mr. President, I want to ask you a question about negotiating with friends. You severely criticized President Carter for helping to undermine two friendly dictators who got into trouble with their own people — the Shah of Iran and President Somoza of Nicaragua. Now there are other such leaders heading for trouble, including President Pinochet of Chile and President Marcos of the Philippines. What should you do, and what can you do to prevent the Philippines from becoming another Nicaragua?THE PRESIDENT: Morton, I did criticize the President because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally — the Shah of Iran. And I am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. The Shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the Middle East for quite some time, and I did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. Have things gotten better? The Shah, whatever he might have done, was building low-cost housing, had taken land away from the Mullahs and was distributing it to the peasants so they could be landowners — things of that kind. But we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions.The matter of Somoza — no, I never defended Somoza. And, as a matter of fact, the previous administration stood by and so did I — not that I could have done anything in my position at that time — but for this revolution to take place. And the promise of the revolution was democracy, human rights, free labor unions, free press. And then, just as Castro had done in Cuba, the Sandinistas ousted the other parties to the revolution. Many of them are now the contras. They exiled some, they jailed some, they murdered some. And they installed a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian government.And what I have to say about this is, many times — and this has to do with the Philippines, also, I know there are things there in the Philippines that do not look good to us from the standpoint right now of democratic rights, but what is the alternative? It is a large Communist movement to take over the Philippines. They have been our friend since their inception as a nation.And I think that we’ve had enough of a record of letting — under the guise of revolution — someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go, and then winding up with totalitarianism, pure and simple, as the alternative. And I think that we’re better off, for example with the Philippines, of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing a Communist power in the Pacific.MR. KONDRACKE: Mr. President, since the United States has two strategically important bases in the Philippines, would the overthrow of President Marcos constitute a threat to vital American interests and, if so, what would you do about it?THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government would be that would follow. And there is every evidence, every indication that that government would be hostile to the United States. And that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the Pacific.MR. KONDRACKE: And what would you do about it?MR. NEWMAN: Sorry. I’m sorry, you’ve asked the followup question. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: Perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administration’s policies on human rights.I went to the Philippines as Vice President, pressed for human rights, called for the release of Aquino, and made progress that had been stalled on both the Subic and the Clark airfield bases. What explains this administration cozying up to the Argentine dictators after they took over? Fortunately, a democracy took over, but this nation was embarrassed by this current administration’s adoption of their policies.What happens in South Africa, where, for example, the Nobel Prize winner, 2 days ago, said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of South Africa. That hurts this nation. We need to stand for human rights. We need to make it clear we’re for human liberty. National security and human rights must go together. But this administration time and time again has lost its way in this field.MR. NEWMAN: President Reagan, your rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Well, the invasion of Afghanistan didn’t take place on our watch. I have described what has happened in Iran, and we weren’t here then either. I don’t think that our record of human rights can be assailed. I think that we have observed, ourselves, and have done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world.Mr. Mondale has recently announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and to work with the whole world to turn to democracy. And I was glad to hear him say that, because that’s what we’ve been doing ever since I announced to the British Parliament that I thought we should do this.Human rights are not advanced when, at the same time, you then stand back and say, “Whoops, we didn’t know the gun was loaded,” and you have another totalitarian power on your hands.MR. NEWMAN: In this segment, because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan.Mr. Trewhitt. One question to each candidate?MR. NEWMAN: One question to each candidate.Nuclear WeaponsMr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, could I take you back to something you said earlier, and if I’m misquoting you, please correct me. But I understood you to say that if the development of space military technology was successful, you might give the Soviets a demonstration and say, “Here it is,” which sounds to me as if you might be trying to gain the sort of advantage that would enable you to dictate terms, and which I will then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of nuclear strategy called mutual deterrence in which we, in effect, hold each other hostage. Is that your intention?THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can’t say that I have roundtabled that and sat down with the Chiefs of Staff, but I have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal, my ultimate dream, and that is the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. And it seems to me that this could be an adjunct, or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. I am not going to roll over, as Mr. Mondale suggests, and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. But I think it’s a very interesting proposal, to see if we can find, first of all, something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission.But Mr. Mondale seems to approve MAD — MAD is mutual assured destruction — meaning, if you use nuclear weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is that we’ll kill as many people of yours as you’ll kill of ours.I think that to do everything we can to find, as I say, something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights.Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, could I ask you to address the question of nuclear strategy then? The formal doctrine is very arcane, but I’m going to ask you to deal with it anyway. Do you believe in MAD, mutual assured destruction, mutual deterrence as it has been practiced for the last generation?MR. MONDALE: I believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. I would like to see their elimination. And in the meantime, we have to be strong enough to make certain that the Soviet Union never tempts us.Now, here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. The President says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons. But, in fact, these last 4 years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. He says he wants a system that will make nuclear wars safe, so nobody’s going to get hurt. Well, maybe someday, somebody can dream of that.But why start an arms race now? Why destabilize our relationship? Why threaten our space satellites upon which we depend? Why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war?A President, to defend this country and to get arms control, must master what’s going on. I accept his objective and his dream; we all do. But the hard reality is that we must know what we’re doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. He’s opposed every effort of every President to do so, and in the 4 years of his administration he’s failed to do so. And if you want a tough President who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for Walter Mondale. [Applause]MR. NEWMAN: Please, I must again ask the audience not to applaud, not to cheer, not to demonstrate its feelings in any way.We’ve arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. You have the full 4 minutes, each of you. Mr. Mondale, will you go first?Closing StatementsMR. MONDALE: I want to thank the League of Women Voters, the good citizens of Kansas City, and President Reagan for agreeing to debate this evening.This evening we talked about national strength. I believe we need to be strong, and I will keep us strong. But I think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. That’s key to the strength of our nation.A President must know the essential facts essential to command. But a President must also have a vision of where this nation should go. Tonight, as Americans, you have a choice. And you’re entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us.As President, I would press for long-term, vigorous economic growth. That’s why I want to get these debts down and these interest rates down, restore America’s exports, help rural America, which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children.I want this next generation to be the best educated in American history, to invest in the human mind and science again, so we’re out front. I want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land, and its public health. America is not temporary; we’re forever. And as Americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children.I want a nation of fairness, where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against, and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble.And, above all, I want a nation that’s strong. Since we debated 2 weeks ago, the United States and the Soviet Union have built a hundred more warheads, enough to kill millions of Americans and millions of Soviet citizens. This doesn’t strengthen us. This weakens the chances of civilization to survive.I remember the night before I became Vice President. I was given the briefing and told that any time, night or day, I might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on Earth — whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. That lesson tells us two things: One, pick a President that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know, because there’ll be no time for staffing committees or advisers. A President must know right then. But above all, pick a President who will fight to avoid the day when that God-awful decision ever needs to be made.And that’s why this election is so terribly important. America and Americans decide not just what’s happening in this country. We are the strongest and most powerful free society on Earth. When you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation; in a very profound respect, you’re deciding the future of the world.We need to move on. It’s time for America to find new leadership. Please, join me in this cause to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation.MR. NEWMAN: President Reagan, your summation, please.THE PRESIDENT: Yes. My thanks to the League of Women Voters, to the panelists, the moderator, and to the people of Kansas City for their warm hospitality and greeting.I think the American people tonight have much to be grateful for — an economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom and, most of all, we are at peace.I am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and, one day, to eliminate them entirely.The question before you comes down to this: Do you want to see America return to the policies of weakness of the last 4 years? Or do we want to go forward, marching together, as a nation of strength and that’s going to continue to be strong?We shouldn’t be dwelling on the past, or even the present. The meaning of this election is the future and whether we’re going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all Americans and that they need.Several years ago, I was given an assignment to write a letter. It was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened.I remember driving down the California coast one day. My mind was full of what I was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. But I couldn’t completely neglect the beauty around me — the Pacific out there on one side of the highway, shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. And I found myself wondering what it would be like for someone — wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway, and if they would see the same thing. And with that thought, I realized what a job I had with that letter.I would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solved them, and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. They would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power, aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. And then I thought to myself, what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think? They will know whether we used those weapons or not.Well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day, down in history 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say, “Thank God for those people back in the 1980’s for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called Earth, with all its grandeur and its beauty.”You know, I am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these 4 years, and I seek reelection because I want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted 4 years ago. George Bush, who I think is one of the finest Vice Presidents this country has ever had — George Bush and I have crisscrossed the country, and we’ve had, in these last few months, a wonderful experience. We have met young America. We have met your sons and daughters.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, I’m obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. I’m sorry.THE PRESIDENT: All right. I was just going to — —MR. NEWMAN: Perhaps I should point out that the rules under which I did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns — —THE PRESIDENT: I know.MR. NEWMAN: — — with the league, as you know, sir.THE PRESIDENT: I know, yes.MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. Our thanks also to the panel, finally, to our audience. We thank you, and the League of Women Voters asks me to say to you, don’t forget to vote on November 6th.Note: The debate began at 7:01 p.m. in the Music Hall at the Kansas City Convention Center. Following the debate, the President attended a reception hosted by the League of Women Voters in the Little Theater. He then returned to the Westin Crown Center Hotel, where he remained overnight.",
    "id": "e3e4a530-d9b6-43b8-8dfc-4667c68c241b"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 15, 1992",
    "title": "The Second Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate (First half)",
    "content": "October 15, 1992 First Half Debate TranscriptOctober 15, 1992The Second Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate(First Half of Debate)This is the first half of the transcript of the Richmond debate. The October 15th “town hall” format debate was moderated by Carole Simpson. She explains the format in her opening remarks. The length of this printed transcript is approximately 20 pages.CAROLE SIMPSON: Good evening and welcome to this second of three presidential debates between the major candidates for president of the US. 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 GEORGE BUSH: Let’s go.SIMPSON: And I think the first question is over here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Yes. 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 US?ROSS 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’ve 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 who’ve got these 1-way trade agreements that we’ve negotiated over the years and say fellas, we’ll take the same deal we gave you. And 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 2-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 a factory worker, and you can move your factory south of the border, pay $1 an hour for labor, hire a young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time. You’ve got a mature workforce. Pay $1 an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making the 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 job-sucking sound going south.If the people send me to Washington the first thing I’ll do is study that 2000-page agreement and make sure it’s a 2-way street.One last point here. I decided I was dumb and didn’t understand it so I called a “Who’s Who” of the folks that have been around it, and I said why won’t everybody go south; they said it will be disruptive; I said for how long. I finally got ’em for 12 to 15 years. And I said, well, how does it stop being disruptive? And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar 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 kind of deals. We got to cut it out.SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Perot. I see that the president has stood up, so he must have something to say about this.BUSH: 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. And if indeed all the jobs were going to move south because there are lower wages, there are lower wages now and they haven’t done that. And 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 — and 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, and that’s the thing that saved us. 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. And free and fair trade is the answer, not protection.And, as I say, we’ve had tough economic times, and it’s exports that have saved us, exports that have built.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 has 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, and, 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 plant and equipment here. Our competitors don’t do that. Emphasize and subsidize modernizing plant 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. I think we have a question over here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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 2nd term? Answer yes or no and then comment on your answer, please.CLINTON: No, and here’s why. And 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% 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 and growing this economy.I ask everybody to look at my economic ideas and 9 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 and I would welcome you to do that.SIMPSON: Mr. President.BUSH: Well, 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. I said 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. I don’t believe that’s the way to do it.Here’s some thing that’ll 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. And 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, and 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 1000 bucks or something. You can check 10% of that if you want to, in the 1 box, and that 10%, $100, or if you’re paying $10,000, whatever it is, $1000, check it off and make the government, make it lower the deficit by that amount.And 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 that 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.SIMPSON: How about you, Mr. Perot?PEROT: Well, we’re $4 trillion in debt. We’re going into debt an additional $1 billion, 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’d 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. And what I’m looking for is who did it? Now, they’re the 2 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. People — 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% of them were making — 18- to 24-year- olds were making less than $12,000. Now that’s up to 40%. And what’s happened 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. And everybody says they take responsibility. Somebody somewhere has to take responsibility for this.Put it to you bluntly, American people. If you want me to be your president, we’re going to face our problems. We’ll deal with our problems, we’ll solve our problems. We’ll down our debt. We’ll pass on the American dream to our children, and I will not leave our children a situation that they have today.When I was a boy it took 2 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.SIMPSON: You’re all wonderful speakers, and I know you have lots more to add, but I’ve 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.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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?SIMPSON: Who wants to take that one? Mr. Perot, you have an answer for everything, don’t you? Go right ahead, sir.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. And 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. We’ll be on again Saturday night, 8 to 9 o’clock on ABC. So the point is —BUSH: Like Jerry Brown, the 800 number.PEROT: — 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.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 — oh, President Bush, how would you like to respond?BUSH: Well, in the 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 a candidate for president or being president. In terms of programs, I’ve submitted, what, 4 different budgets to the US Congress in great detail. It’s so heavy they’d give you a broken back. And 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.You know, 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 my — I don’t know if you saw the debate the other night. You did — suffered through that? Well, he raised the question of my father — it was a good line, well rehearsed and well delivered. But he raised the 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 on into the Navy, and 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 says 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’ve got to —SIMPSON: Mr. President, I’m getting time cues and with all due respect —BUSH: Excuse me. I don’t want to —SIMPSON: I’m sorry.BUSH: I don’t want to —SIMPSON: Governor Clinton.BUSH: I get wound up because I feel strongly —SIMPSON: Yes, you do.(Laughter)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 I was going to have $150 billion tax increase. When Mr. Quayle said that all the networks said, that’s not true. He’s got over $100 billion of 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 quote “political chameleon” for changing his positions of all times. Now, I don’t want to get into that —BUSH: Please don’t get into the Washington Post.CLINTON: Wait a minute. Let’s don’t — you don’t have to believe it. 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.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: “No.”)SIMPSON: Who wants to say why you don’t like the way the campaign is going? We have a gentleman back here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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. And 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?SIMPSON: So your question is?AUDIENCE QUESTION: Can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? I think there’s a need, if we could take a poll here with the folks from Gallup perhaps, I think there’s a real need here to focus at this point on the needs.SIMPSON: How do you respond? How do you gentlemen respond to —CLINTON: I agree with him.BUSH: Let’s do it.SIMPSON: President Bush?BUSH: Let’s do it. Let’s talk about programs for children.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Could we cross our hearts? 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 US to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? I repeat that. It’s a real need, I think, that we all have.BUSH: I think it depends 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 and think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is.SIMPSON: And you, too?CLINTON: Ross had his hand up.SIMPSON: Yes.PEROT: Just 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 will stay on the issues.Now, just for the record, I don’t have any spin doctors. I don’t have any speechwriters. Probably shows. I make those charts you see on television.But you don’t have to wonder if it’s me talking. See, what you see is what you get and if you don’t like it, you got two other choices, right?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.PEROT: May I finish?SIMPSON: Yes, you may finish.PEROT: Very briefly?SIMPSON: Yes, very briefly.PEROT: And 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 5.5 million hard-working people who put me on the ballot, and I belong to them. And they’re interested in what you’re interested in.I 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. We have a question here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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, etcetera. Thank you.SIMPSON: The cities. Who’s going to fix the cities and how?BUSH: I’ll be glad to take a shot at it.SIMPSON: Please.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 furthest 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. And so I’m 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 home ownership 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. And I need the help of everybody across this country to get it passed in a 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 everyone 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 made 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.SIMPSON: Mr. President, aren’t you threatening to veto the bill — the urban aid bill — that included enterprise zones?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’s create enterprise zones.SIMPSON: Governor Clinton, you’re chomping at the bit.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 — a bill earlier this year. This is facts — that would have given investment tax credits and other incentives to reinvest in our cities, in 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.But 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 clean-ups and new technologies for the 21st century. And 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, and 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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, what about your plans for the cities? You want to tackle the economy and the deficit first.PEROT: First you’ve got to have money to pay for these things. So you’ve got to create jobs. There are all kinds of ways to create jobs in the inner city. I’m 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 talk to the Democratic leaders and they want it. I talk to the Republican leaders and they want it. But since they’re bred from childhood to fight with one another rather than get results, you know, 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 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 cities.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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, everybody thought you won the first debate because you were plain-speaking and you made it sound, oh, so simple. Well, 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?PEROT: If you ask me if I could fly a fighter plane or be an astronaut, I can’t. I’ve spent my life creating jobs. That’s something I know how to do. And, very simply, in the inner city, they’re starved — you see, small business is the way to jump start the inner city, not —SIMPSON: Are you answering my question?PEROT: You want jobs in the inner city? Do you want jobs in the inner city? Is that your question?SIMPSON: No, I want you to tell me how you’re going to be able to get the Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work together better than these two gentlemen.PEROT: Oh, I’m sorry. Well, I’ve listened to both sides, and 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, the president who is 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. And 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.SIMPSON: Okay, I have a question here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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. And 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?SIMPSON: Governor Clinton?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 hand guns 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 — it 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 be Republican senators, and 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, and 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, are 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. President Bush?BUSH: I think you put your finger on a major problem. I talk about strengthening the American family and it’s very hard to strengthen the family if people are scared to walk down to the corner store and, you know, send their kid down to get a loaf of bread. It’s very hard.I have been fighting for very strong anti-crime 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 the 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 anti-gun 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 anti-crime 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 there’s one last point I’d make. Drugs. We have got to win our national strategy against drugs, the fight against drugs. And 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% 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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, there are young black males in America dying at unprecedented rates —PEROT: I didn’t get to make a comment on this.SIMPSON: Yes, I’m getting to that.PEROT: Oh, you’re going to let me. Excuse me.SIMPSON: 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?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. 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 become so preoccupied with the rights of the criminal that we’ve forgotten the rights of the innocent. And 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. 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 at 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perot.We have a question up here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: Please state your position on term limits, and, if you are in favor of them, how will you get them enacted?BUSH: Any order? I’ll be glad to respond.SIMPSON: Thank you.BUSH: I strongly support term limits for members of the US 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 2, 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 the Chase Bank and Citibank put together. We’ve got to do something about it.And I think you get a certain arrogance, bureaucratic arrogance, if people stay there too long. And 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. Every place 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.SIMPSON: Thank you. Governor Clinton.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 have enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard. Number 2, 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 3, 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 incumbents’ advantage because challengers like me would have a chance to run against incumbents like him for 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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, would you like to address term limitations?PEROT: Yes. Let me do 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 re-election. And as a matter of principle — and my situation is unique, and I understand it — I would take absolutely no compensation; I go as their servant.Now, I have set as strong an example as I can, then at that point when we sit down over at Capitol Hill — tomorrow night I’m going to be talking about government reform — it’s a long subject, you wouldn’t let me finish tonight. If you want to hear it, you get it tomorrow night — 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 benefits 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.SIMPSON: Thank you very much. We have a question over here.AUDIENCE QUESTION: 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?CLINTON: I’ve had more people talk to me about their health care problems I guess than anything else, all across America — you know, people who’ve 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 a premise. We spend 30% 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. A 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 cost, 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 2, 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 three 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 and preventive clinics in our inner cities and our rural areas so people can have access to health care.The key is to control the cost 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, 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% of their people and their insurance premiums are much cheaper than the rest of America, and so does Rochester, New York. They now have a plan to cover everybody and their premiums are two-thirds of the rest of the country.This is very important. It’s a big human problem and a devastating economic problem for America, and I’m going to send a plan to do this within the first 100 days of my presidency. It’s terribly important.SIMPSON: Thank you. Sorry to cut you short but President Bush, health care reform.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’s sitting over here and I — but what I have proposed, 10% cut, downsize the government, and we can get that done.She asked a question, I think, is whether the health care profession was to blame. No. One thing to blame is these malpractice lawsuits. They’re breaking the system. It costs $20-25 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 for the health problem.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-sized company, been very successful. He can buy insurance cheaper than Mom and Pop’s store 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 want to do — 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 and have — oh, 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 gonna — 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.SIMPSON: Mr. Perot.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% of its gross national product. Germany spends 8%.It’s fascinating. You’ve bought a front row box seat and you’re not happy with your health care and 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, and if you want to have a high risk experience, comparable to bungee jumping, go into Congress some time 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. 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 gonna listen to — us or the folks running up and down the aisles 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 to — 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 a little piece in the law and he goes through. That’s the way the game’s played now. Till you change it you’re gonna be unhappy.SIMPSON (continuing): You wanted one brief point in there.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 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 and the average family would save $1200 a year under the plan that I offered without any erosion in the quality of health careSo I ask you to look at that. And you have to vote for somebody with a plan. That’s what you have elections for. If people would 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.END of first half of 1992 Debate 2",
    "id": "768e979e-d4b6-4254-8dc0-8fbc8eb76561"
  },
  {
    "year": 1996,
    "date": "October 9, 1996",
    "title": "The Gore-Kemp Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 9, 1996 Debate TranscriptOctober 9, 1996The Gore-Kemp Vice Presidential DebateLEHRER: Good evening from the Mahaffey Theater at the Bayfront Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. I’m Jim Lehrer of the “News Hour” on PBS. Welcome to the 1996 Vice Presidential Debate between Vice President Al Gore, the democratic nominee, and Jack Kemp, the republican nominee. This event is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The rules and format, as drawn and agreed to by the two campaigns are almost identical to those of the presidential debate last Sunday night in Hartford. It is 90 minutes long. The candidates are not permitted to question each other directly. I will ask the questions with no limitations on the subjects. There will be a 90-second answer, a 60-second rebuttal, and a 30-second response to each question. And with the help of some lights, I will help the candidates abide by those time limits. The order for everything was determined by a coin toss. There will be three-minute closing statements, but no opening statements. So, we go now to the first question and to Mr. Kemp. Some supporters of Senator Dole have expressed disappointment over his unwillingness in Hartford Sunday night to draw personal and ethical differences between him and President Clinton. How do you feel about it?KEMP: Wow, in 90 seconds? I can’t clear my throat in 90 seconds. Jim, Bob Dole and myself do not see Al Gore and Bill Clinton as our enemy. We see them as our opponents. This is the greatest democracy in the world. People are watching not only throughout this country, but all over the world as to how this democracy can function with civility and respect, and decency and integrity. Bob Dole, um, is one of those men who served in the United States Senate, his public life is a public record. He fought on the battlefield. He has worked with Democrats and Republicans. In my opinion, it is beneath Bob Dole to go after anyone personally. Clearly, Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said you serve your party best by serving the nation first. And I can’t think of a better way of serving this nation in 1996 than by electing Bob Dole as the President of the United States of America. These issues are fully capable of being understood and reflected upon by the American people. This is a democracy in which we have the freest press and the greatest First Amendment rights in the history of mankind. And Bob and I respect that. These issues will be aired, but they’ll be aired with dignity and respect, and, ultimately, leave it to the American people to make up their minds about who should be the leader of this country into the 21st Century.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?GORE: Thank you, Mr. Lehrer. And I would like to thank the people of St. Petersburg for being such wonderful hosts. My family and I are very glad to be here and I would like to thank Jack Kemp for the answer that he just gave. I think we have an opportunity tonight to have a positive debate about this country’s future. I’d like to start by offering you a deal, Jack. If you won’t use any football stories, I won’t tell any of my warm and humorous stories about chlorofluorocarbon abatement.KEMP: It’s a deal. I can’t even pronounce it.GORE: What I do want to talk about tonight is Bill Clinton’s positive plan for America’s future. We have a plan to balance the budget while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. Creating millions of new jobs, including one million new jobs in America’s inner cities. I’m excited about the chance to talk about this plan and even more excited about the chance to work on it, if you, the people of this country, will give Bill Clinton and me the privilege of doing so for four more years.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp?KEMP: I really got only two differences with Bill Clinton —  President Clinton and Mr. Gore, foreign policy and domestic policy. Our foreign policy is ambivalent, confusing, it is sending strong signals to the wrong people, and we have learned over the years that weakness is provocative, but domestic economy is not doing what it can do. This President believes we are at our capacity. Bob Dole and I believe we can do a lot better. It is about the potential of the American people to lift themselves up and not have their lives controlled by the United States Government and Washington.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, what do you see as the political philosophy differences in a general way between you and President Clinton on the one hand, Mr. Kemp and Senator Dole on the other?GORE: The differences are very clear. We have a positive plan based on three principles. We want to provide opportunity for all Americans. We insist on responsibility being accepted in turn by everyone, and we want to strengthen our communities and their ability to support families and individuals in our common effort to create a bright future. Here’s how we plan to do that: We have a balanced budget plan that has targeted tax cuts for middle-income families. We’ve already given tax cuts to 15 million of the hardest pressed working families in America. Our plan for the next four years features a $1,500 tax credit, called a Hope Scholarship, for tuition at community college, junior college or college. A $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition for those who go further, so that, in essence, no American family will ever be taxed on the money they spend for college tuition. Also, tax relief for first-time home buyers, tax encouragement for savings and help in paying health care expenses, and a tax break, actually, the elimination of capital gains taxes on the — on the profits from the sale of a home. All of this is within a balanced budget plan, which protects Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment.KEMP: Jim, this economy is overtaxed, overregulated, too many people suing each other, there’s too much litigation. Our education is not up to the standards that the American family and the American people want for their children. And, clearly, the welfare system is a disgrace to our Judeo-Christian principles. It is not the values of the poor that should be called into question, it is the values of the welfare system from Washington and uh that prevent people from climbing out of poverty. Our biggest debate with this administration on domestic policy is that they think we’re at our fullest capacity, that we’ve reached our potential and 2.5 percent growth is enough for America. Frankly, that is not good enough for this country. We can not just run the clock out on the 20th Century. It, clearly, we need to lower the tax rate across the board on working and saving and investing. I know my friend, Al, will suggest that is trickle-down economics. Well, Al, if it’s trickle-down economics, ask Van Woods, a young entrepreneur who owns a restaurant in Harlem, if it’s trickle down. He said he would hire 60 more people if we cut the Capital Gains Tax.GORE: I talked about our positive agenda for the future a moment ago. Your original answer was about the contrast. The plan from Senator Dole and Mr. Kemp is a risky, $550-billion tax scheme that actually raises taxes on 9 million of the hardest pressed working families. It would blow a hole in the deficit, cause much deeper cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment and knock our economy off track, raising interest rates, mortgage rates and car payments. We stopped that plan before. We will stop it again. We want a positive plan for growth and more jobs.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, back to the philosophy question. Do you think there’s a basic philosophy difference between these two tickets, or is it about specifics, which both of you have talked about?KEMP: Well, this is a perfect example. Bob Dole and I want to cut the tax rates across the board on each and every American, working, saving, investing and taking risks in America. All wealth is created, and all growth is generated by risk-taking entrepreneurs. The tax rate on capital in America is way too high. It’s too high on the family and it’s particularly too high on working men and women. The average family in America, at median level of income, probably is spending 25 to 26 percent of their income sent to the federal government. That’s more than shelter, food, clothing, and energy. That’s just not right. When I was growing up in Los Angeles, my parents were a one working family, one breadwinner per family was all that was necessary. Now if a woman wants to go to work or a man wants to go to work, it ought to be their choice, not the choice of the Washington, D.C. establishment. Bill Clinton, the President, and Al Gore, suggest that they’ll give us a tax cut, but only if we do exactly what they want us to do. That isn’t America. That’s social engineering. The tax code should reflect our values in a Judeo-Christian sense, that work, honesty and integrity and contracts and property and investment and savings should be rewarded, and Bob Dole and Jack Kemp are not only going to cut the tax rates across the board and lower the Capital Gain Tax. I’ll be glad to talk about it a little later, because there’s not enough time, but we are going to repeal the 83-year-old code and replace the seven and a half million words with a flatter, fairer, simpler code that will take this country roaring in the 21st Century.GORE: This risky tax scheme would blow a hole in the deficit. You don’t have to take my word for it. “Time,” “Newsweek,” “U.S. News & World Report,” “Business Week,” 83 percent of hundreds of economists in a random survey just recently all said it would blow a hole in the deficit. There’s another feature I would like to hear Mr. Kemp speak about. Just before he joined Senator Dole on the ticket, he said that the plan — the part of the plan that raises taxes on 9 million of the hardest working families in America was unconscionable, that means it’s wrong and it shouldn’t happen. I agree, it is still part of the plan. We believe that taxes should not be increased on those families. We have a plan to cut taxes on middle income families within a balanced budget plan, eliminating the deficit and protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp?KEMP: Every time this country in the 20th Century has cut tax rates across the board, revenues went up, the economy grew, and I am surprised at this point in his career that Vice President Gore and the President cannot understand that you get more revenue from a bigger pie, and clearly, creating more jobs reduces the social welfare drain, clearly makes more opportunity for capital to be invested in our inner cities. And frankly, Al, we shouldn’t just tinker with the Capital Gain Tax, we should eliminate it in the inner cities of America to put capital to work to make democratic capitalism and jobs available in our inner cities of the United States.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, should federal government Affirmative Action programs be continued?GORE: Yes. President Clinton addressed this issue when he said, “Mend it, don’t end it.” Diversity is a great strength in America. Look around the world at other places where they have not paid attention to the necessity of promoting harmony of, between different ethnic, racial and religious, and cultural groups. We ought to be very proud in our country, as most Americans are, that we’ve made tremendous progress, but we ought to recognize that we have more work to do. Now, the first thing that we are trying to do is to create a million new jobs in the inner cities of this country, with tax credits for employers who hire people who are now unemployed. We are seeking to have vigorous enforcement of the laws that bar discrimination. Now, I want to congratulate Mr. Kemp for being a lonely voice in the Republican party over the years on this question. It is — it is with some sadness that I refer to the fact that the day after he joined Senator Dole’s ticket, he announced that he was changing his position and was hereto, thereafter going to adopt Senator Dole’s position to end all affirmative action. That’s not good for our country. Bill Clinton and I believe that the United States of America has its brightest days ahead, and we will see them even brighter if we promote diversity and harmony among all our people.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp?KEMP: Jim, my position on Affirmative Action has been clear ever since I left the professional football career for Congress in 1970. Some people think I quit playing a few years earlier, but I retired in 1970. My life has been dedicated to equality of opportunity and our democracy should provide that, not equality of reward. Uh, Affirmative Action should be predicated upon need, not equality of reward, not equality of outcome. Quotas have always been against the American ideal. We should promote diversity and we should do it the way Bob Dole has been talking about, with a new civil rights agenda, based upon expanding access to credit and capital, job opportunities, educational choice in our inner cities for a young urban mother who can’t get the type of an education she wants for her child, and, ultimately, the type of ownership and entrepreneurship from public housing in, D.C. to Nickerson Gardens in Watts, Los Angeles. People need to own. And that’s what Abraham Lincoln believed. That when people own something, they have a stake in the American dream. That is Affirmative Action in America.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President.GORE: With all due respect, I do not believe that Abraham Lincoln would have adopted Bob Dole’s position to end all affirmative action. There is a specific measure on the ballot in California. It was embodied in legislation, introduced by Senator Dole, to apply to the whole nation. Mr. Kemp campaigned against it, spoke against it, wrote letters against it, went to California to fight against it, and now has endorsed it. I don’t think it’s a minor matter. I think this is one of the most important challenges that our country has to face in the future, and I hope that Mr. Kemp will try to persuade Senator Dole to adopt Mr. Kemp’s position, instead of the other way around.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, what is your position?KEMP: That red light means we’re supposed to stop?LEHRER: Right.GORE: You thought that was going to be your problem, not mine. [ Laughter ]KEMP: Yeah, right. I can’t believe I’m keeping within the time limit.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, do we have a serious race problem in the United States right now?KEMP: Yeah, we really do. Um, this country has yet to deal with the type of inclusionary policies. It is so very important for Americans, white and black, Jew and Christian, immigrant and native-born, to sit down and talk and listen and begin to understand what it’s like to come from that different perspective. Our country is as the Kerner Commission Report suggested a number of years ago was being split, but they said between white and black. I think it’s being split, Jim, not so much between white and black, although that’s still a very serious problem. We really have two economies. Our general economy, our national economy, our mainstream economy is democratic, is based on incentives, a small “d” Al, it’s capitalism and incentives for working and saving and investing and producing, and families and the things that really lead to progress up that ladder that we call “The American Dream,” but is what is really universal. But unfortunately, in urban America, and I was glad to hear the Vice President talk a little bit about it, uh there — they have abandoned the inner cities. There’s a socialist economy. There’s no private housing. There’s mostly public housing. You’re told where to go to school, you’re told what to buy with food stamps. It is a welfare system that is more like a third-world socialist country than what we would expect from the world’s greatest democratic free-enterprise system. That must change, and it will under Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.GORE: Remember what I said just a moment ago. If it were not so, he would have told you. The problems between races in America must be addressed. The good news is we’re making progress. We’ve seen 10.5 million new jobs created in the last four years. We’ve seen the unemployment rate come down dramatically. We’ve seen the African-American unemployment rate go below double digits for the first time in 25 years and it stayed below for 25 months in a row. We have empowerment zones and enterprise communities, 105 of them in communities all across the United States of America. Let me tell you a story about Joann Crowder in Detroit. She was on welfare for eight years until the empowerment zone was created there. She just got a job in the new business that — that launched its enterprise right in that empowerment zone. We want to do that for millions more all across the country.KEMP: Well, with all due respect, Jim, there are nine empowerment zones, a few little tinkering with tax credits around the country for inner cities. Los Angeles, after the riots, did not even get an empowerment zone, believe it or not. That is just unconscionable in America to have left Watts, South Central and East L.A. out. Earl Graves of “Black Enterprise” magazine said the single greatest deterrent to black advancement is the lack of access to capital, the credit and ownership. That will change. We will green-line every city in the United States where there is unemployment and welfare and we will eliminate the Capital Gains Tax, eliminate the tax on a welfare mother that takes a job. That is the answer. Give ownership and entrepreneurship to low income people based on need, not the color of their skin.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, if re-elected, what would, what could we look forward to in the way of an inner city policy from a Clinton/Gore second term?GORE: Before I answer that specific question, let me say that we did put an empowerment zone in South Central, Los Angeles. It is in the form of the largest community development financial institution ever created in the United States or in any other country and it is creating jobs in South Central, Los Angeles right now. The Congress passed uh an enterprise zone after the Los Angeles riots five years ago. It was vetoed by the prior administration. Now, to your question. We have a specific plan to create 1 million new jobs in the inner cities of America with tax credits for employers who hire people coming off welfare, ’cause we’ve passed welfare reform now, we promised to end welfare as we know it. And we are implementing this new legislation. We have moved 1.9 million people off of the welfare rolls and into good jobs in the last four years. Our new plan is to have 1 million more jobs in the inner cities, but that’s not all. We are also implementing the plan to put 100,000 community police officers in our cities. We’ve already got 20,000 out there. We’re ahead of our six-year schedule. As a matter of fact, there’re 8 here in St. Petersburg, already on the beat, you may run into one of them leaving this auditorium tonight. St. Petersburg is safer because of this urban agenda that we’re following. We want the focus to be on millions more jobs, and we’re very optimistic that it’s gonna happen.KEMP: Well, we’ve had four years and there’s no enterprise zone. There are empowerment zones, but you have to do what Bill Clinton and Al Gore want you to do. You get a $5,000 tax credit if you hire somebody that’s unemployed, but you’ve already got to have an existing business. The answer is to say, once again, green-line any area in America that has been red-lined for lack of mortgage money, lack of credit and capital. Just say that area qualifies for no Capital Gains Tax, zero, nada. That’s what Eleanor Holmes Norton wants to do in the District of Columbia and this administration said to D.C., Drop dead. Drop dead. We don’t want to change the legislation that would lower the tax rate in D.C., allow welfare mothers to take a job without any tax on the first 90 percent of her income and no Capital Gain Tax that should be done in every urban area of America that would make capital flow back, and you can’t have capitalism, Al, without capital. You may want to give a tax credit, but it won’t work.GORE: Well, we have 105 empowerment zones and enterprise communities all across the United States of America, and with all due respect, that’s 105 more than were there when we came into the White House. We have been implementing them in a determined way. They are making a difference. You know, that empowerment zone that I mentioned in Detroit is creating jobs not only for Joann Crowder, who feels proud that she’s off of welfare now, and we’re proud of her. It’s creating jobs for hundreds of others, and similar initiatives are working in the other empowerment zones.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, you said recently that one of the problems related to this was that all the capital was in the hands of the white people. What did you mean by that?KEMP: The single greatest problem in our opinion, domestic — in the domestic economy, is that this tax code, 83 years old, a relic of the Cold War and Hot War, inflation and depression, seven-and-a-half million words long, overtaxes capital, overtaxes working men and women and families. Clearly, the Gordian knot needs to be broken in one fell swoop. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, as soon as we get through this first step of cutting tax rates across the board, are going to repeal the whole code while Bill Clinton and my friend, Al Gore, defend the status quo. We’re going to repeal the seven-and-a-half million words of the U.S.tax code, make it tax income once, not twice, three, four, and if you die, it confiscates your estate. We must have a tax code going into the 21st Century that does not protect the establishment and this tax code does. And by cutting and eliminating the Capital Gains, by cutting and eliminating the Estate Tax, by bringing the top tax rate down to something reasonable, like — here he goes again — I think in peacetime, it shouldn’t be higher, Bob, and I don’t think it should be higher than 25 percent, phased in. But capital would flow out into the economy. We have people getting access to capital. Small businessmen and women, African-American, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, female Americans would be able to start their businesses. Dana Crist of Lancaster said the day the tax bill is passed in Congress, she will open a new factory with 40 or 50 or 60 employees in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He’ll call that trickle down. I’ll call it Niagara Falls.GORE: The problem with this version of Niagara Falls is that Senator Dole and Mr. Kemp would put the economy in a barrel and send it over the falls. [ Laughter ] It is a risky, $550-billion tax scheme that actually raises taxes on 9 million of the hardest working families. Again, Mr. Kemp opposed that and called it unconscionable. Now, it is part of the plan that he is supporting. Not only that, though, it would blow a hole in the deficit, it would raise interest rates. That means higher mortgage payments, particularly those with the variable rate mortgages, higher car payments, he would also lead to much deeper cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. It is extremely risky. And as for these harsh words, I don’t take them personally. He said much worse about Bob Dole when he said Bob Dole never met a tax that he didn’t hike. He wrote about 450 separate provisions in that code. You better check with him before you eliminate it completely. He may be getting royalties.KEMP: Jim, a $550-billion tax cut, this is something that Al does not want to mention, has to be viewed against the context of a $50-trillion U.S. economy output of goods and services over the next six years. A $550-billion tax cut in a $50-trillion economy over six years is one-and-a-half percent, and the only hole it would blow is a hole in the plans of this administration to try to tinker with the tax code and defend the indefensible. It would blow up the bureaucracy, but you would expand the economy. That’s important for America.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, what about Mr. Kemp’s point that he’s made a couple of times that what we need is to throw away the current — the present tax code and write a whole new tax system. Do you agree with that?GORE: We’ve passed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We have fought for new provisions that now make it possible to file over the telephone. We are fighting for tax reforms across-the-board, and most importantly, we have a plan on the table right now to cut taxes on middle income families with several specific provisions. We already cut taxes on 15 million working families in this county, with an average of about $1,000 in tax relief to those making $25,000 a year or less. And for the last two years, we have had middle-income tax cuts on the table in the Congress and they would not — they weren’t accepted by Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, because they said they would not pass them without cutting deeply into Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. We are determined to move forward during these next four years, with the tax cuts that president Bill Clinton has proposed. Here they are again: A $1500 tax credit for tuition, a $10,000 tax deduction so that no family pays taxes on the money for college tuition, capital gains eliminated for the sale of a home, a tax break for first-time home buyers and for health care expenses and a $500 child tax credit.KEMP: You only get a tax cut in the Clinton administration if you do exactly what Al Gore and Bill Clinton want you to do. That’s not America. When John F. Kennedy cut tax rates, the economy grew, unemployment went down and we balanced the budget, and revenues went up. Indeed, the Secretary of Treasury under John F. Kennedy and the Deputy Secretary of Treasury under John F. Kennedy endorsed Bob Dole’s plan to cut rates, cut the Capital Gains Tax, balance the budget, provide a $500 tax credit, and, clearly, the plan should be to lift the economy, to get more revenues. Medicare will be saved because it will be put into a commission where both Bill Clinton and Bob Dole recognize it has to be studied by the same people that would study — or did study, I should say, the Social Security System and saved it in 1983 and ’84. Look, we can bring down government — the growth of government spending, but we have to grow the economy. And in Bob Dole and Jack Kemp’s opinion, we should aim at doubling the size of the American economy in the next 15 years. Under their policies, it will take 30 to 40 years. That’s not acceptable.GORE: The chairman of their national campaign steering committee, Senator D’Amato, said that Bob Dole would have to cut into Medicare in order to pay for this proposal, but that he would wait until after the election to do it. The proposal to cut Medicare that Senator Dole pushed before, and shut down the government to try to enact, would have already raised by $268, the fees paid by the average couple now on Medicare. He tried to double the deductibles and give people less in return. We have a balanced budget plan that protects Medicare and gives tax cuts.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, is it really possible to balance the budget without reforming drastically the entitlements programs, including Social Security and Medicare?KEMP: Before I answer that, Jim, let me just say it is disgraceful, the campaign being waged to scare the American senior citizens, in this state and my home state of, well, New York and California, about Medicare.GORE: One other one in there, isn’t there?KEMP: about Medicare Yeah, Maryland now. The amount of money being spent to try to mislead the American people is demagoguery, and only in the Clinton White House and in Al Gore’s mind could an increase in spending per capita on a senior citizen from $4800 in 1996 to $7200 over the next five years be considered a cut. Does anybody think that Bob Dole, who almost gave his life for his country, who has served in the Senate, who helped save Social Security, crawled out of a fox hole on Riva Ridge in Northern Italy in 1945 to save a wounded radioman? Does anybody think in this country that he could possibly want to move our country ahead and leave anybody behind? Of course, we can balance the budget. Of course, we have to hold down the growth in entitlement spending. But clearly, you cannot balance the budget, Jim, without growing this economy. It’s only growing at about two-and-a-half percent. We should double the rate of growth and double the size of American economy. This means more jobs, more wealth, more income and more capital, particularly for our nation’s poor and those left behind.GORE: Mr. Lehrer, our balanced budget plan extends the Medicare Trust Fund ten years into the future. A commission is fine, but a commission would not do any good if we adopted this risky $550-billion tax scheme. The word “scary” has been used. A couple of days ago I went with Governor Lawton Chiles, who was here, to Sarasota to the Friendship Senior Center. I talked with a woman there named Dorothy Wornell and she said, “You know, we may not be as sophisticated as some of those people in Washington, but we can add and subtract.” Here are the numbers she’s adding and subtracting. Bob Dole’s plan would have already imposed an extra $268 on the average Medicare receiving couple, and his plan would have doubled deductibles. It would have cost an extra $1,700 over the lifetime of his plan and eliminated nursing home standards and guarantees of nursing home care for seniors. Bill Clinton prevented it from happening. We will never allow that to happen.KEMP: Jim, Medicare is too important to senior citizens around this country to play the type of politics that is being played on this issue. It is losing $8 billion as we stand here tonight. By the President’s own trustees of Medicare, three members of which serve in his cabinet, it will be losing $23 billion a year by 1998. Something must be done. Bob Dole is — has suggested a commission, but, clearly, you cannot save Medicare, Social Security, or any program for the social welfare net of American people, under which they should not be allowed to fall, unless we grow this economy at least twice the rate it is growing today. That is the issue, not scaring people in America.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, Mr. Kemp has accused you of demagoguery.GORE: Well, as I said before, he used much harsher language when he talked about Bob Dole. He said that Bob Dole’s solution for every single problem was to increase taxes. He said just two years ago that the Bob Dole tax increase of 1982 was the largest tax increase in the history of the world, but let’s get to the point. Medicare has been adjusted 23 times since it was created in 1965. Bob Dole, incidentally, just bragged this year that he was one of only 12 people who voted against the creation of Medicare in the first place. I don’t think he’s — he didn’t believe in it then, and the plan that he promoted last year would have certainly been devastating to Medicare. Again, don’t take my word for it. The American Hospital Association said it could have closed 700 hospitals. The Catholic Health Association, the AARP, and many other groups who pay careful attention to Medicare said that the Dole/Gingrich plan on Medicare would have led to deep cuts, possibly set up a two-tiered system, and would have ended the kind of Medicare system that we have. Our plan extends Medicare ten years into the future. We will always protect Medicare within the context of a balanced budget plan.KEMP: Folks, they have no plan. They have absolutely no plan. The President himself suggested that the reduction in the growth of Medicare over the next five or six years ought to be held to 6 percent under the Republican plan, irrespective of the numbers, it will grow at 7 or even more percent, but that is beside the point. What has to be discussed is how we, as a nation, are going to create the size of an economy, create a national wealth that would at least double this 6 or 7 trillion economy. We would have $6 trillion in 15 years extra wealth for the American people. Another trillion dollars of revenue, with which to save Medicare and Social Security. And you can’t do it with a tax code and a regulatory code and people suing each other with frivolous suits, as this administration is allowing to happen. That has to change, and it will under Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.GORE: I think Mr. Kemp has unintentionally made a mistake in saying that President Clinton called for reduction of — to 6 percent or whatever you said. I believe you were referring to the “Money” magazine interview, and the publisher of “Money” magazine just sent Mr. Kemp a letter two days ago asking him to please stop inaccurately citing “Money” magazine. It is not what the President said. It is not the President’s position. Let me make clear what his position is. We will save Medicare. We will stop efforts to hurt Medicare, and we’ll do it within a balanced budget plan.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, what, if anything, would a Dole/Kemp administration do to change the current legal status of abortion in this country?KEMP: I will answer the question, but for the record, I would like to release the letter to our friends in the press of the letter I got from “Money” magazine, suggesting that Bill Clinton wanted and did lower the cost of living allowance for senior citizens as a way of reducing Social Security. Putting that aside, the — we recognize there’s no consensus in America. This country is split between those who call themselves pro-choice, and I’m sure, very sincerely, and those of us who call ourselves pro-life, this is a very emotional issue. I’m sure it is for a woman. It certainly is for those of us like my wife and myself who have three adopted grandchildren. We thank God every night of our life that a young woman was given a choice, was given the opportunity to choose life. This country should not be torn asunder over this debate, it has to be carried out with civility and respect, and Bob and I believe it can be. But we should recognize that every human life is precious and there should be all of the protection that we can give for an unborn human being. And to think that in this country, for every three births, there is one abortion. But even worse than that, as ugly as that might be — and I know it’s a tragedy to many people both on the pro-choice and pro-life position — we have a President who vetoed a congressional ban on the ugly and gruesome practice of snatching life away from a child just moments before he or she enters the world. That is unacceptable.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?GORE: President Clinton has made it clear that he will sign legislation outlawing procedures such as this if there is a — an exception to protect the health of the mother where serious health consequences, such as the inability to have any further children, are involved and her doctor advises her so. What is really at stake here is whether or not women will have the right to choose. The platform on which Mr. Kemp and Senator Dole are running pledges a constitutional amendment to take away a woman’s right to choose and to have the government come in and order that woman to do what the government says, no matter what the circumstances. Mr. Kemp has voted 47 out of 47 times to have such an amendment and to restrict this completely, no matter what the circumstances, even where rape and incest is involved. We will never allow a woman’s right to choose to be taken away.KEMP: There is no consensus. A constitutional amendment would not pass. We must use persuasion, not intimidation. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp will try to remind the American people of what a tremendous asset our children are and why there should be protection for innocent human life, including that of the unborn. But to think that this administration vetoed the one chance they had to ban that practice without working with people in the Congress who would have loved to have had the opportunity to stop that gruesome practice is just unacceptable to the American people. And Bob Dole would never have vetoed that ban on partial-birth abortions in the third trimester of a woman’s pregnancy.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, is the war in Bosnia really over, or is it going to break out again once the U.S. and the NATO troops leave?GORE: The fighting has stopped in Bosnia. President Bill Clinton showed tremendous courage, vision, wisdom, and leadership in having our country take the lead in rallying our allies, bringing the warring factions together in Dayton, Ohio, and hammering out a peace agreement that has ended the war in Bosnia. We hope that it will stay over with. Elections having just been held. There is great progress towards peace and reconciliation in Bosnia. We ought to be very proud of our soldiers who have played such a critical role in bringing about this peace in Bosnia. It’s not the only case where Bill Clinton has provided such leadership. We have restored democracy to Haiti, with scarcely a shot being fired. We have seen movement towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East. The Bible says there will always be wars and rumors of wars. As the President said the other night, there will always be troubles in this ol’ world, but the United States of America can be counted on to provide the vision that the world looks for from the United States of America. Bill Clinton, as President, has provided that kind of leadership. We are more secure and stronger today because of Bill Clinton’s handling of foreign policy.KEMP: Bob Dole supported the deployment of troops in Bosnia, but the problem with the foreign policy of this administration, there is none. It is ambiguous, it is contradictory. It is precipitous to go into Iraq with bombing before we had even consulted with our allies. To think that Sam Nunn of Georgia or Colin Powell helped put together the coalition in the Persian Gulf were not even consulted. It was not only precipitous, it was a sign, not of strength, but of weakness. What’s worse, they declared victory. They’ve declared victory in every deployment. We’ve had more deployments in four years than any previous four years I can think of, and I’m 61 years of age. It’s unbelievable that ambiguity can be called foreign policy. Let me say what a friend told me, and I believed it for my whole career, weakness is provocative and our message should be clear. And that’s what our message would be to the world under Bob Dole as Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.GORE: We did, of course, consult with our allies before we bombed Saddam Hussein, but sometimes the United States has to take unilateral action when our interests are at stake. General Schwarzkopf is in the audience tonight. We’re awfully proud of the way he led our coalition, organized under former President Bush. When the United States toward the repulsing of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, three times as he’s tried to get out of that box, Saddam Hussein has felt the sting of a swift, certain response from the United States of America under President Bill Clinton.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, Senator Dole has criticized the President on Haiti, that he handled that wrong. What did he do wrong?KEMP: Well, it was Bob Dole that suggested that there be a fact-finding commission. President Carter was on it. Colin Powell was on it. You cannot say, in our opinion, that Haiti is a great success. Clearly, uh it was maybe the right thing to do, but we did not go in with enough information. We caused problems in the first place by denying Caribbean countries and third-world countries a chance to trade freely in the United States. It causes economic problems and turmoil, and then we turn around, as we did in Mexico, having to bail them out. We caused the problem in the first place, and it cost us 20 to 50 billion to bail them out. Haiti is very ambiguous at best. We pray that democracy comes to Haiti, but so far, the message from Haiti is quite ambiguous, notwithstanding the declaration of victory by this administration.GORE: Well, I didn’t hear anything wrong. The fact is, we restored democracy to Haiti. When I say “restored” actually, it’s the first real democracy that Haiti has ever had. And it happened with scarcely any shots being fired. I was in the Oval Office the night when President Clinton dispatched our troops from Ft. Bragg. It was a tense moment. The planes were in the air and our negotiators were talking with the dictator down there. And when that dictator got the news from his spies outside the gate that all these planes were taking off, he said, let’s get out of here. That’s how it was done. It was one of the most deft uses of diplomacy and military force in combination that you will find anywhere in the annals of the history of this country. I was so proud of our President in the way he handled that, and the result, so far, is excellent. And we hope and pray that it will remain that way.KEMP: Many more results like Bosnia and Haiti and Mexico, and the Middle East, and we won’t have much success. One of the most serious — one of the most serious problems was the tremendous effort by this administration to force on Mexico a devaluation of their peso. The economy has dropped by almost 40 to 50 percent. Then we go in and bail them out. We caused the problem, then we have to bail them out. We should have a foreign policy that’s predicated upon trade, on spreading democracy, by giving people opportunities to trade freely with us, and making sure that everybody recognizes a rule of the Golden Rule, “To do unto others to have them do unto you.” Diplomacy first, and don’t bomb before breakfast.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, Mexico, we caused the problem, then had to go in and bail them out?GORE: No, that’s not right. When Mr. Kemp started talking about the Golden Rule, I thought he was going to talk about the gold standard again. That used to be an integral part of this so-called “Supply Side Economics,” but it may be something else that he now agrees with Bob Dole on, because Bob Dole voted to take us off the gold standard, a wise vote in my opinion. Most — all economists say that if we did that, it would throw us into a deep recession or depression and put millions out of work, but let me come directly to this question. No, when there was a crisis involving the Mexican peso, again, President Bill Clinton showed bold and dynamic leadership. I want to hasten to add that Senator Bob Dole gave critical bipartisan support at the time. He agreed with the President. He supported the President. He said this is a wise move. He could not get a majority in the Senate, and Speaker Gingrich could not get a majority in the house to go on record in support of it. So, the President, as presidents often have to do, went alone and did the right thing. You know, people said it was a big risk at that time. We’ve ended up making a $500 million profit. All of the loans have been paid back. We’re using that $500 million to further reduce the deficit. It’s come down 60 percent already. It’s going down even more toward a balanced budget, and this is helping.KEMP: It’s unbelievable that we could cause a drop in the standard of living of a friendly country like Mexico by nearly 40 to 50 percent. Unemployment goes up, we send U.S. tax dollars and IMF monies to Mexico, and we make a profit. At that level, that is — gives new meaning to the word “profitability” for U.S. foreign policy. The pain, the suffering, the unemployment, the bankruptcies, the loss of the standard of living, the people who have had to come across the border of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas if that’s our foreign policy for the third-world or Latin America, I believe more than ever, we have to elect a president who understands trade, who understands honest money, who understands private enterprise, who understands democratic capitalism, not socialism caused by the IMF and the Clinton administration.GORE: Well, I fail to understand the basis of the charge that we caused the monetary crisis in Mexico. They managed their own monetary policy. Years ago, we used to hear this phrase in American politics, the “Blame America First” crowd. I never liked that phrase, but if it was going to be applied today, it would have to be applied to this statement. The United States of America shouldn’t be blamed for the management of Mexico’s monetary policy. We helped our neighbor in an hour of need, and they survived. They’re stronger. They’re coming back. They paid us back, and we got a dividend in the process.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, Senator Dole the other night criticized President Clinton for cutting defense spending and, thus, cutting jobs in California. Is that how defense spending should be seen, as a jobs program as well?KEMP: I don’t think, Jim, that Bob Dole was suggesting that the defense of our country is a jobs or a socioeconomic program, but it’s clear that the defense budget of this administration has taken defense as a percent of our national economy to a lower level than it was prior to Pearl Harbor. That’s dangerous and it’s provocative. And the mixed message, the ambiguities of U.S. foreign policy, uh are — I believe, and Bob Dole believes, is causing not only problems for this country throughout the world, but particularly here at home. And the type of changes that were made overnight in California caused very severe dislocations. And then, of course, the President ran out to California and announced, well, maybe we’ll have another B-1or B-2 Bomber. But that is not the way policy should be made. It should be predicated upon the defense needs, the security needs, the strategic needs of the United States of America, and that’s how they’ll be made under Bob Dole as president.GORE: Well, first of all, there are virtually no large differences in the defense budgets put forward by President Clinton and put forward by the majority in the Congress in the last two years. They’re very, very similar. There is a huge difference in our economic plan. This risky $550-billion tax scheme that I talked about earlier is said by the Concord Coalition, including Republicans like Pete Peterson and Warren Rudman, to pose a threat to our nation’s ability to have a sensible defense budget in the future. They’ve gone on record as saying that this tax scheme would not only raise taxes on 9 million hard-working American families, but would also lead, almost inevitably, to deep cuts in Medicare and in defense. We have a balanced budget plan that protects the defense budget, also Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and give tax — gives tax cuts to middle-income families.KEMP: Jim, Al has to hear one more time. Every time in this century we’ve lowered the tax rates across-the-board on employment, on saving, investment, and risk-taking in this economy, revenues went up, not down. Now, if the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue. We ought to think, as John F. Kennedy did, about lowering the rates. We can’t go to zero. They can’t go too low, because there’s not enough revenue, but President Clinton apologized in Houston for saying, whoops, I raised your taxes and they’re too high. President Bush apologized for raising taxes. Bob Dole knows that the rates have to come down across-the-board and then we’ll get to the most important part, to repeal this code and go to a new system for the 21st Century.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, some Democrats have charged that the environment would be in jeopardy if Mr. Kemp and Senator Dole are elected. Do you share that fear?GORE: I certainly do. Let me first say that. In citing John F. Kennedy’s tax cut in the 1960s, I want to also remind you that Mr. Kemp has pointed out in the past, Bob Dole was in the Congress then. He was one of those who voted against John F. Kennedy’s tax cut. The environment faces dire threats from the kind of legislation that Senator Dole and Speaker Newt Gingrich tried to pass by shutting down the government and attempting to force President Clinton to accept it. They invited the lobbyists for the biggest polluters in America to come into the Congress and literally rewrite the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. President Clinton stopped them dead in their tracks. We have a positive agenda on the environment because we believe very deeply that it’s about our children and our future. Clean air and clean water, cleaning up toxic waste sites, when millions of children live within one mile of them. That’s important. We have a plan to clean up two-thirds of the toxic waste sites in America over the next four years. We’ve already cleaned up more in the last three years than the previous two administrations did in 12. The President just set aside the Utah National Monument. He is protecting the Everglades here in Florida. Bob Dole is opposed to that plan. President Bill Clinton will protect our environment and prevent the kind of attacks on it that we saw in the last Congress and are included in the Republican platform.KEMP: And so will Bob Dole. I mean, Al, get real. Franklin Roosevelt said in 1932 that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. The only thing, Jim, they have to offer is fear. Fear of the environment, fear of the climate, fear of Medicare, fear of Newt, fear of Republicans, fear of Bob, and probably fear of cutting tax rates. They ain’t seen nothing yet. Look, we recognize that this country has to live in balance with our environment. Every one of us who have children and grandchildren recognize how we have to reach a balance. It is not jobs versus our environment. Both are important. This is the most overregulated, overly litigated economy in our nation’s history. And to call a businessman or woman who sits down and has a chance to express his or her interest in how to make these laws work and call them a polluter is just outrageous. It is typical of the anti-capitalistic mentality of this administration. That will change, because we believe in democratic capitalism for everybody.GORE: There are lots of jobs to be created in cleaning up the environment. All around the world we’re seeing problems that people want to solve because they love their children. They want them to be able to drink clean water and breathe clean air. They don’t want them to live next to toxic waste sites. When the United States of America takes the lead in protecting the environment, we do right by our children, and we also create new business opportunities, new jobs, new sources of prosperity for the United States of America, and we’re going about it in a common sense way.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, you mentioned it already before and you said on “Meet the Press” Sunday that the federal government engages in “regulation reign of terror.” What exactly do you mean?KEMP: Well, exactly just what I said. Regulations that take property or reduce the value of some farmer or rancher or homeowner’s property for wetlands or endangered species and take that property or reduce its value without compensating the owner. That is a reign of terror. It’s happening. In Oregon, not too long ago, a farmer took 25 percent of his property and declared it a wetland. It had the runoff of snow that allowed it to be declared a wetland, but he did it himself voluntarily. He found within a couple of years that the Bald Eagle began to use it as a habitat. The Corporations of Engineers, the Bureau of Wildlife and Fisheries, all of the federal agencies came onto his property, declared it a federal wetland and said he couldn’t drive. They took away the road, he couldn’t mend his fences and they wouldn’t pay the value of the loss of the — they wouldn’t pay — or compensate, I should say, for the loss of value to that property. How can we, as a free society, turn people into enemies or adversaries of the United States government? OSHA does it, EPA does it, ERDA does it. And you name it. We should recognize that this country lives in such a way as to build an alliance with our free enterprise system that can build a better America for our children and our grandchildren. We can do it. But it’s got to take new leadership in Washington.GORE: Well, it takes values that recognize the importance of the environment. Mr. Kemp voted against the Clean Water Act, voted against the renewal of the Superfund Act. We have been taking a new approach, protecting the environment, but getting rid of unnecessary regulations. We’re eliminating 16,000 pages of regulations. We’ve entered a — into a new project called project XL. This is at the EPA. Where we enter into a bargain with businesses. When they say we’ll exceed the standards, we give the EPA a way to measure the progress and throw away the rulebook all together. Now this is the kind of common sense approach that can clean up the environment while eliminating unnecessary red tape. Make no mistake about it, though, there are those who would like to go much further. Some have even proposed and this bill he cites would do it, that polluters ought to be paid if they agree to stop dumping poisons into the river. The pay polluters provision is wrong. We fought against it. We’ll never allow that.KEMP: When I went to Congress from Buffalo in 1970, you could almost walk across Lake Erie because of the pollution. Today, thanks to the secondary and tertiary treatment plants, which many of us voted for on both sides of the aisle, which actually started under Richard Nixon, a Republican president, our water is cleaner in the Great Lakes. We’ve got a lot of progress that we’ve made and we’ve got to make more, but to turn the country into a regulatory effort by the federal government to suggest that we can’t work in harmony, “A” with the environment, and with business is a big mistake. We should use incentives, not always using uh sticks against business in America and the jobs it creates.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, does the government of the — of the United States as now operated by the Clinton Administration operate on a reign of terror, through a reign of terror?GORE: No, of course not. We’re taking a brand new approach to eliminate unnecessary regulations, unnecessary bureaucracy. We’ve got lots of examples of this there was a story in the newspaper the other day about a home testing kit that the FDA had held up. That happened under a rule in the last administration. We said change that rule. It’s being changed now. It’s under consideration by the FDA right now and it will be changed. There are thousands of other examples. We believe that there is a new approach. Let me give you an example from OSHA. We’re reinventing the way OSHA does its job. Some people would like to eliminate OSHA. We think that the protection of job safety in the workplace is very, very important, but what we’ve said is look, start, start measuring the results. We found that the inspectors were being rewarded on the basis of how many fines they issued. We changed that completely. They used to go in and give somebody a fine if they didn’t have a poster on the wall informing employees of their rights. To use this as an example of our new approach, now if they go in and see that poster is not there, they go out to the trunk of the car and give them a poster. It’s the same approach that we’re taking in all the regulatory agencies. We’re making a lot of progress. We want the protection with common sense, not nonsense.KEMP: Well, we have to have the type of economic prosperity that will allow us to generate the revenues to provide this technology. 10% of all the emissions — 10% of the all the hydrocarbon emissions oxides going into the air caused by 10% — 100% of the all the emissions are caused by 10% of the automobiles. Now there is technology that would allow infrared technology to be used to identify those cars that are providing or the pollution in our atmosphere. It is not being able to be used because we are going to take every automobile driver in America, all 110 million automobiles, and charge them 17 or 20 or $25. Look, we ought to go after the ones that pollute, not go after the men and women who want to be able to drive their automobile to work or to school and to make sure that they have the type of opportunity to live like everyone else without having themselves regulated by Washington establishment. We can use technology. That’s the answer, but to get the technology, you’ve got to have a growing economy. This economy is not growing fast enough and it will under Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.GORE: Well, the economy is growing very strongly right now. We’ve had 10.5 million new jobs created just in the last four years. In the last quarter, the growth rate was 4.7%. The average growth rate is also coming up. It is higher than in either of the last two Republican administrations. Bob Dole said in February of this year this is the strongest economy in 30 years. The conservative business journal, “Barron’s,” says this is the strongest economy in 30 years. We’ve got good solid growth. Let’s don’t risk it on some $550-billion risky scheme.LEHRER: What measurement do you use, Mr. Kemp, in saying the economy is not growing the way it should be?KEMP: Well, as I said earlier, Jim, it takes two bread winners to do what one breadwinner could have done just a relatively few short few years ago. As long as a woman or man wants to go to work it ought to be their choice, but in America today that woman or man must work in a family to, one to pay the tax and the other to help the family. That’s not America. It doesn’t leave enough time for the children. It doesn’t leave enough time for people to enjoy their families. It doesn’t allow people to save. The family is the most overtaxed institution in the United States of America. When I was growing up in Los Angeles, a family that median level of income might have sent four or five percent of their income to the federal government. Today, it’s close to 30, or at least 27 or 28%. That’s just unacceptable, and for Al Gore to keep suggesting that we can’t afford to reduce the tax rates across-the-board on the American people and on the formation of the capital necessary to create the new jobs for America is just totally at odds with the experience of both Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy and other times in this century. One other thing that’s very, very important. To call it a risky scheme reminds me of the fact that this administration is suggesting that they’re going to give you a tax cut if you’ll do what they want you to do. They want to cut the Capital Gain Tax, but only for home owners. How about the small businessmen and women of America that create 91% of all the new jobs? My Daddy was a truck driver who bought the truck and started a company. We need more truck drivers becoming truck owners and they can’t do it if they don’t have access to the capital and the seed corn for the next generation of truck and jobs for America.GORE: We’ve had the creation of more new small businesses in the last four years in each of the last three years than in any other year in all of American history. We’ve seen the creation of 10.5 million new jobs. We have the lowest combined rate of inflation and unemployment in 30 years. “Business Week” magazine said these are the kind of results that you want. Lower inflation, lower interest rates, more jobs and more growth, all within the context of a balanced budget. We have reduced the budget deficit four years in a row. We’ve cut it down 60 percent. After it went up by almost 300 percent during the previous two administrations. Now, this is the kind of growth that we want more of. We think we can do much better still. That’s why we’re pushing these income tax cuts for middle income families in the context of a balanced budget that protects important programs.KEMP: Four years too late. You told us that four years ago. And we still don’t have it. How can we trust an administration that, all of a sudden, four years into or the last year of its four years tells us that now they’re going to follow through on the promise they made four years ago? This economy is not growing fast enough. The haves are doing well, but Jim the have-nots are not doing well. There’s people hurting, there’re families that can’t stay together. There’s jobs that are not being created, and the unemployment rate in our nations’ inner cities is somewhere between 16 and 25 percent. That is morally and socially unacceptable in a modern day economy.LEHRER: Mr Vice President, Senator Dole raised the same question to President Clinton the other night about keeping promises made. What is your reaction to that? What is your response to that charge against you and the President.GORE: President Bill Clinton promised to create 8 million jobs. He’s created 10 and a half million new jobs. He’s promised to cut the budget deficit in half. He has cut it by 60 percent. He promised to end welfare as we know it. He passed and signed the Welfare Reform Law. He has already moved 1.9 million people off the welfare rolls into good jobs. We’ve got a plan to move 1 million more off welfare during the next four years. He promised to implement the death penalty. We passed an anti-crime Bill that has 60 new death penalty provisions. He promised to pass a plan that would put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. It is law, over the opposition of Senator Dole, and 20,000 of them are already on the streets, 2,000 of them have been funded already for here in Florida. We’re ahead of schedule and we’re going to get the additional 80,000 new police officers on the streets in the coming four years, 45,000 of them are now already funded. That is a record of promises made and promises kept. He promised middle-income tax cuts. We’ve cut taxes for 15 million families and our plan to cut them for all middle income families has been waiting for action in the Congress for two full years. In the next four years, we will pass it.KEMP: Well, to say that this is the best economy in 30 years just staggers the imagination. We have a growth rate of the last four years of about two and a half percent. My friend Al Gore says it’s better than the Reagan years. It isn’t. But irrespective of whether he thinks it is or not means less than fact that this country cannot morally and socially and economically accept an economy running out the clock on the 20th Century. We’re treading water. We have families that are hurting. We have people who are unemployed. We have people with no property. We have an administration that is demolishing public housing in our inner cities and not providing anything else but more public housing. Their solution to the inner city is more — excuse the expression but it’s true, “socialism.” It is not for the people. It is for the government to tell them where to live, where to go to school. We need school choice. We need to privatize public housing, we need to sell it to the residents, we need to put enterprise zone into, in, America and need to lower the rates of taxation on labor, capital and the factors of production. That’ll happen under Bob Dole.GORE: We are demolishing the outdated projects that did not work and we’re replacing them with new units that do work. And we have private vouchers so that individuals can choose for themselves where they live and we’re selling these units to many of those who want to buy them. Mr. Kemp had a good idea when he advocated that years ago. He talked about it, we did it, and we’re going to do a lot more of it, if we have the opportunity with the help of the American people.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, uh some are saying these days that something’s gone terribly wrong with the American soul, that we’ve become too mean, too selfish, too uncaring and the spitting incident, how it was handled, the baseball players used as a recent example. What do you think about that?KEMP: Civility, responsibility, racial reconciliation, healing the wounds of our country has to be one of the greatest, most singularly important goals for this country here on the edge of the 21st Century. How in the name of American democracy can we say to eastern Europe that democratic capitalism will work there if we can’t make it work in East L.A. or East Harlem or East Palo Alto, California? How can we tell South Africa and the new Mandela government that democracy and private property and limited government and the rule of law and civility will work there if it’s not working in our own backyard here at home or the South Bronx? How can America go into the next century and leave so many people behind? “USA Today,” just few weeks ago did a study. They said the affluent are doing very well in America, the haves, the have-nots and the poor are being left behind. It is a giant, in my opinion, zero sum game. Kind of like musical chairs when we were young boys and girls growing up. And it seemed like when the music stopped the big guy elbowed out the little guy from that last chair. That’s not America folks. We need more chairs, we need a bigger table, we need a greater banquet. We need to create more wealth. We need to create more jobs and more access to credit and capital and educational choice and opportunity for any man or woman and child to be what God meant them to be, not what Washington, D.C. wants them to be.GORE: I think Mr. Lehrer, that throughout much of his career, Jack Kemp has been a powerful and needed voice against the kind of coarseness and incivility that you refer to in the question. I think it’s an extremely valuable service to have a voice within the Republican party who says we ought to be one nation. We ought to cross all of the racial and ethnic and cultural barriers. I think that is a very important message to deliver. And we ought to speak out against these violations of civility when they do occur. You asked about the incident involving Roberto Alomar. I won’t hesitate to tell you what I think. I think he should have been severely disciplined, suspended perhaps, immediately. I don’t understand why that action was not taken, but the same could be said of so many incidents in all kinds of institutions in our society, but I compliment Mr. Kemp for the leadership he has shown in moving us away from that kind of attitude.KEMP: Well, I thank you, Al. I mean that very, very sincerely, but I’m trying to make a bigger point. That civility cannot return to our country unless every person feels that they have an equal shot at the American dream. That if you’re born in this country to be a mezzo-soprano or a master carpenter or a school teacher, like my daughter, or a professional football quarterback, nothing should be in your way. And removing those barriers is what Bob Dole is all about, moving our country forward and leaving no one behind.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, do you agree with that thesis that in order to solve the problem of civility, the problems of the American soul, you have to — it’s an economic problem more than it is something else?GORE: I think that economics is one of the single most important parts of this problem. That’s why we’re focusing on tax credits, to hire 1 million more people coming off welfare in the inner city. That’s why we’re focusing on an economic policy that has already created ten and a half million new jobs and is going to create millions more within the context, again, of a balanced budget that protects important programs. We have focused especially on the most distressed areas, because we cannot leave anyone behind. Our empowerment zones and enterprise communities, the tax credits that will encourage the formation of new businesses, the new approach by the small business administration to get more loans out to individuals that have not had equal access to capital in the past. These are parts of the plan. Another part of it is the community development financial institutions. And the — and the law that says deposits that are made in a community, in the inner cities say, should be kept in the community, not entirely, but some percentage of them should be kept there. That prevents that money being taken from the community and invested in some go-go investment on the other side of the world. And when they invest in the community, they find that there’s a better payback rate, more small businesses are created and the community improves. That’s happening in America today, not fast enough, but faster than before and we think we can accelerate it with our plan.KEMP: There really is no separation between a strong community and a strong economy. And you can’t have a strong economy without strong communities and strong families. The word “economics” in Greek came from the word family, or law or custom of the family. A family without a job where both breadwinners are away from home and cannot spend time with their children or can’t send the child to the school of their choice rather than just the choice of the federal bureaucracy, cannot possibly be as strong as a family that has the nurture, the love, the dignity and the justice that goes along with one breadwinner, a strong job, and if that man or woman wants to work, it’s their choice, not just to pay taxes. So we need both. We need strong commun — we need strong schools, we need schools that nurture the type of discipline and respect from teachers and parents. And Bob Dole wants to empower the public school districts and the teachers, not the federal bureaucracy at the Department of Education.GORE: Well, Senator Dole has said that he wants to abolish the Department of Education. He voted against the creation of Head Start. He vigorously opposed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was the first law that President Clinton signed as president. Now, Senator Dole has suggested he would repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act if he had the chance if he was elected president. We believe in more educational opportunity and measures to strengthen families, not restrict their access to education.LEHRER: Mr. Kemp, speaking of the family, where do you come down on it? Do you believe it should be repealed? The Family Leave Act?KEMP: I wouldn’t have voted for it. It’s in place. Their answer, this administration to every single problem is another regulation and another tax. Clearly, in America, we need — I am astounded to think that you can have a strong Family Leave Act or policy by a business if they’re not making a profit. If there aren’t a lot of jobs, if there isn’t the types of policies that will enhance the formation of the seed corn and the oxygen and the capital that would allow that company not only retain that profit but invest it. As I said earlier, Dana Crist of Lancaster, Pennsylvania who runs a small little manufacturing or distribution center in Lancaster, said that she as an entrepreneur, would start a whole new factory if the federal government would cut the cost of capital. She wants the capital gains rate reduced. And if, to Al Gore and Bill Clinton that is somehow, trickle-down economics. Tell that to Dana Crist, tell it to Van Woods, tell it to the men and women I met in South Central. Tell it to anybody who understands how to makes democratic capitalism work. I want to say it one more time. The real excitement of a Dole/Kemp Administration would be to get out of this current tax code that redistributes wealth and create a brand new system for the 21st Century that’s pro-family, pro-growth and stops the double, triple and quadruple taxation of income from work, savings, investment and entrepreneurial risk taking in America.GORE: The question as I recall, it was about Family and Medical Leave. Here’s how it works. If you have a child who is critically ill or has been seriously injured and you have to stay with that child in the hospital, some employers, have said you can’t take too much time off in spite of these circumstances. I personally know people who have been fired because they made the choice to be with their child. Don’t tell me this doesn’t happen. It happens all across the United States. But since Bill Clinton made this the first law he signed, it has been use 12 million times by American families to reconcile the demands of work with the responsibilities to the family. We now want to extend it to PTA meetings and scheduled doctors appointments. It shouldn’t be repealed. It ought to be extended. 75 percent of businesses who have been — had experience with it say they like it. It works.KEMP: Well, it was here before Bill Clinton and it will be here after Bill Clinton. Senator Tsongas a good friend of Senator Gore, Vice President Gore suggested that he was afraid his party was falling into the trap of loving the employee, but hating the employer. You cannot love labor and hate employers. You cannot drive this wedge between workers and management. And businesses were providing family leave. They will continue. They should. They’ve got to make a profit and the tax on business, capital, labor and families is too high and it will — we want to reduce that regulatory burden and that tax burden in a new Dole/Kemp Administration.LEHRER: Gentlemen, that was the last question, so now we go to the closing statements. There will be three minutes each and Mr. Kemp, you are first.KEMP: Thank you, Jim and thanks to the people of St. Petersburg for a fantastic hospitality and my friend, Al Gore, for a vigorous debate. I think this is the most exciting time in the history of the world to be alive. We have lived through what Jean Kirpatrick called the bloodiest century in mankind’s history. We have defeated in this system of ours fascism, Nazism, communism, socialism is defunct or debunked around the world, the evil of apartheid has ended. There is only one last question remaining for the next century, indeed the next millennium. Can we, in America, make the world’s greatest liberal democracy, this democratic experiment in private property, limited government, the rule of law, respect for families and traditional Judeo-Christian values work, so it can be a blessing to our country and a blessing to the rest of the world? With all due respect to this administration, they’ve got a foreign policy in disarray. They have a lack of credibility around the world. Weakness, I said earlier, is provocative and clearly, this economy is not performing up to the standards that we would expect from this great nation going into the most exciting global economy the world has ever known. There’s something amiss. Our culture seems to be weakening all around us. Families are under tremendous pressure. People do not — do not feel safe in their homes. A mother doesn’t feel safe sending her child to school. Our schools are not educating. It’s not the problem of the teachers. They are overworked and my daughter will tell you, they are underpaid and we know that, they need to be empowered. We need to reform education. We need to reform welfare. We need to reform litigation and regulation. And we certainly need to reform this tax code that is a product of this terrible century of war and recession and inflations. It can be done. We need somebody who understands the potential of the American people, who are not just doing well for ourselves, we need to do well for the rest of the world, because they’re looking at us. And we need to make it work in every neighborhood and community in America and for every family, so that no one as Bob Dole said in his San Diego acceptance speech is left behind. Bob Dole, as I said earlier, is a man of courage, a man of principles, a man who crawled out of a fox hole on Riva Ridge in 1945 to save a wounded brethren. The bible says no greater love hath a man than he gave his life. Well, Bob Dole did, just about, he’d been through the valley of the shadow and he as Commander-in-Chief can take this country with the courage of Churchill. The principles of Lincoln and the indefatigable optimism and spirit that this nation expects from its Commander-in-Chief and the next President of the United States, Bob Dole.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?GORE: Thank you very much, Mr. Lehrer. Thanks again to the people of St. Petersburg and thanks again to Jack Kemp. I have enormous respect for Jack Kemp and for Bob Dole. They’re good men. I don’t agree with their plan. I’ve tried to make that clear tonight. And one reason I’ve tried to make it clear is that in just 27 days, the United States of America has an important choice to make. Between two approaches to the future of this country. We have a plan that will create millions more jobs, bring the deficits down further and balance the budget, while protecting Medicare, protecting Medicaid, protecting and preserving the environment, our air, our water, the Everglades, the Tongas, the Mojave Desert in California, the Utah-Red Rocks area, all of which have been protected by President Bill Clinton. We also have a plan to expand access to education. There’s a family in the audience tonight, the McNeil family, who lives right here in St. Petersburg. Both parents are teachers, they’re not rich in money, but they have strong values and they value education. They’re oldest son is a freshman at St. Petersburg Junior High — Junior College. Their younger son, Roderick, is a sophomore in the same high school that Don McNeil teaches at. Roderick is concerned that he may not be able to get the tuition he needs to go to college when the time comes. Our plan gives a $1500 tax credit to make that junior college essentially free. And a $10,000 tax deduction to make it so that no American family, or almost no family, will have to pay taxes on the money they pay for college tuition. This plan also gives tax breaks on the sale of a home, up to $500,000 in profit tax free. It gives the new break for first-time home buyers, and, again, all in the context of a balanced budget. We have seen progress during the last four years because policies like these have been working. This risky scheme that I’ve described tonight has been said by many objective observers to not add up, it would be a serious risk. Our plan, by contrast, has been working and will work more. We want to build a bridge to the 21st Century and we want it to be strong enough and broad enough for all families to cross and we want it to lead to a brighter future for America, ’cause our best days are ahead.LEHRER: Thank you.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "fa9aed06-e4ee-4e03-90e6-cd2a195a65cd"
  },
  {
    "year": 2004,
    "date": "October 8, 2004",
    "title": "The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 8, 2004 Debate TranscriptOctober 8, 2004The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential DebateSECOND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATEWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURISPEAKERS:GEORGE W. BUSHPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESU.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEECHARLES GIBSONABC ANCHORGIBSON: Good evening from the Field House at Washington University in St. Louis. I’m Charles Gibson of ABC News and “Good Morning America.”I welcome you to the second of the 2004 presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.The debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.Tonight’s format is going to be a bit different. We have assembled a town-hall meeting. We’re in the Show-Me State, as everyone knows Missouri to be, so Missouri residents will ask the questions.These 140 citizens were identified by the Gallup Organization as not yet committed in this election.Now, earlier today, each audience member gave me two questions on cards like this, one they’d like to ask the president, the other they’d like to ask the senator.I have selected the questions to be asked and the order. No one has seen the final list of questions but me, certainly not the candidates.No audience member knows if he or she will be called upon. Audience microphones will be turned off after a question is asked.Audience members will address their question to a specific candidate. He’ll have two minutes to answer. The other candidate will have a minute and a half for rebuttal. And I have the option of extending discussion for one minute, to be divided equally between the two men.All subjects are open for discussion.And you probably know the light system by now. Green light at 30 seconds, yellow at 15, red at five, and flashing red means you’re done.Those are the candidates’ rules. I will hold the candidates to the time limits forcefully but politely, I hope.And now, please join me in welcoming with great respect, President Bush and Senator Kerry.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, to the business at hand.The first question is for Senator Kerry, and it will come from Cheryl Otis, who is right behind me.OTIS: Senator Kerry, after talking with several co-workers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for you, “Why?” They said that you were too wishy-washy.Do you have a reply for them?KERRY: Yes, I certainly do.(LAUGHTER)But let me just first, Cheryl, if you will, I want to thank Charlie for moderating. I want to thank Washington University for hosting us here this evening.Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again this evening, sir.Cheryl, the president didn’t find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he’s really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass deception. And the result is that you’ve been bombarded with advertisements suggesting that I’ve changed a position on this or that or the other.Now, the three things they try to say I’ve changed position on are the Patriot Act; I haven’t. I support it. I just don’t like the way John Ashcroft has applied it, and we’re going to change a few things. The chairman of the Republican Party thinks we ought to change a few things.No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it. I support it. I support the goals.But the president has underfunded it by $28 billion.Right here in St. Louis, you’ve laid off 350 teachers. You’re 150 — excuse me, I think it’s a little more, about $100 million shy of what you ought to be under the No Child Left Behind Act to help your education system here.So I complain about that. I’ve argued that we should fully funded it. The president says I’ve changed my mind. I haven’t changed my mind: I’m going to fully fund it.So these are the differences.Now, the president has presided over an economy where we’ve lost 1.6 million jobs. The first president in 72 years to lose jobs.I have a plan to put people back to work. That’s not wishy- washy.I’m going to close the loopholes that actually encourage companies to go overseas. The president wants to keep them open. I think I’m right. I think he’s wrong.I’m going to give you a tax cut. The president gave the top 1 percent of income-earners in America, got $89 billion last year, more than the 80 percent of people who earn $100,000 or less all put together. I think that’s wrong. That’s not wishy-washy, and that’s what I’m fighting for, you.GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute and a half.BUSH: Charlie, thank you, and thank our panelists.And, Senator, thank you.I can — and thanks, Washington U. as well.I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does. He said he voted for the $87 billion, and voted against it right before he voted for it. And that sends a confusing signal to people.He said he thought Saddam Hussein was a grave threat, and now he said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.No, I can see why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does.You know, for a while he was a strong supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He saw the wisdom — until the Democrat primary came along and Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate, began to gain on him, and he changed positions.I don’t see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics.He just brought up the tax cut. You remember we increased that child credit by $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, created a 10 percent tax bracket for the lower-income Americans. That’s right at the middle class.He voted against it. And yet he tells you he’s for a middle- class tax cut. It’s — you’ve got to be consistent when you’re the president. There’s a lot of pressures. And you’ve got to be firm and consistent.GIBSON: Mr. President, I would follow up, but we have a series of questions on Iraq, and so I will turn to the next questioner.The question is for President Bush, and the questioner is Robin Dahle.DAHLE: Mr. President, yesterday in a statement you admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but justified the invasion by stating, I quote, “He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist enemies.”Do you sincerely believe this to be a reasonable justification for invasion when this statement applies to so many other countries, including North Korea?BUSH: Each situation is different, Robin.And obviously we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force. The hardest decision a president makes is ever to use force.After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us.In the old days we’d see a threat, and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not. But 9/11 changed it all.I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That’s why we’re bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice.That’s why I said to Afghanistan: If you harbor a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban is no longer in power, and Al Qaida no longer has a place to plan.And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like Al Qaida, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was the serious, serious threat.So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That’s why he called him a grave threat.I wasn’t happy when we found out there wasn’t weapons, and we’ve got an intelligence group together to figure out why.But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power.And my opponent’s plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous.Thank you, sir.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Robin, I’m going to answer your question.I’m also going to talk — respond to what you asked, Cheryl, at the same time.The world is more dangerous today. The world is more dangerous today because the president didn’t make the right judgments.Now, the president wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe that because he can’t come here and tell you that he’s created new jobs for America. He’s lost jobs.He can’t come here and tell you that he’s created health care for Americans because, what, we’ve got 5 million Americans who have lost their health care, 96,000 of them right here in Missouri.He can’t come here and tell you that he’s left no child behind because he didn’t fund no child left behind.So what does he do? He’s trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can’t be president. And he’s trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.Well, let me tell you straight up: I’ve never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.GIBSON: Mr. President, I do want to follow up on this one, because there were several questions from the audience along this line.BUSH: (OFF-MIKE)GIBSON: Go ahead. Go ahead.(CROSSTALK)GIBSON: Well, I was going to have you do the rebuttal on it, but you go ahead.(LAUGHTER)You’re up.BUSH: You remember the last debate?My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves. That’s the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. That’s the kind of mindset that said, “Let’s keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.”Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.GIBSON: Senator?KERRY: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective.And if we’d used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That’s the war against terror.GIBSON: We’re going to have another question now on the subject of Iraq.And I’m going to turn to Anthony Baldi with a question for Senator Kerry.Mr. Baldi?BALDI: Senator Kerry, the U.S. is preparing a new Iraq government and will proceed to withdraw U.S. troops.Would you proceed with the same plans as President Bush?KERRY: Anthony, I would not. I have laid out a different plan, because the president’s plan is not working. You see that every night on television.There’s chaos in Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan said just yesterday or the day before you can’t hold elections in Iraq with the chaos that’s going on today.Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent. Those are the Republican chairman’s words.Senator Hagel of Nebraska said that the handling of Iraq is beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing; it’s in the zone of dangerous.Those are the words of two Republicans, respected, both on the Foreign Relations Committee.Now, I have to tell you, I would do something different. I would reach out to our allies in a way that this president hasn’t. He pushed them away time and again, pushed them away at the U.N., pushed them away individually.Two weeks ago, there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, which is the political arm of NATO. They discussed the possibility of a small training unit or having a total takeover of the training in Iraq.Did our administration push for the total training of Iraq? No. Were they silent? Yes.Was there an effort to bring all the allies together around that? No, because they’ve always wanted this to be an American effort.You know, they even had the Defense Department issue a memorandum saying, “Don’t bother applying for assistance or for being part of the reconstruction if you weren’t part of our original coalition.”Now, that’s not a good way to build support and reduce the risk for our troops and make America safer.I’m going to get the training done for our troops. I’m going to get the training of Iraqis done faster. And I’m going to get our allies back to the table.BUSH: Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the finance minister from Iraq. He came to see me. And he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward elections.Think about it: They’re going from tyranny to elections.He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free.He said he was optimistic when he came here, then he turned on the TV and listened to the political rhetoric and all of a sudden he was pessimistic.Now, this is guy a who, along with others, has taken great risk for great freedom. And we need to stand with him.My opponent says he has a plan; it sounds familiar, because it’s called the Bush plan. We’re going to train troops, and we are. We’ll have 125,000 trained by the end of December. We’re spending about $7 billion.He talks about a grand idea: Let’s have a summit; we’re going to solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit.And what is he going to say to those people that show up at the summit? Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you’ve called a mistake.Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn’t believe we can succeed and with somebody who says that war where we are is a mistake.I know how these people think. I meet with them all the time. I talk to Tony Blair all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlusconi. They’re not going to follow an American president who says follow me into a mistake. Our plan is working. We’re going to make elections. And Iraq is going to be free, and America will be better off for it.GIBSON: Do you want to follow up, Senator?KERRY: Yes, sir, please.Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains.Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force, not after excuse to get rid of the regime.Now we have to succeed. I’ve always said that. I have been consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help us do it.BUSH: First of all, we didn’t find out he didn’t have weapons until we got there, and my opponent thought he had weapons and told everybody he thought he had weapons.And secondly, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden. The war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. That’s what the war on terror is about.Of course, we’re going to find Osama bin Laden. We’ve already 75 percent of his people. And we’re on the hunt for him.But this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve.GIBSON: The next question is for President Bush, and it comes from Nikki Washington.WASHINGTON: Thank you.Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation.Diplomacy is obviously something that we really have to really work on.What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?BUSH: No, I appreciate that. I — listen, I — we’ve got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I’ve made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country.I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very — we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made.I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security.You know, I’ve made some decisions on Israel that’s unpopular. I wouldn’t deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don’t think he’s the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.And people in Europe didn’t like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do.I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that’s committed to a democracy and freedom, leadership that would be willing to reject terrorism.I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to — brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.I don’t think we ought to join that. That was unpopular.And so, what I’m telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they’re right.We’ll continue to reach out.Listen, there is 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan.People love America. Sometimes they don’t like the decisions made by America, but I don’t think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing.You don’t want to join the International Criminal Court just because it’s popular in certain capitals in Europe.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Nikki, that’s a question that’s been raised by a lot of people around the country.Let me address it but also talk about the weapons the president just talked about, because every part of the president’s answer just now promises you more of the same over the next four years.The president stood right here in this hall four years ago, and he was asked a question by somebody just like you, “Under what circumstances would you send people to war?”And his answer was, “With a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done.”He didn’t do that. He broke that promise. We didn’t have enough forces.General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.This president hasn’t listened.I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they’d be there with us.But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, “Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We’re going.”He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.Ladies and gentleman, he gave you a speech and told you he’d plan carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn’t. He broke his word.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, “Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?”I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, “Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?”And they looked me in the eye and said, “Yes, sir, Mr. President.” Of course, I listen to our generals. That’s what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.GIBSON: Senator?KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component.General Shinseki had the wisdom to say, “You’re going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace.” The military’s job is to win the war.A president’s job is to win the peace.The president did not do what was necessary. Didn’t bring in enough nation. Didn’t deliver the help. Didn’t close off the borders. Didn’t even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.GIBSON: The next question is for Senator Kerry, and it comes from over here, from Randee Jacobs.You’ll need a microphone.KERRY: Is it Randee?JACOBS: Yes, Randee.Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.In the event that U.N. sanctions don’t stop this threat, what will you do as president?KERRY: I don’t think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you’re absolutely correct, it is a threat, it’s a huge threat.And what’s interesting is, it’s a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn’t a threat.If he’d let the inspectors do their job and go on, we wouldn’t have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden.Meanwhile, while Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons, some 37 tons of what they called yellow cake, the stuff they use to make enriched uranium, while they’re doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb maybe, maybe, to four to seven bombs.For two years, the president didn’t even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.We were safer before President Bush came to office. Now they have the bombs and we’re less safe.So what do we do? We’ve got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, who’ve been involved, in their initiative. We’ve got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole.But the president’s been slow to do that, even in Russia.At his pace, it’s going to take 13 years to reduce and get ahold of all the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. I’ve proposed a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years.And the president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon. It’s very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you’re busy developing a new one.I’m going to lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort. And if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute and a half.BUSH: That answer almost made me want to scowl.He keeps talking about, “Let the inspectors do their job.” It’s naive and dangerous to say that. That’s what the Duelfer report showed. He was deceiving the inspectors.Secondly, of course we’ve been involved with Iran.I fully understand the threat. And that’s why we’re doing what he suggested we do: Get the Brits, the Germans and the French to go make it very clear to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the world to give up their nuclear ambitions. We’ve been doing that.Let me talk about North Korea.It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he’s the person who’s accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have — China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States — and undermine them by having bilateral talks.That’s what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened?He didn’t honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy.Of course, we’re paying attention to these. It’s a great question about Iran. That’s why in my speech to the Congress I said: There’s an “Axis of Evil,” Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and we’re paying attention to it. And we’re making progress.GIBSON: We’re going to move on, Mr. President, with a question for you. And it comes from Daniel Farley.Mr. Farley?FARLEY: Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?BUSH: Yes, that’s a great question. Thanks.I hear there’s rumors on the Internets (sic) that we’re going to have a draft. We’re not going to have a draft, period. The all- volunteer army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when we make sure they’ve got housing, like we have done in the last military budgets.An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people as they hide around the world.We don’t need mass armies anymore. One of the things we’ve done is we’ve taken the — we’re beginning to transform our military.And by that I mean we’re moving troops out of Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons. We don’t need as much manpower on the Korean Peninsula to keep a deterrent.In Europe, we have massed troops as if the Soviet Union existed and was going to invade into Europe, but those days are over with. And so we’re moving troops out of Europe and replacing it with more effective equipment.So to answer your question is, we’re withdrawing, not from the world, we’re withdrawing manpower so they can be stationed here in America, so there’s less rotation, so life is easier on their families and therefore more likely to be — we’ll be more likely to be able to keep people in the all-volunteer army.One of the more important things we’re doing in this administration is transformation. There are some really interesting technologies.For instance, we’re flying unmanned vehicles that can send real- time messages back to stations in the United States. That saves manpower, and it saves equipment.It also means that we can target things easier and move more quickly, which means we need to be lighter and quicker and more facile and highly trained.Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We’re not going to have a draft so long as I am the president.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Daniel, I don’t support a draft.But let me tell you where the president’s policies have put us.The president — and this is one of the reasons why I am very proud in this race to have the support of General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for the president’s father and did a brilliant job, supporting me; General Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo, supporting me; because they all — and General Baca, who was the head of the National Guard, supporting me.Why? Because they understand that our military is overextended under the president.Our Guard and reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You’ve got people doing two and three rotations. You’ve got stop-loss policies, so people can’t get out when they were supposed to. You’ve got a back-door draft right now.And a lot of our military are underpaid. These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class. It hurts communities, because these are our first responders. And they’re called up. And they’re over there, not over here.Now, I’m going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military, and I’m going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not overextended, because I’m going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did, President Eisenhower did, and others.We’re going to build alliances. We’re not going to go unilaterally. We’re not going to go alone like this president did.GIBSON: Mr. President, let’s extend for a minute…BUSH: Let me just — I’ve got to answer this.GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty…(CROSSTALK)BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft…BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we’re going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we’re going alone.There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we’re going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you’re going alone. And people listen. They’re sacrificing with us.GIBSON: Senator?KERRY: Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.That’s not a grand coalition.Ninety percent of the casualties are American. Ninety percent of the costs are coming out of your pockets.I could do a better job. My plan does a better job. And that’s why I’ll be a better commander in chief.GIBSON: The next question, Senator Kerry, is for you, and it comes from Ann Bronsing, who I believe is over in this area.BRONSING: Senator Kerry, we have been fortunate that there have been no further terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Why do you think this is?And if elected, what will you do to assure our safety?KERRY: Thank you very much, Ann.I’ve asked in my security briefings why that is, and I can’t go into all the answers, et cetera, but let me say this to you.This president and his administration have told you and all of us it’s not a question of when, it’s a question of — excuse me — not a question of if, it’s a question of when. We’ve been told that.The when I can’t tell you. Between the World Trade Center bombing in, what was it, 1993 or so, and the next time was five years, seven years. These people wait. They’ll plan. They plot.I agree with the president that we have to go after them and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence. You’ve got to have the best intelligence in the world.And in order to have the best intelligence in the world to know who the terrorists are and where they are and what they’re plotting, you’ve got to have the best cooperation you’ve ever had in the world.Now, to go back to your question, Nikki, we’re not getting the best cooperation in the world today. We’ve got a whole bunch of countries that pay a price for dealing with the United States of America now. I’m going to change that.And I’m going to put in place a better homeland security effort.Look, 95 percent of our containers coming into this country are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is X- rayed, but the cargo hold isn’t X-rayed. Do you feel safer?This president in the last debate said, “Well, that would be a big tax gap if we did that.”Ladies and gentlemen, it’s his tax plan. He chose a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that equipment out into the homeland as fast as possible.We have bridges and tunnels that aren’t being secured, chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren’t secured, hospitals that are overcrowded with their emergency rooms.If we had a disaster today, could they handle it?This president chose a tax cut over homeland security. Wrong choice.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: That’s an odd thing to say, since we’ve tripled the homeland security budget from $10 billion to $30 billion.Listen, we’ll do everything we can to protect the homeland.My opponent’s right, we need good intelligence. It’s also a curious thing for him to say since right after 1993 he voted to cut the intelligence budget by $7.5 billion.The best way to defend America in this world we live in is to stay on the offense. We got to be right 100 percent of the time here at home, and they got to be right once. And that’s the reality.And there’s a lot of good people working hard. We’re doing the best we possibly can to share information. That’s why the Patriot Act was important.The Patriot Act is vital, by the way. It’s a tool that law enforcement now uses to be able to talk between each other. My opponent says he hadn’t changed his position on it. No, but he’s for weakening it.I don’t think my opponent has got the right view about the world to make us safe; I really don’t.First of all, I don’t think he can succeed in Iraq. And if Iraq were to fail, it’d be a haven for terrorists, and there would be money and the world would be much more dangerous.I don’t see how you can win in Iraq if you don’t believe we should be there in the first place. I don’t see how you can lead troops if you say it’s the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.I don’t see how the Iraqis are going to have confidence in the American president if all they hear is that it was a mistake to be there in the first place.This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast determination and it requires a complete understanding that we not only chase down Al Qaida but we disrupt terrorist safe havens as well as people who could provide the terrorists with support.GIBSON: I want to extend for a minute, Senator. And I’m curious about something you said. You said, “It’s not when, but if.” You think it’s inevitable because the sense of security is a very basic thing with everybody in this country worried about their kids.KERRY: Well, the president and his experts have told America that it’s not a question of if; it’s a question of when. And I accept what the president has said. These terrorists are serious, they’re deadly, and they know nothing except trying to kill.I understand that. That’s why I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.But you heard the president just say to you that we’ve added money.Folks, the test is not if you’ve added money; the test is that you’ve done everything possible to make America secure. He chose a tax cut for wealthy Americans over the things that I listed to you.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: Well, we’ll talk about the tax cut for middle class here in a minute. But yes, I’m worried. I’m worried. I’m worried about our country. And all I can tell you is every day I know that there’s people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason I’m worried is because there’s a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate.And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread freedom.Liberty can change habits. And that’s what’s happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.GIBSON: Mr. President, we’re going to turn to questions now on domestic policy. And we’re going to start with health issues.And the first question is for President Bush and it’s from John Horstman.HORSTMAN: Mr. President, why did you block the reimportation of safer and inexpensive drugs from Canada which would have cut 40 to 60 percent off of the cost?BUSH: I haven’t yet. Just want to make sure they’re safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn’t kill you.And that’s why the FDA and that’s why the surgeon general are looking very carefully to make sure it can be done in a safe way. I’ve got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you.And what my worry is is that, you know, it looks like it’s from Canada, and it might be from a third world.And we’ve just got to make sure, before somebody thinks they’re buying a product, that it works. And that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing.Now, it may very well be here in December you’ll hear me say, I think there’s a safe way to do it.There are other ways to make sure drugs are cheaper. One is to speed up generic drugs to the marketplace, quicker. Pharmaceuticals were using loopholes to keep brand — brand drugs in place, and generics are much less expensive than brand drugs. And we’re doing just that.Another is to pass — to get our seniors to sign up to these drug discount cards, and they’re working.Wanda Blackmore I met here from Missouri, the first time she bought drugs with her drug discount card, she paid $1.14, I think it was, for about $10 worth of drugs.These cards make sense.And, you know, in 2006 seniors are going to get prescription drug coverage for the first time in Medicare. Because I went to Washington to fix problems.Medicare — the issue of Medicare used to be called “Mediscare.” People didn’t want to touch it for fear of getting hurt politically.I wanted to get something done. I think our seniors deserve a modern medical system. And in 2006, our seniors will get prescription drug coverage.Thank you for asking.GIBSON: Senator, a minute and a half.KERRY: John, you heard the president just say that he thought he might try to be for it.Four years ago, right here in this forum, he was asked the same question: Can’t people be able to import drugs from Canada? You know what he said? “I think that makes sense. I think that’s a good idea” — four years ago.Now, the president said, “I’m not blocking that.” Ladies and gentlemen, the president just didn’t level with you right now again.He did block it, because we passed it in the United States Senate. We sent it over to the House, that you could import drugs. We took care of the safety issues.We’re not talking about third-world drugs. We’re talking about drugs made right here in the United States of America that have American brand names on them and American bottles. And we’re asking to be able to allow you to get them.The president blocked it. The president also took Medicare, which belongs to you. And he could have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and lowered the costs to seniors.You know what he did? He made it illegal, illegal for Medicare to do what the V.A. does, which is bulk purchase drugs so that you can lower the price and get them out to you lower.He put $139 billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug companies right out of your pockets. That’s the difference between us. The president sides with the power companies, the oil companies, the drug companies. And I’m fighting to let you get those drugs from Canada, and I’m fighting to let Medicare survive.I’m fighting for the middle class. That is the difference.BUSH: If they’re safe, they’re coming. I want to remind you that it wasn’t just my administration that made the decision on safety. President Clinton did the same thing, because we have an obligation to protect you.Now, he talks about Medicare. He’s been in the United States Senate 20 years. Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished.I’ve been in Washington, D.C., three and a half years and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health care system. That’s what leadership is all about.KERRY: Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it.We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don’t know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time.And it’s the president’s fiscal policies that have driven up the biggest deficits in American history. He’s added more debt to the debt of the United States in four years than all the way from George Washington to Ronald Reagan put together. Go figure.GIBSON: The next question is for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Norma-Jean Laurent.LAURENT: Senator Kerry, you’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?KERRY: Very easily. John Edwards is the author of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people rights. John Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that, as lawyers — I’m a lawyer, too. And I believe that we will be able to get a fix that has alluded everybody else because we know how to do it.It’s in my health-care proposal. Go to johnkerry.com. You can pull it off of the Internet. And you’ll find a tort reform plan.Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand, the president and his friends try to make a big deal out of it. Is it a problem? Yes, it’s a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for OGBYNs (sic) and for brain surgeons and others? Yes.But it’s less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care.Your premiums are going up. You’ve gone up, in Missouri, about $3,500. You’ve gone up 64 percent. You’ve seen co-pays go up, deductibles go up. Everything’s gone up.Five million people have lost their health insurance under this president. He’s done nothing about it.I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care for you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let you buy into the same health care senators and congressmen give themselves.I have a plan that’s going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early.And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic cases out of the system, off your backs, pay for it out of a federal fund, which lowers the premiums for everybody in America, makes American business more competitive and makes health care more affordable.Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one thing: Join me in rolling back the president’s unaffordable tax cut for people earning more than $200,000 a year. That’s all.Ninety-eight percent of America, I’m giving you a tax cut and I’m giving you health care.GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute and a half.BUSH: Let me see where to start here.First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all. And that’s saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.The reason I bring that up is because he’s proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending, and he says he going to tax the rich to close the tax gap.He can’t. He’s going to tax everybody here to fund his programs. That’s just reality.And what are his health programs? First, he says he’s for medical liability reform, particularly for OB/GYNs. There’s a bill on the floor of the United States Senate that he could have showed up and voted for if he’s so much for it.Secondly, he says that medical liability costs only cause a 1 percent increase. That shows a lack of understanding. Doctors practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our government $28 billion a year.And finally, he said he’s going to have a novel health care plan. You know what it is? The federal government is going to run it.It’s the largest increase in federal government health care ever. And it fits with his philosophy. That’s why I told you about the award he won from the National Journal.That’s what liberals do. They create government-sponsored health care. Maybe you think that makes sense. I don’t.Government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing. It would ruin the quality of health care in America.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, we got several questions along this line, and I’m just curious if you’d go further on what you talked about with tort reform. Would you be favoring capping awards on pain and suffering? Would you limit attorney’s fees?KERRY: A follow-up…GIBSON: Yes. A follow-up on this for…KERRY: Yes, I think we should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations.But look, what’s really important, Charlie, is the president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. I mean, “compassionate conservative,” what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history.Mr. President, you’re batting 0 for 2.I mean, seriously — labels don’t mean anything. What means something is: Do you have a plan? And I want to talk about my plan some more — I hope we can.GIBSON: We’ll get to that in just a minute.Thirty seconds, President Bush.BUSH: You’re right, what does matter is a plan. He said he’s for — you’re now for capping punitive damages?That’s odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then.Medical liability issues are a problem, a significant problem. He’s been in the United States Senate for 20 years and he hasn’t addressed it.We passed it out of the House of Representatives. Guess where it’s stuck? It’s stuck in the Senate, because the trial lawyers won’t act on it. And he put a trial lawyer on the ticket.GIBSON: The next question is for President Bush, and it comes from Matthew O’Brien.O’BRIEN: Mr. President, you have enjoyed a Republican majority in the House and Senate for most of your presidency. In that time, you’ve not vetoed a single spending bill. Excluding $120 billion spent in Iran and — I’m sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been $700 billion spent and not paid for by taxes.Please explain how the spending you have approved and not paid for is better for the American people than the spending proposed by your opponent.BUSH: Right, thank you for that.We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went into a recession. You might remember the stock market started to decline dramatically six months before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped. And that cost us revenue. That cost us revenue.Secondly, we’re at war. And I’m going to spend what it takes to win the war, more than just $120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve got to pay our troops more. We have. We’ve increased money for ammunition and weapons and pay and homeland security.I just told this lady over here we spent — went from $10 billion to $30 billion to protect the homeland. I think we have an obligation to spend that kind of money.And plus, we cut taxes for everybody. Everybody got tax relief, so that they get out of the recession.I think if you raise taxes during a recession, you head to depression. I come from the school of thought that says when people have more money in their pocket during economic times, it increases demand or investment. Small businesses begin to grow, and jobs are added.We found out today that over the past 13 months, we’ve added 1.9 million new jobs in the last 13 months.I proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years.And you’re right, I haven’t vetoed any spending bills, because we work together.Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it’s less than 1 percent, because we’re working together to try to bring this deficit under control.Like you, I’m concerned about the deficit. But I am not going to shortchange our troops in harm’s way. And I’m not going to run up taxes, which will cost this economy jobs.Thank you for your question.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Let me begin by saying that my health-care plan is not what the president described. It is not a government takeover.You have choice. Choose your doctor, choose your plan. The government has nothing to do with it.In fact, it doesn’t ask you to do anything — if you don’t want to take it, you don’t have to. If you like your high premiums, you keep them. That’s the way we leave it.Now with respect to the deficit, the president was handed a $5.6 trillion surplus, ladies and gentlemen. That’s where he was when he came into office.We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He’s the first president in 72 years to lose jobs.He talked about war. This is the first time the United States of America has ever had a tax cut when we’re at war.Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, others, knew how to lead. They knew how to ask the American people for the right things.One percent of America, the highest one percent of income earners in America, got $89 billion of tax cut last year. One percent of America got more than the 80 percent of America that earned from $100,000 down.The president thinks it’s more important to fight for that top 1 percent than to fight for fiscal responsibility and to fight for you.I want to put money in your pocket. I am — I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000. The only people affected by my plan are the top income earners of America.GIBSON: I both — I heard you both say — I have heard you both say during the campaign, I just heard you say it, that you’re going to cut the deficit by a half in four years. But I didn’t hear one thing in the last three and a half minutes that would indicate how either one of you do that.BUSH: Well, look at the budget. One is make sure Congress doesn’t overspend.But let me talk back about where we’ve been. The stock market was declining six months prior to my arrival.It was the largest stock market correction — one of the largest in history, which foretold a recession.Because we cut taxes on everybody — remember, we ran up the child credit by $1,000, we reduced the marriage penalty, we created a 10 percent bracket, everybody who pays taxes got relief — the recession was one of the shortest in our nation’s history.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.KERRY: After 9/11, after the recession had ended, the president asked for another tax cut and promised 5.6 million jobs would be created. He lost 1.6 million, ladies and gentlemen. And most of that tax cut went to the wealthiest people in the country.He came and asked for a tax cut — we wanted a tax cut to kick the economy into gear. Do you know what he presented us with? A $25 billion giveaway to the biggest corporations in America, including a $254 million refund check to Enron.Wrong priorities. You are my priority.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question will be for you, and it comes from James Varner, who I believe is in this section.Mr. Varner? You need a microphone.VARNER: Thank you.Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.I have a tax cut. And here’s my tax cut.I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids.I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents — and kids, if they’re earning for themselves — to be able to pay for college.And I lower the cost of health care in the way that I described to you.Every part of my program I’ve shown how I’m going to pay for it.And I’ve gotten good people, like former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work.I’ve even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like the child-care program I wanted to fund and the national service program, because the president’s deficit keeps growing and I’ve said as a pledge, “I’m going to cut the deficit in half in four years.”Now, I’m going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen: pay as you go. We’re going to do it like you do it. The president broke the pay-as-you-go rule.Somebody here asked the question about, “Why haven’t you vetoed something?” It’s a good question. If you care about it, why don’t you veto it?I think John McCain called the energy bill the “No Lobbyist Left Behind” bill.I mean, you’ve got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.I’m pledging I will not raise taxes; I’m giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you’re going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I’m sorry, you too.(LAUGHTER)GIBSON: Mr. President, 90 seconds.BUSH: He’s just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He’s just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the caps — the spending caps — over 200 times.And here he says he’s going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It’s just not credible. You cannot believe it.And of course he’s going to raise your taxes. You see, he’s proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it? He says, well, he’s going to raise the taxes on the rich — that’s what he said — the top two brackets. That raises, he says $800 billion; we say $600 billion.We’ve got battling green eye shades.Somewhere in between those numbers — and so there’s a difference, what he’s promised and what he can raise.Now, either he’s going to break all these wonderful promises he’s told you about or he’s going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he’s going to raise taxes.Is my time up yet?GIBSON: No, you can keep going.(LAUGHTER)BUSH: Good. You looked at me like my clock was up.I think that the way to grow this economy is to keep taxes low, is have an energy plan, is to have litigation reform. As I told you, we’ve just got a report that said over the past 13 months, we’ve created 1.9 million new jobs. We’re growing.And so the fundamental question of this campaign is: Who’s going to keep the economy growing so people can work? That’s the fundamental question.GIBSON: I’m going to come back one more time to how these numbers add up and how you can cut that deficit in half in four years, given what you’ve both said.KERRY: Well, first of all, the president’s figures of $2.2 trillion just aren’t accurate. Those are the fuzzy math figures put together by some group that works for the campaign. That’s not the number.Number two, John McCain and I have a proposal, jointly, for a commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. We’ve got $40 billion going to Bermuda. We’ve got all kinds of giveaways. We ought to be shutting those down.And third, credible: Ladies and gentlemen, in 1985, I was one of the first Democrats to move to balance the budget. I voted for the balanced budget in ’93 and ’97. We did it. We did it. And I was there.GIBSON: Thirty seconds. I’m sorry, thirty seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: Yes, I mean, he’s got a record. It’s been there for 20 years. You can run, but you can’t hide. He voted 98 times to raise taxes. I mean, these aren’t make-up figures.And so people are going to have to look at the record. Look at the record of the man running for the president.They don’t name him the most liberal in the United States Senate because he hasn’t shown up to many meetings. They named him because of his votes. And it’s reality.It’s just not credible to say he’s going to keep taxes down and balance budgets.GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from James Hubb over here.HUBB: Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation’s air and water supply?BUSH: Off-road diesel engines — we have reached an agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90 percent.I’ve got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million. We’ve got an aggressive brown field program to refurbish inner-city sore spots to useful pieces of property.I proposed to the United States Congress a Clear Skies Initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent.I have — was fought for a very strong title in the farm bill for the conservation reserve program to set aside millions of acres of land to help improve wildlife and the habitat.We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill which was essential to working with — particularly in Western states — to make sure that our forests were protected.What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be — they are not — they’re not harvested. They’re not taken care of. And as a result, they’re like tinderboxes.And over the last summers I’ve flown over there. And so, this is a reasonable policy to protect old stands of trees and at the same time make sure our forests aren’t vulnerable to the forest fires that have destroyed acres after acres in the West.We’ve got a good, common-sense policy.Now, I’m going to tell you what I really think is going to happen over time is technology is going to change the way we live for the good for the environment.That’s why I proposed a hydrogen automobile — hydrogen-generated automobile. We’re spending $1 billion to come up with the technologies to do that.That’s why I’m a big proponent of clean coal technology, to make sure we can use coal but in a clean way.I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land.The quality of the air’s cleaner since I’ve been the president. Fewer water complaints since I’ve been the president. More land being restored since I’ve been the president.Thank you for your question.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, minute and a half.KERRY: Boy, to listen to that — the president, I don’t think, is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment.Now, if you’re a Red Sox fan, that’s OK. But if you’re a president, it’s not.Let me just say to you, number one, don’t throw the labels around. Labels don’t mean anything.I supported welfare reform. I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. I’ve been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives of young children for years. I was — broke with my party in 1985, one of the first three Democrats to fight for a balanced budget when it was heresy.Labels don’t fit, ladies and gentlemen.Now, when it comes to the issue of the environment, this is one of the worst administrations in modern history.The Clear Skies bill that he just talked about, it’s one of those Orwellian names you pull out of the sky, slap it onto something, like “No Child Left Behind” but you leave millions of children behind. Here they’re leaving the skies and the environment behind.If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today, no change, the air would be cleaner than it is if you pass the Clear Skies act. We’re going backwards.In fact, his environmental enforcement chief air-quality person at the EPA resigned in protest over what they’re doing to what they are calling the new source performance standards for air quality.They’re going backwards on the definition for wetlands. They’re going backwards on the water quality.They pulled out of the global warming, declared it dead, didn’t even accept the science.I’m going to be a president who believes in science.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: Well, had we joined the Kyoto treaty, which I guess he’s referring to, it would have cost America a lot of jobs.It’s one of these deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot — I think there’s a better way to do it.And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of the air is cleaner since I’ve been the president of the United States. And we’ll continue to spend money on research and development, because I truly believe that’s the way to get from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living that we’re accustomed to and being able to protect our environment better, the use of technologies.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.KERRY: The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto, and I was part of that. I know what happened. But this president didn’t try to fix it. He just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years.You wonder, Nikki, why it is that people don’t like us in some parts of the world. You just say: Hey, we don’t agree with you. Goodbye.The president’s done nothing to try to fix it. I will.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question is for you. It involves jobs, which is a topic of the news today.And for the question, we’re going to turn to Jane Barrow.BARROW: Senator Kerry, how can the U.S. be competitive in manufacturing given — in manufacturing, excuse me — given the wage necessary and comfortably accepted for American workers to maintain the standard of living that they expect?KERRY: Jane, there are a lot of ways to be competitive. And unfortunately again I regret this administration has not seized them and embraced them. Let me give you an example.There is a tax loophole right now. If you’re a company in St. Louis working, trying to make jobs here, there is actually an incentive for you to go away. You get more money, you keep more of your taxes by going abroad.I’m going to shut that loophole, and I’m going to give the tax benefit to the companies that stay here in America to help make them more competitive.Secondly, we’re going to create a manufacturing jobs credit and a new jobs credit for people to be able to help hire and be more competitive here in America.Third, what’s really hurting American business more than anything else is the cost of health care.Now, you didn’t hear any plan from the president, because he doesn’t have a plan to lower the cost of health care.Five million Americans have lost their health care; 620,000 Missourians have no health care at all; 96,000 Missourians have lost their health care under President Bush.I have a plan to cover those folks. And it’s a plan that lowers cost for everybody, covers all children. And the way I pay for it — I’m not fiscally irresponsible — is I roll back the tax cut this president so fiercely wants to defend, the one for him and me and Charlie.I think you ought to get the break. I want to lower your cost to health care. I want to fully fund education, No Child Left Behind, special-needs education. And that’s how we’re going to be more competitive, by making sure our kids are graduating from school and college.China and India are graduating more graduates in technology and science than we are.We’ve got to create the products of the future. That’s why I have a plan for energy independence within 10 years.And we’re going to put our laboratories and our colleges and our universities to work. And we’re going to get the great entrepreneurial spirit of this country, and we’re going to free ourselves from this dependency on Mideast oil.That’s how you create jobs and become competitive.GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.BUSH: Let me start with how to control the cost of health care: medical liability reform, for starters, which he’s opposed.Secondly, allow small businesses to pool together so they can share risk and buy insurance at the same discounts big businesses get to do.Thirdly, spread what’s called health savings accounts. It’s good for small businesses, good for owners. You own your own account. You can save tax-free. You get a catastrophic plan to help you on it.This is different from saying, “OK, let me incent you to go on the government.”He’s talking about his plan to keep jobs here. You know he calls it an outsourcing to keep — stop outsourcing. Robert Rubin looked at his plan and said it won’t work.The best way to keep jobs here in America is, one, have an energy plan. I proposed one to the Congress two years ago, encourages conservation, encourages technology to explore for environmentally friendly ways for coal — to use coal and gas. It encourages the use of renewables like ethanol and biodiesel.It’s stuck in the Senate. He and his running-mate didn’t show up to vote when they could have got it going in the Senate.Less regulations if we want jobs here; legal reform if we want jobs here; and we’ve got to keep taxes low.Now, he says he’s only going to tax the rich. Do you realize, 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level.And so when you’re running up the taxes like that, you’re taxing job creators, and that’s not how you keep jobs here.GIBSON: Senator, I want to extend for a minute, you talk about tax credits to stop outsourcing. But when you have IBM documents that I saw recently where you can hire a programmer for $12 in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won’t cut it.KERRY: You can’t stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I’ve never promised that. I’m not going to, because that would be pandering. You can’t.But what you can do is create a fair playing field, and that’s what I’m talking about.But let me just address what the president just said.Ladies and gentlemen, that’s just not true what he said. The Wall Street Journal said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my plan.And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he’s counted as a small business. Dick Cheney’s counted as a small business. That’s how they do things. That’s just not right.BUSH: I own a timber company?(LAUGHTER)That’s news to me.(LAUGHTER)Need some wood?(LAUGHTER)Most small businesses are Subchapter S corps. They just are.I met Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio. He’s creating jobs. Most small businesses — 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses.Taxes are going up when you run up the top two brackets. It’s a fact.GIBSON: President Bush, the next question is for you, and it comes from Rob Fowler, who I believe is over in this area.FOWLER: President Bush, 45 days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens’ rights and freedoms, especially Fourth Amendment rights.With expansions to the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, my question to you is, why are my rights being watered down and my citizens’ around me? And what are the specific justifications for these reforms?BUSH: I appreciate that.I really don’t think your rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t support it if I thought that.Every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny.As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we’ve been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals.So I really don’t think so. I hope you don’t think that. I mean, I — because I think whoever is the president must guard your liberties, must not erode your rights in America.The Patriot Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the FBI couldn’t talk to each other. The intelligence-gathering and the law-enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn’t share intelligence under the old law. And that didn’t make any sense.Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad before they hurt us again. That’s the task of the 21st century.And so, I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.And I know it’s necessary. I can remember being in upstate New York talking to FBI agents that helped bust a Lackawanna cell up there. And they told me they could not have performed their duty, the duty we all expect of them, if they did not have the ability to communicate with each other under the Patriot Act.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked.A whole bunch of folks in America are concerned about the way the Patriot Act has been applied. In fact, the inspector general of the Justice Department found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate.People’s rights have been abused.I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn’t even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn’t allowed to get — finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out.This is in our country, folks, the United States of America.They’ve got sneak-and-peek searches that are allowed. They’ve got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings without any showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise.Now, I voted for the Patriot Act. Ninety-nine United States senators voted for it. And the president’s been very busy running around the country using what I just described to you as a reason to say I’m wishy-washy, that I’m a flip-flopper.Now that’s not a flip-flop. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism.But you know what we also need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States in a way that disadvantages our rights.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question is for you, and it comes from Elizabeth Long.LONG: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells.Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?KERRY: You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your — the feeling that’s in your question. I understand it. I know the morality that’s prompting that question, and I respect it enormously.But like Nancy Reagan, and so many other people — you know, I was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire, who’s suffering from Parkinson’s, and he wants us to do stem cell, embryonic stem cell.And this fellow stood up, and he was quivering. His whole body was shaking from the nerve disease, the muscular disease that he had.And he said to me and to the whole hall, he said, “You know, don’t take away my hope, because my hope is what keeps me going.”Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again.I think we can save lives.Now, I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research.We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren’t taken from abortion or something like that. They’re from a fertility clinic. And they’re either going to be destroyed or left frozen.And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson’s, curing diabetes, curing, you know, some kind of a, you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury, anything, that’s the nature of the human spirit.I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.And the president has chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab it.GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute and a half.BUSH: Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I’m the first president ever to allow funding — federal funding — for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because I too hope that we’ll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.But I think we’ve got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.And so I made the decision we wouldn’t spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is — it’s one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well, we need to continue to pursue adult stem-cell research.I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures. And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life.GIBSON: Senator, 30 seconds, less extent.KERRY: Well, you talk about walking a waffle line — he says he’s allowed it, which means he’s going to allow the destruction of life up to a certain amount and then he isn’t going to allow it.I don’t know how you draw that line.But let me tell you, point blank, the lines of stem cells that he’s made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, “Not adequate,” because they’re contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren’t 60 or 70 — they’re are only about 11 to 20 now — and there aren’t enough to be able to do the research because they’re contaminated.We’ve got to open up the possibilities of this research. And when I am president, I’m going to do it because we have to.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem- cells lines already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my decision.I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so do we continue to destroy life — I made the decision to balance science and ethics.GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?BUSH: I’m not telling.(LAUGHTER)I really don’t have — haven’t picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.(LAUGHTER)I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick.I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words “under God” in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We’ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year — the next four years. And that’s the kind of judge I’m going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.Thank you.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: Thank you, Charlie.A few years ago when he came to office, the president said — these are his words — “What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.”And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.So you get a pretty good sense of where he’s heading if he were to appoint somebody.Now, here’s what I believe. I don’t believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don’t believe we need a good liberal judge. I don’t believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you’re reading their decision, their opinion, you can’t tell if it’s written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you’re reading a good judicial decision.What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it — and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.The future of things that matter to you — in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you’ll have, whether we’ll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women’s rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman’s right to choose be protected?These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.You’ll help prevent AIDS.You’ll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.You’ll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.BUSH: I’m trying to decipher that.My answer is, we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion.This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.I signed the partial-birth — the ban on partial-birth abortion. It’s a brutal practice. It’s one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He’s against them.I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.In other words, if you’re a mom and you’re pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it’s going to be a hospitable society.Thank you.GIBSON: Senator, do you want to follow up? Thirty seconds.KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it’s just not that simple. No, I’m not.I’m against the partial-birth abortion, but you’ve got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I’m not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who’s been raped by her father and who’s pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn’t have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.GIBSON: And 30 seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: Well, it’s pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that’s just the way it is. That’s a vote. It came right up. It’s clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can’t hide the reality.GIBSON: And the final question of the evening will be addressed to President Bush and it will come from Linda Grabel. Linda Grabel’s over here.Linda Grabel’s over here.BUSH: Put a head fake on us.(LAUGHTER)GIBSON: I got faked out myself.BUSH: Hi, Linda.GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.And in a war, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn’t have done that. He shouldn’t have made that decision. And I’ll take responsibility for them. I’m human.But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I’ll stand by those decisions, because I think they’re right.That’s really what you’re — when they ask about the mistakes, that’s what they’re talking about. They’re trying to say, “Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?” And the answer is, “Absolutely not.” It was the right decision.The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.We knew he hated us. We knew he’d been — invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.On the tax cut, it’s a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I’m not going to name them. I don’t want to hurt their feelings on national TV.(LAUGHTER)BUSH: But history will look back, and I’m fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.KERRY: I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was: build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the U.N. process to its end and go to war as a last resort.I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?The president rushed our nation to war without a plan to win the peace. And simple things weren’t done.That’s why Senator Lugar says: incompetent in the delivery of services. That’s why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, you know: beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous.We didn’t guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 Humvees aren’t armored. I visited some of those kids with no limbs today, because they didn’t have the armor on those vehicles. They didn’t have the right body armor.I’ve met parents who’ve on the Internet gotten the armor to send their kids.There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can’t say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that’s a reason; that’s an excuse.GIBSON: Mr. President?BUSH: He complains about the fact our troops don’t have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma’am. And he was a risk that — and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, “And the world would be a lot better off.”GIBSON: And, Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.KERRY: Not necessarily be in power, but here’s what I’ll say about the $87 billion.I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we’re at war. I don’t think that’s a bad decision.GIBSON: That’s going to conclude the questioning. We’re going to go now to closing statements, two minutes from each candidate.And the first closing statement goes to Senator Kerry. I believe that was the agreement.KERRY: Do you want to go first?BUSH: Either way.KERRY: Thank you.Charlie, thank you.And thank you all.KERRY: Thank you, all of you, for taking part.Thanks for your questions tonight, very, very much.Obviously the president and I both have very strong convictions. I respect him for that. But we have a very different view about how to make America stronger and safer.I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I’ll never give a veto over American security to any other entity — not a nation, not a country, not an institution.But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. And that’s the way Eisenhower and Reagan and Kennedy and others did it.We are not doing that today. We need to.I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists.And I will not stop in our efforts to hunt down and kill the terrorists.But I’ll also have a better plan of how we’re going to deal with Iraq: training the Iraqi forces more rapidly, getting our allies back to the table with a fresh start, with new credibility, with a president whose judgment the rest of the world trusts.In addition to that, I believe we have a crisis here at home, a crisis of the middle class that is increasingly squeezed, health-care costs going up.I have a plan to provide health care to all Americans.I have a plan to provide for our schools so we keep the standards but we help our teachers teach and elevate our schools by funding No Child Left Behind.I have a plan to protect the environment so that we leave this place in better shape to our children than we were handed it by our parents. That’s the test.I believe America’s best days are ahead of us. I’m an optimist, but we have to make the right choices, to be fiscally responsible and to create the new jobs of the future. We can do this.And I ask you for the privilege of leading our nation to be stronger at home and respected again in the world.Thank you.GIBSON: Senator.And a closing statement from President Bush.BUSH: Charlie, thanks.Thank you all very much. It’s been enjoyable.The great contest for the presidency is about the future, who can lead, who can get things done.We’ve been through a lot together as a country — been through a recession, corporate scandals, war.And yet think about where we are: Added 1.9 million new jobs over the past 13 months. The farm income in America is high. Small businesses are flourishing. Homeownership rate is at an all-time high in America.We’re on the move.Tonight I had a chance to discuss with you what to do to keep this economy going: keep the taxes low, don’t increase the scope of the federal government, keep regulations down, legal reform, a health- care policy that does not empower the federal government but empowers individuals, and an energy plan that will help us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.And abroad, we’re at war. And it requires a president who is steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we’re safe.The 9/11 Commission put out a report that said America is safer but not yet safe. There is more work to be done.We’ll stay on the hunt on Al Qaida. We’ll deny sanctuary to these terrorists. We’ll make sure they do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. It’s the great nexus. The great threat to our country is that these haters end up with weapons of mass destruction.But our long-term security depends on our deep faith in liberty. And we’ll continue to promote freedom around the world.Freedom is on the march. Tomorrow, Afghanistan will be voting for a president. In Iraq, we’ll be having free elections, and a free society will make this world more peaceful.God bless.GIBSON: Mr. President, Senator Kerry, that concludes tonight’s debate.I want to give you a reminder that the third and final debate on issues of domestic policy will be held next Wednesday, October 13th, at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, hosted by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.I want to thank President Bush and Senator Kerry for tonight. I want to thank these citizens of the St. Louis area who asked the questions, who gave so willingly of their time, and who took their responsibility very seriously.Thank you also to everyone at Washington…(APPLAUSE)I want to thank everyone at Washington University in St. Louis for being such gracious hosts.I’m Charles Gibson from ABC News. From St. Louis, good night.",
    "id": "cee8d53d-9417-4d56-86be-8d1348ac2853"
  },
  {
    "year": 1960,
    "date": "October 7, 1960",
    "title": "The Second Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 7, 1960 Debate TranscriptOctober 7, 1960The Second Kennedy-Nixon Presidential DebateFRANK McGEE, MODERATOR: Good evening. This is Frank McGee, NBC News in Washington. This is the second in a series of programs unmatched in history. Never have so many people seen the major candidates for president of the United States at the same time; and never until this series have Americans seen the candidates in face-to-face exchange. Tonight the candidates have agreed to devote the full hour to answering questions on any issue of the campaign. And here tonight are: the Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon; and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy. Now representatives of the candidates and of all the radio and television networks have agreed on these rules: neither candidate will make an opening statement or a closing summation; each will be questioned in turn; each will have an opportunity to comment upon the answer of the other; each reporter will ask only one question in turn. He is free to ask any question he chooses. Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked and only the clock will determine who will be asked the last question. These programs represent an unprecedented opportunity for the candidates to present their philosophies and programs directly to the people and for the people to compare these and the candidates. The four reporters on tonight’s panel include a newspaperman and a wire service representative. These two were selected by lot by the press secretaries of the candidates from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. The broadcasting representatives were selected by their respective companies. The reporters are: Paul Niven of CBS, Edward P. Morgan of ABC, Alvin Spivak of United Press International, and Harold R. Levy of Newsday. Now the first question is from Mr. Niven and is for Vice President Nixon.MR. NIVEN: Mr. Vice President, Senator Kennedy said last night that the Administration must take responsibility for the loss of Cuba. Would you compare the validity of that statement with the validity of your own statements in previous campaigns that the Truman Administration was responsible for the loss of China to the Communists?MR. NIXON: Well first of all, I don’t agree with Senator Kennedy that Cuba is lost and certainly China was lost when this Administration came into power in 1953. As I look at Cuba today, I believe that we are following the right course, a course which is difficult but a course which under the circumstance is the only proper one which will see that the Cuban people get a chance to realize their aspirations of progress through freedom and that they get that with our cooperation with the other organi- of the states in the Organization of American States. Now Senator Kennedy has made some very strong criticisms of my part – or alleged part – in what has happened in Cuba. He points to the fact that I visited Cuba while Mr. Batista was in power there. I can only point out that if we are going to judge the Administrations in terms of our attitude toward dictators, we’re glad to have a comparison with the previous administration. There were eleven dictators in South America and in Central America when we came in, in 1953. Today there are only three left including the one in Cuba. We think that’s pretty good progress. Senator Kennedy also indicated with regard to Cuba that he thought that I had made a mistake when I was in Cuba in not calling for free elections in that country. Now I’m very surprised that Senator Kennedy, who is on the Foreign Relations Committee, would have made such a statement as this kind. As a matter of fact in his book, The Strategy for Peace, he took the right position. And that position is that the United States has a treaty – a treaty with all of the Organization of American States – which prohibits us from interfering in the internal affairs of any other state and prohibits them as well. For me to have made such a statement would been in direct uh – opposition to that treaty. Now with regard to Cuba, let me make one thing clear. There isn’t any question but that we will defend our rights there. There isn’t any question but that we will defend Guantanamo if it’s attacked. There also isn’t any question but that the free people of Cuba – the people who want to be free – are going to be supported and that they will attain their freedom. No, Cuba is not lost, and I don’t think this kind of defeatist talk by Senator Kennedy helps the situation one bit.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy, would you care to comment?MR. KENNEDY: In the first place I’ve never suggested that Cuba was lost except for the present. In my speech last night I indicated that I thought that Cuba one day again would be free. Where I’ve been critical of the Administration’s policy, and where I criticized Mr. Nixon, was because in his press conference in Havana in 1955, he praised the competence and stability of the bicta- bict- Batista dictatorship – that dictatorship had killed over twenty thousand Cubans in seven years. Secondly, I did not criticize him for not calling for free elections. What I criticized was the failure of the Administration to use its great influence to persuade the Cuban government to hold free elections, particularly in 1957 and 1958. Thirdly, Arthur Gardner, a Republican Ambassador, Earl Smith, a Republican Ambassador, in succession – both have indicated in the past six weeks that they reported to Washington that Castro was a Marxist, that Raul Castro was a Communist, and that they got no effective results. Instead our aid continued to Batista, which was ineffective; we never were on the side of freedom; we never used our influence when we could have used it most effectively – and today Cuba is lost for freedom. I hope some day it will rise; but I don’t think it will rise if we continue the same policies toward Cuba that we did in recent years, and in fact towards all of Latin America – when we’ve almost ignored the needs of Latin America; we’ve beamed not a single Voice of America program in Spanish to all of Latin America in the last eight years, except for the three months of the Hungarian uh – revolution.MR. McGEE: Mr. Morgan, with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. MORGAN: Senator, last May, in Oregon, you discussed the possibilities of sending apologies or regrets to Khrushchev over the U-2 incident. Do you think now that that would have done any good? Did you think so then?MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Morgan, I suggested that if the United States felt that it could save the summit conference that it would have been proper for us to have expressed regrets. In my judgment that statement has been distorted uh – by Mr. Nixon and others in their debates around the country and in their discussions. Mr. Lodge, on “Meet the Press” a month ago, said if there was ever a case when we did not have law an our side it was in the U-2 incident. The U-2 flights were proper from the point of view of protecting our security. But they were not in accordance with international law. And I said that I felt that rather than tell the lie which we told, rather than indicate that the flights would continue – in fact, I believe Mr. Nixon himself said on May fifteenth that the flights would continue even though Mr. Herter testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they had been canceled as of May twelfth – that it would have been far better that if we had expressed regrets, if that would have saved the summit, and if the summit is useful – and I believe it is. The point that is always left out is the fact that we expressed regrets to Castro this winter; that we expressed regrets – the Eisenhower Administration expressed regrets – for a flight over Southern Russia in 1958. We expressed regrets for a flight over Eastern Germany under this Administration. The Soviet Union in 1955 expressed regrets to us over the Bering Sea incident. The Chinese Communists expressed regrets to us over a plane incident in 1956. That is the accepted procedure between nations; and my judgment is that we should follow the advice of Theodore Roosevelt: Be strong; maintain a strong position; but also speak softly. I believe that in those cases where international custom calls for the expression of a regret, if that would have kept the summit going, in my judgment it was a proper action. It’s not appeasement. It’s not soft. I believe we should be stronger than we now are. I believe we should have a stronger military force. I believe we should increase our strength all over the world. But I don’t confuse words with strength; and in my judgment if the summit was useful, if it would have brought us closer to peace, that rather than the lie that we told – which has been criticized by all responsible people afterwards – it would have been far better for us to follow the common diplomatic procedure of expressing regrets and then try to move on.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: I think Kenne- Senator Kennedy is wrong on three counts. First of all, he’s wrong in thinking th- er- even suggesting that Mr. Khrushchev might have continued the conference if we had expressed regrets. He knew these flights were going on long before and that wasn’t the reason that he broke up the conference. Second, he’s wrong in the analogies that he makes. The United States is a strong country. Whenever we do anything that’s wrong, we can express regrets. But when the president of the United States is doing something that’s right, something that is for the purpose of defending the security of this country against surprise attack, he can never express regrets or apologize to anybody, including Mr. Khrushchev. Now in that connection Senator Kennedy has criticized the President on the ground not only of not expressing regrets, but because he allowed this flight to take place while the summit conference – or immediately before the summit conference occurred. This seems to me is criticism that again is wrong on his part. We all remember Pearl Harbor. We lost three thousand American lives. We cannot afford an intelligence gap. And I just want to make my position absolutely clear with regard to getting intelligence information. I don’t intend to see to it that the United States is ever in a position where, while we’re negotiating with the Soviet Union, that we discontinue our intelligence effort. And I don’t intend ever to express regrets to Mr. Khrushchev or anybody else if I’m doing something that has the support of the Congress and that is right for the purpose of protecting the security of the United States.MR. McGEE: Mr. Spivak with a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Vice President, you have accused Senator Kennedy of avoiding the civil rights issue when he has been in the South and he has accused you of the same thing. With both North and South listening and watching, would you sum up uh – your own intentions in the field of civil rights if you become president.MR. NIXON: My intentions in the field of civil rights have been spelled out in the Republican platform. I think we have to make progress first in the field of employment. And there we would give statutory authority to the Committee on Government Contracts, which is an effective way of getting real progress made in this area, since about one out of every four jobs is held by and is allotted by people who have government contracts. Certainly I think all of us agree that when anybody has a government contract, certainly the money that is spent under that contract ought to be disbursed equally without regard to the race or creed or color of the individual who is to be employed. Second, in the field of schools, we believe that there should be provisions whereby the federal government would give assistance to those districts who do want to integrate their schools. That of course was rejected as was the government contracts provision by the special session of the Congress to – in which Mr. Kennedy was quite active. And then as far as other areas are concerned, I think that we have to look to presidential leadership. And when I speak of presidential leadership, I refer for example to our attitude on the sit-in strikes. Here we have a situation which causes all of us concern – causes us concern because of the denial of the rights of people to the equality which we think belongs to everybody. I have talked to Negro mothers. I’ve heard them explain – try to explain – how they tell their children how they can go into a store and buy a loaf of bread but then can’t go into that store and sit at the counter and get a Coca Cola. This is wrong, and we have to do something about it. So, under the circumstances, what do we do? Well what we do is what the Attorney-General of the United States did under the direction of the President: call in the owners of chain stores and get them to take action. Now there are other places where the executive can lead, but let me just sum up by saying this: why do I talk every time I’m in the South on civil rights? Not because I am preaching to the people of the South because this isn’t just a Southern problem; it’s a Northern problem and a Western problem; it’s a problem for all of us. I do it because it’s the responsibility of leadership, I do it because we have to solve this problem together. I do it right at this time particularly because when we have Khrushchev in this country – a man who has enslaved millions, a man who has slaughtered thousands – we cannot continue to have a situation where he can point the finger at the United States of America and say that we are denying rights to our citizens. And so I say both the candidates and both the vice presidential candidates, I would hope as well – including Senator Johnson – should talk on this issue at every opportunity.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Nixon hasn’t discussed the two basic questions: what is going to be done and what will be his policy on implementing the Supreme Court decision of 1954? Giving aid to schools technically that are trying to carry out the decision is not the great question. Secondly, what’s he going to do to provide fair employment? He’s been the head of the Committee on Government Contracts that’s carried out two cases, both in the District of Columbia. He has not indicated his support of an attempt to provide fair employment practices around the country, so that everyone can get a job regardless of their race or color. Nor has he indicated that he will support Title Three, which would give the Attorney General additional powers to protect Constitutional rights. These are the great questions: equality of education in school. About two percent of our population of white people are – is illiterate, ten per cent of our colored population. Sixty to seventy percent of our colored children do not finish high school. These are the questions in these areas that the North and South, East and West are entitled to know. What will be the leadership of the president in these areas to provide equality of opportunity for employment? Equality of opportunity in the field of housing, which could be done on all federal supported housing by a stroke of the president’s pen. What will be done to provide equality of education in all sections of the United States? Those are the questions to which the president must establish a moral tone and moral leadership. And I can assure you that if I’m elected president we will do so.MR. McGEE: Mr. Levy with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. LEVY: Senator, on the same subject, in the past you have emphasized the president’s responsibility as a moral leader as well as an executive on civil rights questions. What specifically might the next president do uh – in the event of an uh – an occurrence such as Little Rock or the lunch-counter sit-ins? From the standpoint of MR, KENNEDY: Well let me say that I think that the president operates in a number of different areas. First, as a legislative leader. And as I just said that I believe that the passage of the so-called Title Three, which gives the Attorney General the power to protect Constitutional rights in those cases where it’s not possible for the person involved to bring the suit. Secondly, as an executive leader. There have been only six cases brought by this Attorney General under the voting bill passed in 1957 and the voting bill passed in 1960. The right to vote is basic. I do not believe that this Administration has implemented those bills which represent the will of the majority of the Congress on two occasions with vigor. Thirdly, I don’t believe that the government contracts division is operated with vigor. Everyone who does business with the government should have the opportunity to make sure that they do not practice discrimination in their hiring. And that’s in all sections of the United States. And then fourthly, as a moral leader. There is a very strong moral basis for this concept of equality of opportunity. We are in a very difficult time. We need all the talent we can get. We sit on a conspicuous stage. We are a goldfish bowl before the world. We have to practice what we preach. We set a very high standard for ourselves. The Communists do not. They set a low standard of materialism. We preach in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, in the statement of our greatest leaders, we preach very high standards; and if we’re not going to be s- charged before the world with hypocrisy we have to meet those standards. I believe the president of the United States should indicate it. Now lastly, I believe in the case of Little Rock. I would have hoped that the president of the United States would have been possible for him to indicate it clearly that uh – the Supreme Court decision was going to be carried out. I would have hoped that it would have been possible to use marshals to do so. But it wou- uh – evidently uh – under the handling of the case it was not. I would hope an incident like that would not happen. I think if the president is responsible, if he consults with those involved, if he makes it clear that the Supreme Court decision is going to be carried out in a way that the Supreme Court planned – with deliberate speed – then in my judgment, providing he’s behind action, I believe we can make uh – progress. Now the present Administration – the President – has said – never indicated what he thought of the 1954 decision. Unless the president speaks, then of course uh – the country doesn’t speak, and Franklin Roosevelt said: “The pre – uh – the presidency of the United States is above all a place of moral leadership.” And I believe on this great moral issue he should speak out and give his views clearly.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy has expressed some hopes in this field, hopes which I think all Americans would share who want some problem – some progress in this area. But let’s look at the performance. When he selected his vice presidential running mate, he selected a man who had voted against most of these proposals and who opposes them at the present time. Let me s- look also at what I did. I selected a man who stands with me in this field and who will talk with me and work with me on it. Now the Senator referred to the Committee on Government Contracts. And yet that very committee of which I am chairman has been handicapped by the fact that we have not had adequate funds; we have not had adequate powers; we haven’t had an adequate staff. Now in the special session of Congress and also in the session that preceded it, the Democratic Congress – in which there’s a two-to-one Democratic majority – was asked by the President to give us the funds and give us the power to do a job and they did nothing at all, And in the special session in which Senator Kennedy was calling the signals, along with Senator Johnson, they turned it down and he himself voted against giving us the powers despite the fact that the bill had already been considered before, that it already had hearings on, and the Congress already knew what it had before it. All that I can say is this: what we need here are not just high hopes. What we need is action. And in the field of executive leadership, I can say that I believe it’s essential that the president of the United States not only set the tone but he also must lead; he must act as he talks.MR. McGEE: Mr. Morgan with a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. MORGAN: Mr. Vice President, in your speeches you emphasize that the United States is doing basically well in the cold war. Can you square that statement with a considerable mass of bipartisan reports and studies, including one prominently participated in by Governor Rockefeller, which almost unanimously conclude that we are not doing nearly so well as we should?MR. NIXON: Mr. Morgan, no matter how well we’re doing in the cold war, we’re not doing as well as we should. And that will always be the case as long as the Communists are on the international scene, in the aggressive tac- uh – tendencies that they presently are following. Now as far as the present situation is concerned, I think it’s time that we nail a few of these distortions about the United States that have been put out. First of all, we hear that our prestige is at an all-time low. Senator Kennedy has been hitting that point over and over again. I would suggest that after Premier Kush- Khrushchev’s uh – performance in the United Nations, compared with President Eisenhower’s eloquent speech, that at the present time Communist prestige in the world is at an all-time low and American prestige is at an all-time high. Now that, of course, is just one factor, but it’s a significant one. When we look, for example, at the vote on the Congo. We were on one side; they were on the other side. What happened? There were seventy votes for our position and none for theirs. Look at the votes in the United Nations over the past seven and a half years. That’s a test of prestige. Every time the United States has been an one side and they’ve been on the other side, our position has been sustained. Now looking to what we ought to do in the future. In this cold war we have to recognize where it is being fought and then we have to develop programs to deal with it. It’s being fought primarily in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America. What do we need? What tools do we need to fight us? Well we need, for example, economic assistance; we need technical assistance; we need exchange; we need programs of diplomatic and other character which will be effective in that area. Now Senator Kennedy a moment ago referred to the fact that there was not an adequate Voice of America program for Latin America. I’d like to point out that in the last six years, the Democratic Congresses, of which he’d been a member, have cut twenty million dollars off of the Voice of America programs. They also have cut four billion dollars off of mutual security in these last six years. They also have cut two billion dollars off of defense. Now when they talk about our record here, it is well that they recognize that they have to stand up for their record as well. So let me summarize by saying this: I’m not satisfied with what we’re doing in the cold war because I believe we have to step up our activities and launch an offensive for the minds and hearts and souls of men. It must be economic; it must be technological; above all it must be ideological. But we’ve got to get help from the Congress in order to do this.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Of course Mr. Nixon is wholly inaccurate when he says that the Congress has not provided more funds in fact than the President recommended for national defense. Nineteen fifty-three we tried to put an appropriation of five billion dollars for our defenses. I was responsible for the amendment with Senator Monroney in 1954 to strengthen our ground forces. The Congress of the United States appropriated six hundred and seventy-seven million dollars mare than the President was willing to use up till a week ago. Secondly, on the question of our position in the United Nations. We all know about the vote held this week – of the five neutralists – and it was generally regarded as a defeat for the United States. Thirdly, in 1952, there were only seven votes in favor of the admission of Red China into the United Nations. Last year there were twenty-nine and tomorrow when the preliminary vote is held you will see a strengthening of that position or very closely to it. We have not maintained our position and our prestige. A Gallup Poll taken in February of this year asking the – in eight out of nine countries – they asked the people, who do they think would be ahead by 1970 militarily and scientifically, and a majority in eight of the nine countries said the Soviet Union would be by 1970. Governor Rockefeller has been far more critical in June of our position in the world than I have been. The Rockefeller Brothers report, General Ridgway, General Gavin, the Gaither Report, various reports of Congressional committees all indicate that the relative strength of the p- United States both militarily, politically, psychologically, and scientifically and industrially – the relative strength of the so- of United States compared to that of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists together – has deteriorated in the last eight years and we should know it, and the American people should be told the facts.MR. McGEE: Mr. Spivak with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. SPIVAK: Senator, uh – following this up, how would you go about increasing the prestige you say we’re losing, and could the programs you’ve devised to do so be accomplished without absolutely wrecking our economy?MR. KENNEDY: Yes. We have been wholly indifferent to Latin America until the last few months. The program that was put forward this summer, after we broke off the sugar quota with Cuba, really was done because we wanted to get through the O.A.S. meeting a condemnation of Russian infiltration of Cuba. And therefore we passed an authorization – not an aid bill – which was the first time, really, since the Inter-American Bank which was founded a year ago was developed, that we really have looked at the needs of Latin America; that we have associated ourselves with those people. Secondly, I believe that in the ca- that it’s far better for the United States, instead of concentrating our aid, particularly in the underdeveloped world, on surplus military equipment – we poured three hundred million dollars of surplus military equipment into Laos. We paid more military aid, more aid into Laos po- per – per person than in any country in the world and we ought to know now that Laos is moving from neutralism in the direction of the Communists. I believe instead of doing that, we should concentrate our aid in long-term loans which these people can pay back either in hard money or in local currency. This permits them to maintain their self-respect. It permits us to make sure that the projects which are invested in are going to produce greater wealth. And I believe that in cases of India and Africa and Latin America that this is where our emphasis should be. I would strengthen the Development Loan Fund. And Senator Fulbright, Senator Humphrey and I tried to do that. We tried to provide an appropriation of a billion and a half for five years, on a long-term loan basis, which this Administration opposed. And unless we’re ready to carry out programs like that in the sixties, this battle for economic survival which these people are waging are going to be lost. And if India should lose her battle, with thirty-five per cent of the people of the underdeveloped world within her borders, then I believe that the balance of power could move against us. I think the United States can afford to do these things. I think that we could not afford not to do these things. This goes to our survival. And here in a country which if it is moving ahead, if it’s developing its economy to the fullest – which we are not now – in my judgment, we’ll have the resources to meet our military commitments and also our commitments overseas. I believe it’s essential that we do it because in the next ten years the balance of power is going to begin to move in the world from one direction or another – towards us or towards the Communists – and unless we begin to identify ourselves not only with the anti-Communist fight, but also with the fight against poverty and hunger, these people are going to begin to turn to the Communists as an example. I believe we can do it. If we build our economy the way we should, we can afford to do these things and we must do it.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy has put a great deal of stress on the necessity for economic assistance. This is important. But it’s also tremendously important to bear in mind that when you pour in money without pouring in technical assistance at w- as well, that you have a disastrous situation. We need to step up exchange; we need to step up technical assistance so that trained people in these newly developing countries can operate the economies. We also have to have in mind something else with regard to this whole situation in the world, and that is: that as America moves forward, we not only must think in terms of fighting Communism, but we must also think primarily in terms of the interests of these countries. We must associate ourselves with their aspirations. We must let them know that the great American ideals – of independence, of the right of people to be free, and of the right to progress – that these are ideals that belong not to ourselves alone, but they belong to everybody. This we must get across to the world. And we can’t do it unless we do have adequate funds for, for example, information which has been cut by the Congress, adequate funds for technical assistance. The other point that I would make with regard to economic assistance and technical assistance is that the United States must not rest its case here alone. This is primarily an ideological battle – a battle for the minds and the hearts and the souls of men. We must not meet the Communists purely in the field of gross atheistic materialism. We must stand for our ideals.MR. McGEE: Mr. Levy with a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. LEVY; Mr. Vice President, the Labor Department today added five more major industrial centers to the list of areas with substantial unemployment. You said in New York this week that as president you would use the full powers of the government, if necessary, to combat unemployment. Specifically what measures would you advocate and at what point?MR. NIXON: To combat unemployment we first must concentrate on the very areas to which you refer – the so-called depressed areas. Now in the last Congress – the special session of the Congress – there was a bill: one by the President, one by Senator Kennedy and members of his party. Now the bill that the President had submitted would have provided more aid for those areas that really need it – areas like Scranton and Wilkes-Barre and the areas of West Virginia – than the ones that Senator Kennedy was supporting. On the other hand we found that the bill got into the legislative difficulties and consequently no action was taken. So point one, at the highest priority we must get a bill for depressed areas through the next Congress. I have made recommendations on that and I have discussed them previously and I will spell them out further in the campaign. Second, as we consider this problem of unemployment, we have to realize where it is. In analyzing the figures we will find that our unemployment exists among the older citizens; it exists also among those who are inadequately trained; that is, those who do not have an adequate opportunity for education. It also exists among minority groups. If we’re going to combat unemployment, then, we have to do a better job in these areas. That’s why I have a program for education, a program in the case of equal job opportunities, and one that would also deal with our older citizens. Now finally, with regard to the whole problem of combating recession, as you call it, we must use the full resources of the government in these respects: one, we must see to it that credit is expanded as we go into any recessionary period – and understand, I do not believe we’re going into a recession. I believe this economy is sound and that we’re going to move up. But second, in addition to that, if we do get into a recessionary period we should move on that part of the economy which is represented by the private sector, and I mean stimulate that part of the economy that can create jobs – the private sector of the economy. This means through tax reform and if necessary tax cuts that will stimulate more jobs. I favor that rather than massive federal spending programs which will come into effect usually long after you’ve passed through the recessionary period. So we must use all of these weapons for the purpose of combating recession if it should come. But I do not expect it to come.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well Mr. Nixon has stated the record inaccurately in regard to the depressed area bill. I’m very familiar with it. It came out of the committee of which I was the chairman – the labor subcommittee – in fifty-five. I was the floor manager. We passed an area redevelopment bill far more effective than the bill the Administration suggested, on two occasions, and the President vetoed it both times. We passed a bill again this year in the cong- in the Senate and it died in the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. Let me make it very clear that the bill that Mr. Nixon talked about did not mention Wilkes-Barre or Scranton; it did not mention West Virginia. Our bill was far more effective. The bill introduced and erd- sponsored by Senator Douglas was far more effective in trying to stimulate the economy of those areas. Secondly, he has mentioned the problem of our older citizens. I cannot still understand why this Administration and Mr. Nixon oppose putting medical care for the aged under Social Security to give them some security. Third, I believe we should step up the use of our surplus foods in these areas until we’re able to get the people back to work. Five cents a day – that’s what the food package averages per person. Fourthly, I believe we should not carry out a hard money, high interest rate policy which helped intensify certainly the recession of 1958, and I think helped bring the slow-down of 1960. If we move into a recession in sixty-one, then I would agree that we have to put more money into the economy, and it can be done by either one of the two methods discussed. One is by ex- the programs such as aid to education. The other would be to make a judgment on what’s the most effective tax program to stimulate our economy.MR. McGEE: Mr. Niven with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. NIVEN: Senator, while the main theme of your campaign has been this decline of American power and prestige in the last eight years, you’ve hardly criticized President Eisenhower at all. And in a speech last weekend you said you had no quarrel with the President. Now isn’t Mr. Eisenhower and not Mr. Nixon responsible for any such decline?MR. KENNEDY: Well I understood that this was the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration according to all the Republican uh – propaganda that I’ve read. The question is what we’re going to do in the future. I’ve been critical of this Administration and I’ve been critical of the President. In fact uh – Mr. Nixon uh – discussed that a week ago in a speech. I believe that our power and prestige in the last eight years has declined. Now what is the issue is what we’re going to do in the future. Now that’s an issue between Mr. Nixon and myself. He feels that we’re moving ahead uh – in a – we’re not going into a recession in this country, economically; he feels that our power and prestige is stronger than it ever was relative to that of the Communists, that we’re moving ahead. I disagree. And I believe the American people have to make the choice on November eighth between the view of whether we have to move ahead faster, whether what we’re doing now is not satisfactory, whether we have to build greater strength at home and abroad and Mr. Nixon’s view. That’s the great issue. President Eisenhower moves from the scene on January twentieth and the next four years are the critical years. And that’s the debate. That’s the argument between Mr. Nixon and myself and on that issue the American people have to make their judgment and I think it’s a important judgment. I think in many ways this election is more important than any since 1932, or certainly almost any in this century. Because we disagree very fundamentally on the position of the United States, and if his view prevails then I think that’s going to bring an important result to this country in the sixties. If our view prevails that we have to do more, that we have to make a greater national and international effort, that we have lost prestige in Latin America – the President of Brazil – the new incumbent running for office called on Castro during his campaign because he thought it was important to get the vote of those who were supporting Castro in Latin America. In Africa, the United States has ignored Latin uh – Africa. We gave more scholarships to the Congo – this summer we offered them – than we’ve given to all of Africa the year before. Less than two hundred for all the countries of Africa and they need trained leadership more than anything. We’ve been uh – having a very clear decision in the last eight years. Mr. Nixon has been part of that Administration. He’s had experience in it. And I believe this Administration has not met its responsibilities in the last eight years, that our power relative to that of the Communists is declining, that we’re facing a very hazardous time in the sixties, and unless the United States begin to move here – unless we start to go ahead – I don’t believe that we’re going to meet our responsibility to our own people or to the cause of freedom. I think the choice is clear and it involves the future.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Well first of all, I think Senator Kennedy should make up his mind with regard to my responsibility. In our first debate he indicated that I had not had experience or at least uh – had not participated significantly in the making of the decisions. I’m glad to hear tonight that he does suggest that I have had some experience. Let me make my position cl ear. I have participated in the discussions leading to the decisions in this Administration. I’m proud of the record of this Administration. I don’t stand on it because it isn’t something to stand on but something to build on. Now looking at Senator Kennedy’s credentials: he is suggesting that he will move America faster and further than I will. But what does he offer? He offers retreads of programs that failed. I submit to you that as you look at his programs, his program for example with regard to the Federal Reserve and uh – free money or loose money uh – high – low interest rates, his program in the economic field generally are the programs that were adopted and tried during the Truman Administration. And when we compare the economic progress of this country in the Truman Administration with that of the Eisenhower Administration, we find that in every index there has been a tr- great deal more performance and more progress in this Administration than in that one. I say the programs and the leadership that failed then is not the program and the leadership that America needs now. I say that the American people don’t want to go back to those policies. And incidentally if Senator Kennedy disagrees, he should indicate where he believes those policies are different from those he’s advocating today.MR. McGEE: Mr. Spivak with a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Vice President, according to news dispatches Soviet Premier Khrushchev said today that Prime Minister Macmillan had assured him that there would be a summit conference next year after the presidential elections. Have you given any cause for such assurance, and do you consider it desirable or even possible that there would be a summit conference next year if Mr. Khrushchev persists in the conditions he’s laid down?MR. NIXON: No, of course I haven’t talked to Prime Minister Macmillan. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. The President is still going to be president for the next four months and he, of course, is the only one who could commit this country in this period. As far as a summit conference is concerned, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I would be willing as president to meet with Mr. Khrushchev or any other world leader if it would serve the cause of peace. I would not be able wou- would be willing to meet with him however, unless there were preparations for that conference which would give us some reasonable certainty – some reasonable certainty – that you were going to have some success. We must not build up the hopes of the world and then dash them as was the case in Paris. There, Mr. Khrushchev came to that conference determined to break it up. He was going to break it up because he would – knew that he wasn’t going to get his way on Berlin and on the other key matters with which he was concerned at the Paris Conference. Now, if we’re going to have another summit conference, there must be negotiations at the diplomatic level – the ambassadors, the Secretaries of State, and others at that level – prior to that time, which will delineate the issues and which will prepare the way for the heads of state to meet and make some progress. Otherwise, if we find the heads of state meeting and not making progress, we will find that the cause of peace will have been hurt rather than helped. So under these circumstances, I, therefore, strongly urge and I will strongly hold, if I have the opportunity to urge or to hold – this position: that any summit conference would be gone into only after the most careful preparation and only after Mr. Khrushchev – after his disgraceful conduct at Paris, after his disgraceful conduct at the United Nations – gave some assurance that he really wanted to sit down and talk and to accomplish something and not just to make propaganda.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: I have no disagreement with the Vice President’s position on that. It – my view is the same as his. Let me say there is only one uh – point I would add. That before we go into the summit, before we ever meet again, I think it’s important that the United States build its strength; that it build its military strength as well as its own economic strength. If we negotiate from a position where the power balance or wave is moving away from us, it’s extremely difficult to reach a successful decision on Berlin as well as the other questions. Now the next president of the United States in his first year is going to be confronted with a very serious question on our defense of Berlin, our commitment to Berlin. It’s going to be a test of our nerve and will. It’s going to be a test of our strength. And because we’re going to move in sixty-one and two, partly because we have not maintained our strength with sufficient vigor in the last years, I believe that before we meet that crisis, that the next president of the United States should send a message to Congress asking for a revitalization of our military strength, because come spring or late in the winter we’re going to be face to face with the most serious Berlin crisis since l949 or fifty. On the question of the summit, I agree with the position of Mr. Nixon. I would not meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level – foreign ministers or ambassadors – which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success, or a useful exchange of ideas.MR. McGEE: Mr. Levy with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. LEVY: Senator, in your acceptance speech at Los Angeles, you said that your campaign would be based not on what you intend to offer the American people, but what you intend to ask of them. Since that time you have spelled out many of the things that you intend to do but you have made only vague reference to sacrifice and self-denial. A year or so ago, I believe, you said that you would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase if you considered it necessary.MR. KENNEDY: That’s right.MR. LEVY: Is this what you have in mind?MR. KENNEDY: Well I don’t think that in the winter of sixty-one under present economic conditions, it uh – a – uh – tax uh – increase would be desirable. In fact, it would be deflationary; it would cause great unemployment; it would cause a real slowdown in our economy. If it ever becomes necessary, and is wise economically and essential to our security, I would have no hesitancy in suggesting a tax increase or any other policy which would defend the United States. I have talked in every speech about the fact that these are going to be very difficult times in the nineteen-sixties and that we’re going to have to meet our responsibilities as citizens. I’m talking about a national mood. I’m talking about our willingness to bear any burdens in order to maintain our own freedom and in order to meet our freedom around the globe. We don’t know what the future’s going to bring. But I would not want anyone to elect me uh – president of the United States – or vote for me – under the expectation that life would be easier if I were elected. Now, many of the programs that I’m talking about – economic growth, care for the aged, development of our natural resources – build the strength of the United States. That’s how the United States began to prepare for its great actions in World War II and in the post-war period. If we’re moving ahead, if we’re providing a viable economy, if our people have sufficient resources so that they can consume what we produce; then this country’s on the move, then we’re stronger, then we set a better example to the world. So we have the problem of not only building our own uh – military strength and extending uh – our policies abroad, we have to do a job here at home. So I believe that the policies that I recommend came under the general heading of strengthening the United States. We’re using our steel capacity fifty-five per cent today. We’re not able to consume what we’re able to produce at a time when the Soviet Union is making great economic gains. And all I say is, I don’t know what the sixties will bring – except I think they will bring hard times in the uh – international sphere; I hope we can move ahead here at home in the United States; I’m confident we can do a far better job of mobilizing our economy and resources in the United States. And I merely say that they – if they elect me president, I will do my best to carry the United States through a difficult period; but I would not want people to elect me because I promised them the easy, soft life. I think it’s going to be difficult; but I’m confident that this country can meet its responsibilities.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: Well I think we should be no – under no illusions whatever about what the responsibilities of the American people will be in the sixties. Our expenditures for defense, our expenditures for mutual security, our expenditures for economic assistance and technical assistance are not going to get less. In my opinion they’re going to be de- be greater. I think it may be necessary that we have more taxes. I hope not. I hope we can economize elsewhere so that we don’t have to. But I would have no hesitation to ask the American people to pay the taxes even in l961 – if necessary – to maintain a sound economy and also to maintain a sound dollar. Because when you do not tax, and tax enough to pay for your outgo, you pay it many times over in higher prices and inflation; and I simply will not do that. I think I should also add that as far as Senator Kennedy’s proposals are concerned, if he intends to carry out his platform – the one adopted in Los Angeles – it is just impossible for him to make good on those promises without raising taxes or without having a rise in t- prices or both. The platform suggests that it can be done through economic growth; that it can be done, in effect, with mirrors. But it isn’t going to be working that way. You can’t add billions of dollars to our expenditures and not pay for it. After all, it isn’t paid for by my money, it isn’t paid for by his, but by the people’s money.MR. McGEE: Mr. Niven with a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. NIVEN: Mr. Vice President, you said that while Mr. Khrushchev is here, Senator Kennedy should talk about what’s right with this country as well as what’s wrong with the country. In the 1952 campaign when you were Republican candidate for Vice President, and we were eh – at war with the Communists, did you feel a similar responsibility to t- talk about what was right with the country?MR. NIXON: I did. And as I pointed out in 1952, I made it very clear that as far as the Korean War was concerned, that I felt that the decision to go into the war in Korea was right and necessary. What I criticized were the policies that made it necessary to go to Korea. Now incidentally, I should point out here that Senator Kennedy has attacked our foreign policy. He’s said that it’s been a policy that has led to defeat and retreat. And I’d like to know where have we been defeated and where have we retreated? In the Truman Administration, six hundred million people went behind the Iron Curtain including the satellite countries of Eastern Europe and Communist China. In this Administration we’ve stopped them at Quemoy and Matsu; we’ve stopped them in Indochina; we’ve stopped them in Lebanon; we’ve stopped them in other parts of the world. I would also like to point out that as far as Senator Kennedy’s comments are concerned, I think he has a perfect right and a responsibility to criticize this Administration whenever he thinks we’re wrong. But he has a responsibility to be accurate, and not to misstate the case. I don’t think he should say that our prestige is at an all-time low. I think this is very harmful at a time Mr. Khrushchev is here – harmful because it’s wrong. I don’t think it was helpful when he suggested – and I’m glad he’s corrected this to an extent – that seventeen million people go to bed hungry every night in the United States. Now this just wasn’t true. Now, there are people who go to bed hungry in the United States – far less, incidentally, than used to go to bed hungry when we came into power at the end of the Truman Administration. But the thing that is right about the United States, it should be emphasized, is that less people go to bed hungry in the United States than in any major country in the world. We’re the best fed; we’re the best clothed, with a better distribution of this world’s goods to all of our people than any people in history. Now, in pointing out the things that are wrong, I think we ought to emphasize America’s strengths. It isn’t necessary to – to run America down in order to build her up. Now so that we get it absolutely clear: Senator Kennedy must as a candidate – as I as a candidate in fifty-two – criticize us when we’re wrong. And he’s doing a very effective job of that, in his way. But on the other hand, he has a responsibility to be accurate. And I have a responsibility to correct him every time he misstates the case; and I intend to continue to do so.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Nixon uh- I’ll just give you the testimony of Mr. George Aiken – Senator George Aiken, the ranking minority member – Republican member – and former chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee testifying in 1959 – said there were twenty-six million Americans who did not have the income to afford a decent diet. Mr. Benson, testifying on the food stamp plan in 1957, said there were twenty-five million Americans who could not afford a elementary low-cost diet. And he defined that as someone who uses beans in place of meat. Now I’ve seen a good many hundreds of thousands of people who are uh – not adequately fed. You can’t tell me that a surplus food distribution of five cents po- per person – and that n- nearly six million Americans receiving that – is adequate. You can’t tell me that any one who uses beans instead of meat in the United States – and there are twenty-five million of them according to Mr. Benson – is well fed or adequately fed. I believe that we should not compare what our figures may be to India or some other country that has serious problems but to remember that we are the most prosperous country in the world and that these people are not getting adequate food. And they’re not getting in many cases adequate shelter. And we ought to try to meet the problem. Secondly, Mr. Nixon has continued to state – and he stated it last week – these fantastic figures of what the Democratic budget would c- uh – platform would cost. They’re wholly inaccurate. I said last week I believed in a balanced budget. Unless there was a severe recession – and after all the worst unbalanced budget in history was in 1958, twelve billion dollars – larger than in any Administration in the history of the United States. So that I believe that on this subject we can balance the budget unless we have a national emergency or unless we have a severe recession.MR. McGEE: Mr. Morgan with a question for Senator Kennedy.MR. MORGAN: Senator, Saturday on television you said that you had always thought that Quemoy and Matsu were unwise places to draw our defense line in the Far East. Would you comment further on that and also address to this question; couldn’t a pullback from those islands be interpreted as appeasement?MR. KENNEDY: Well, the United States uh – has on occasion attempted uh – mostly in the middle fifties, to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to pull his troops back to Formosa. I believe strongly in the defense of Formosa. These islands are a few miles – five or six miles – off the coast of Red China, within a general harbor area and more than a hundred miles from Formosa. We have never said flatly that we will defend Quemoy and Matsu if it’s attacked. We say we will defend it if it’s part of a general attack on Formosa. But it’s extremely difficult to make that judgment. Now, Mr. Herter in 1958, when he was Under Secretary of State, said they were strategically undefensible. Admirals Spruance and Callins in 1955 said that we should not attempt to defend these islands, in their conference in the Far East. General Ridgway has said the same thing. I believe that when you get into a w- if you’re going to get into war for the defense of Formosa, it ought to be on a clearly defined line. One of the problems, I think, at the time of South Korea was the question of whether the United States would defend it if it were attacked. I believe that we should defend Formosa. We should come to its defense. To leave this rather in the air, that we will defend it under some conditions but not under other, I think is a mistake. Secondly, I would not suggest the withdrawal at the point of the Communist gun. It is a decision finally that the Nationalists should make and I believe that we should consult with them and attempt to work out a plan by which the line is drawn at the island of Formosa. It leaves a hundred miles between the sea. But with General Ridgway, Mr. Herter, General Collins, Admiral Spruance and many others, I think it’s unwise to take the chance of being dragged into a war which may lead to a world war over two islands which are not strategically defensible, which are not, according to their testimony, essential to the defense of Formosa. I think that uh – we should protect our commitments. I believe strongly we should do so in Berlin. I believe strongly we should d- do so in Formosa and I believe we should meet our commitments to every country whose security we’ve guaranteed. But I do not believe that that line in case of war should be drawn on those islands but instead on the island of Formosa. And as long as they are not essential to the defense of Formosa, it’s been my judgment ever since 1954, at the time of the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Far East, that our line should be drawn in the sea around the island itself.MR. McGEE: Mr. Vice President.MR. NIXON: I disagree completely with Senator Kennedy on this point. I remember in the period immediately before the Korean War, South Korea was supposed to be indefensible as well. Generals testified to that. And Secretary Acheson made a very famous speech at the Press Club, early in the year that k- Korean War started, indicating in effect that South Korea was beyond the defense zone of the United States. I suppose it was hoped when he made that speech that we wouldn’t get into a war. But it didn’t mean that. We had to go in when they came in. Now I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that the question is not these two little pieces of real estate – they are unimportant. It isn’t the few people who live on them – they are not too important. It’s the principle involved. These two islands are in the area of freedom. The Nationalists have these two islands. We should not uh – force our Nationalist allies to get off of them and give them to the Communists. If we do that we start a chain reaction; because the Communists aren’t after Quemoy and Matsu, they’re a- they’re after Formosa. In my opinion this is the same kind of woolly thinking that led to disaster for America in Korea. I am against it. I would never tolerate it as president of the United States, and I will hope that Senator Kennedy will change his mind if he should be elected.MR. McGEE: Gentlemen, we have approximately four minutes remaining. May I ask you to make your questions and answers as brief as possible consistent with clarity. And Mr. Levy has a question for Vice President Nixon.MR. LEVY: Mr. Vice President, you are urging voters to forget party labels and vote for the man. Senator Kennedy says that in doing this you are trying to run away from your party on such issues as housing and aid to education by advocating what he calls a me-too program. Why do you say that party labels are not important?MR. NIXON; Because that’s the way we elect a president in this country, and it’s the way we should. I’m a student of history as is Senator Kennedy, incidentally; and I have found that in the history of this country we’ve had many great presidents. Some of them have been Democrats and some of them have been Republicans. The people, some way, have always understood that at a particular time a certain man was the one the country needed. Now, I believe that in an election when we are trying to determine who should lead the free world – not just America – perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has already indicated, the most important election in our history – it isn’t the label that he wears or that I wear that counts. It’s what we are. It’s our whole lives. It’s what we stand for. It’s what we believe. And consequently, I don’t think it’s enough to go before Republican audiences – and I never do – and say, “Look, vote for me because I’m a Republican.” I don’t think it’s enough for Senator Kennedy to go before the audiences on the Democratic side and say, “Vote for me because I’m a Democrat.” That isn’t enough. What’s involved here is the question of leadership for the whole free world. Now that means the best leadership. It may be Republican, it may be Democratic. But the people are the ones that determine it. The people have to make up their minds. And I believe the people, therefore, should be asked to make up their minds not simply on the basis of, “Vote the way your grandfather did; vote the way your mother did.” I think the people should put America first, rather than party first. Now, as far as running away from my party is concerned, Senator Kennedy has said that we have no compassion for the poor, that we are against progress – the enemies of progress, is the term that he’s used, and the like. All that I can say is this: we do have programs in all of these fields – education, housing, defense – that will move America forward. They will move her forward faster, and they will move her more surely than in his program. This is what I deeply believe. I’m sure he believes just as deeply that his will move that way. I suggest, however, that in the interest of fairness that he could give me the benefit of also believing as he believes.MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well, let me say I do think that parties are important in that they tell something about the program and something about the man. Abraham Lincoln was a great president of all the people; but he was selected by his party at a key time in history because his party stood for something. The Democratic party in this century has stood for something. It has stood for progress; it has stood for concern for the people’s welfare. It has stood for a strong foreign policy and a strong national defense, and as a result, produced Wilson, President Roosevelt, and President Truman. The Republican party has produced McKinley and Harding, Coolidge, Dewey, and Landon. They do stand for something. They stand for a whole different approach to the problems facing this country at home and abroad. That’s the importance of party; only if it tells something about the record. And the Republicans in recent years – not only in the last twenty-five years, but in the last eight years – have opposed housing, opposed care for the aged, opposed federal aid to education, opposed minimum wage and I think that record tells something.MR. McGEE: Thank you gentlemen. Neither the questions from the reporters nor the answers you heard from Senator John Kennedy or Vice President Richard Nixon were rehearsed. By agreement neither candidate made an opening statement or a closing summation. They further agreed that the clock alone would decide who would speak last and each has asked me to express his thanks to the networks and their affiliated stations. Another program similar to this one will be presented Thursday, October thirteenth, and the final program will be presented Friday, October twenty-first. We hope this series of radio and television programs will help you toward a fuller understanding of the issues facing our country today and that on election day, November eighth, you will vote for the candidate of your choice. This is Frank McGee. Good night from Washington.",
    "id": "82ef1c04-8139-4708-b709-479bfd0f089e"
  },
  {
    "year": 2000,
    "date": "October 5, 2000",
    "title": "The Lieberman-Cheney Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 5, 2000 Debate TranscriptOctober 5, 2000The Lieberman-Cheney Vice Presidential DebateMODERATOR: From historic Danville, Kentucky, good evening, and welcome to this year’s only vice presidential debate sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m Bernard Shaw of CNN, moderator. Tonight we come to you from Newlin hall in the Norton Center for the Arts on the campus of Centre College. To President John Rausch, the faculty, students and community leaders state-wide, we thank you for hosting this debate. The candidates are the Republican nominee, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney of Wyoming, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. The Commission, these candidates and their campaign staffs have agreed to the following rules. A candidate shall have two minutes to respond to the moderator’s question. The other candidate shall have two minutes to comment on the question or the first candidate’s answer. When I exercise the moderator’s discretion of extending discussion of a question, no candidate may speak for more than two minutes at one time. This audience has been told no disruptions will be tolerated. A prior coin toss has determined that the first question will go to the Democratic candidate. Senator, few hard working Americans would base their well-being on bonuses they hope to get five or ten years from now. Why do you, and you, Secretary Cheney, predict surpluses you cannot possibly guarantee to pay for your proposed programs?LIEBERMAN: Before I answer that very important question, let me first thank you for moderating the debate. Let me thank the wonderful people here at Centre College and throughout Kentucky for being such gracious hosts, and let me give a special thank you to the people of Connecticut without whose support over these last 30 years I would never have had the opportunity Al Gore has given me this year. And finally let me thank my family that is here with me. My wife, Hadassah, our children, our siblings and my mom. My 85-year-old mom gave me some good advice about the debate earlier today. She said, sweetheart — as she’s prone to call me — remember, be positive and know that I will love you no matter what you’re opponent says about you. Well, Mom, as always, that was both reassuring and wise. I am going to be positive tonight. I’m not going to indulge in negative personal attacks. I’m going to talk about the issues that matter to the people of this country; education, health care, retirement security and moral values. I’m going to describe the plan that Al Gore and I have for keeping America’s prosperity going and making sure that it benefits more of America’s families, particularly the hard-working middle class families who have not yet fully benefitted from the good times we’ve had. And Bernie, I’m going to explain tonight how we’re going to do all this and remain fiscally responsible. Let me get to your question.MODERATOR: You have about ten seconds.LIEBERMAN: We’re not spending any more than is projected by the experts, unlike our opponents. We’re setting aside $300 billion in a reserve fund in case the projections the nonpartisan experts make aren’t quite right. We understand that balancing the budget, keeping America out of debt is a way to keep interest rates down and the economy growing.MODERATOR: Secretary Cheney.CHENEY: I want to thank the people here in Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, for sponsoring this and making it possible. And I’m delighted to be here tonight with you, Joe. I too want to avoid any personal attacks. I promise not to bring up your singing. (LAUGHTER)LIEBERMAN: I promise not to sing.CHENEY: Good. I think this is an extraordinarily important decision we’ll make on November 7th. We’re really going to choose between what I consider to be an old way of governing ourselves of high levels of spending, high taxes, ever more intrusive bureaucracy or a new course, a new era, if you will. And Governor Bush and I want to offer that new course of action. With respect to the surplus, Bernie, we have to make some kind of forecast. We can’t make 12-month decisions in this business. We’re talking about the kinds of fundamental changes in programs and government that are going to affect people’s lives for the next 25 or 30 years. And while it may be a little risky in some respects from an economic standpoint to try to forecast surpluses, I think we have to make some planning assumption to proceed. We care a great deal about the issues at stake here. One of the difficulties we have, frankly, for the last eight years we ignored a lot of these problems. We haven’t moved aggressively on Social Security, on Medicare. There are important issues out there that need to be resolved. It’s important for us to get on with that business. That’s what Governor Bush and I want to do.MODERATOR: You alluded to problems. There’s no magic bullet — Secretary Cheney, in this question to you — no magic bullets to solve the problems of public education. What is the next best solution?CHENEY: I think public education is a solution. Our desire is to find ways to reform our educational system, to return it to its former glory. I’m a product of public schools, my family, wife and daughters all went to public schools. We believe very much in the public school system. But if you look at where we are from the standpoint of the nation, recent exams. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an independent testing service, shows there’s been no progress on reading scores in the last eight years. Almost no progress on math. The achievement gap between minority and non-minority students is as big as it’s ever been. We’ve had a significant increase in spending for education nationwide, but it has produced almost no positive results. That’s unacceptable from our standpoint. If you look at it and think about it, we now have in our most disadvantaged communities, 70% of our fourth graders can’t read at the basic level of understanding. We’ve graduated 15 million kids from high school in the last few years who can’t read at a significant level. They are permanently sentenced to a lifetime of failure. What we want to do is to change that. We think we know how to do it. Governor Bush has done it in Texas. We want to emphasize local control so that people here in Danville, KY decide what is best for their kids. We want to insist on high standards. One of the worst things we can do is fail to establish high standards, in effect to say to a youngster because of their ethnic background or income level, we don’t have the same kind of expectations from you that we have from everybody else. We want accountability. We have to test every child every year to know whether or not we’re making progress with respect to achieving those goals and objectives. We think it’s extraordinarily important. Probably the single most important issue in this campaign. Governor Bush has made it clear that when he’s elected this will be his number one priority as a legislative measure to submit to the Congress.MODERATOR: Senator.LIEBERMAN: Al Gore and I are committed to making America’s public schools the best in the world. I disagree with what my opponent has said. A lot of progress has been made in recent years. Average testing scores are up and a lot of extraordinary work is being done by tens of thousands of parents, teachers and administrators all around America. There is more to be done. If you’ll allow me, I want to go back to your last question. It leads to this question. I think both of us agree that leaving aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, there’s $1.8 trillion in surplus available to spend over the next ten years. As I said before we’re being fiscally responsible about it. We’re taking $300 billion off the top to put in reserve fund. The rest we’ll use for middle class tax cuts and invest in programs like education. There’s a big difference between these two tickets. Our opponents are going to spend $1.6 trillion of the $1.8 trillion surplus projected on that big tax cut that Al Gore talked about the other night so effectively. We’re saving money to invest in education. You cannot reform education and improve it in this country without spending some money. Al Gore and I have committed $170 billion for that purpose. To recruit 100,000 new teachers to reduce the size of classrooms. To help local school districts build new buildings so our children are not learning in crumbling classrooms. And we’re not just going to stop at high school. We’re going to go on and give the middle class the ability to deduct up to $10,000 a year in the cost of college tuition. Now, that is a tremendous life-saving change which will help people carry on their education and allow them to develop the kinds of skills that will help them succeed in the hi-tech economy of today.CHENEY: This is a very important issue, Bernie. Maybe we could extend on education for a moment.MODERATOR: You’re asking me to invoke the moderator’s discussion?CHENEY: Yes.MODERATOR: It is so granted.CHENEY: Thank you, sir.LIEBERMAN: Your honor, do I have a chance to respond?MODERATOR: Of course you do. The secretary will have two minutes and then you’ll have two minutes.CHENEY: Let’s talk about this question of the surplus because it drives a lot of what we’re talking about here, Joe. If you look at our proposal, we take half of the projected surplus and set it aside for Social Security. Over $2.4 trillion. We take roughly a fourth of it for other urgent priorities such as Medicare reform and education, several of these other key programs we want to support. And we take roughly one-fourth of it and return it in the form of a tax cut to the American taxpayer. We think it’s extraordinarily important to do that. It is a fundamental difference between our two approaches. If you look, frankly, by our numbers and the numbers of the Senate Budget Committee, which has totaled up all the promises that Vice President Gore has made during the course of the campaign, they are some $900 billion in spending over and above that surplus already and we still have a month to go in the campaign. The fact is that the program that we put together we think is very responsible. Suggestion that somehow all of it is going for tax cuts isn’t true. Another way to look at it is over the course of the next ten years we’ll collect roughly $25 trillion in revenue. We want to take about 5% of that and return that to the American taxpayer in the form of tax relief. We have the highest level of taxation now we’ve had since World War II. The average American family is paying about 40% in federal, state and local taxes. We think it is appropriate to return to the American people so that they can make choices themselves in how that money ought to be spent; whether on education, retirement or on paying their bills. It is their choice and it is their prerogative. We want to give them the opportunity to make those kinds of choices for themselves and we think this is a totally reasonable approach.MODERATOR: Senator?LIEBERMAN: Let me start with the numbers. With all due respect, the Senate Budget Committee estimates that Dick Cheney has just referred to are the estimates of the partisan Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. We’re using the numbers presented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. We start with an agreement which is this surplus in the Social Security fund should be locked up and used for Social Security. That’s where the agreement ends. We also agree and believe and pledge that the surplus in the Medicare trust fund should also be locked up with a sign on it that says “politicians keep your hands off.” Our opponents do not do that. In fact, they raid the Medicare trust fund to pay for, well, their tax cut and other programs that they can’t afford because they’ve spent so much on the tax cut. Let me come back to the remaining $1.8 trillion that we both talked about. The numbers show that $1.6 trillion goes to the big tax cut which, as Al Gore said the other night, sends 43% to the top 1%. Worse than that, when you add on the other spending programs that our opponents have committed to, plus the cost of their plan to privatize Social Security, by our calculations they’re $1.1 trillion in debt. That means we go back down the road to higher interest rates, to higher unemployment, to a kind of self-tax increase on every American family. Because when interest rates go up, so, too, do the cost of mortgage payments, car payments, student loans, credit card transactions. So if we’ve learned anything over the last eight years, it is that one of the most important things the government can do, the federal government, probably the most important, is to be fiscally responsible. And that’s why Al Gore and I are committed to balancing the budget every year. In fact, the paying off the debt by the year 2012, when by our calculation our opponent’s economic plan still leaves America $2.8 trillion in debt.MODERATOR: Time. The next question goes to you. Gentlemen, this is the 21st Century. Yet on average an American working woman in our great nation earns 75 cents for each $1 earned by a working male. What do you males propose to do about it?LIEBERMAN: It’s a good and important question. Obviously in our time, fortunately, great advances have been made by women achieving the kind of equality that they were too long denied. Bernie, your question is absolutely right. Women — actually the number I have received 72 cents for every $1 a man receives in a comparable job. Al Gore and I have issued an economic plan in which we’ve stated specific goals for the future. And one of those goals is to eliminate the pay gap between men and women. It’s unfair and it’s unacceptable. And the first way we will do that is by supporting the Equal Pay Act which has been proposed in Congress which gives women the right to file legal actions against employers who are not treating them fairly and not paying them equally. Secondly, we’re going to do everything we can using governmental support of business agencies such as the Small Business Administration to help women business owners have an opportunity to invest and begin businesses and make larger incomes themselves. And there are other civil rights and human rights laws that I think can come to play here. So bottom line, this is an unfair and unacceptable situation. And even though, as the economy has risen in the last eight years, America’s women have risen with it and received more income, until women are receiving the same amount of pay for the same job they’re doing as a man receives, we’ve not achieved genuine equality in this country. Al Gore and I are committed to closing that gap and achieving that equality. In so many families women are a significant bread earner or the only bread earner. So this cause affects not only the women, but families and the children as well.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.CHENEY: I share the view that we ought to have equal pay for equal work regardless of someone’s gender. We have made progress in recent years, but I think we have a ways to go. It’s not just about the differential with respect to women. If you look at our opponent’s tax proposal, they discriminate between stay-at-home moms with children that they take care of themselves and those who go to work or who, in fact, have their kids taken care of outside the home. You, in effect, as a stay-at-home mom get no tax advantage under the Gore tax plan as contrasted with the Bush proposal. It provides tax relief for absolutely everybody who pays taxes. It’s important to understand the things we’re trying to change and address in the course of the campaign and what our agenda is for the future, our plans are for the future, focus very much about giving as much control as we can to individual Americans, be they men or women, be they single or married, as much control as possible over their own lives, especially in the area of taxation. We want to make certain that the American people have the ability to keep more of what they earn and then they can get to decide how to spend it. The proposal we have from Al Gore, basically, doesn’t do that. It in effect lays out some 29 separate tax credits. If you live your life the way they want you to live your life, if you behave in a certain way, you qualify for a tax credit and at that point you get some relief. Bottom line, though, is 50 million American taxpayers out there get no advantages at all out of the Gore tax proposal, whereas under the Bush plan everybody who pays taxes will get tax relief.LIEBERMAN: Might I have an opportunity to respond?MODERATOR: You can respond senator. But I caution you gentlemen if you do this consistently we won’t cover a lot of topics. After the Senator responds, you don’t have to feel compelled to respond to the Senator.CHENEY: Depends on what he says.LIEBERMAN: This is an important difference between us. I want to clarify it briefly if I can. The first thing is the tax relief program that we’ve proposed, one of the many tax credits for the middle class includes a $500 tax credit for stay-at-home moms just as a way of saying we understand that you are performing a service for our society. We want you to have that tax credit. Second, the number of 50 million Americans not benefitting from our tax cut program is absolutely wrong. It’s an estimate done on an earlier form of our tax cut program and it’s just plain wrong. And secondly, although Governor Bush says that his tax cut program, large as it is, gives a tax cut to everybody, as the newspapers indicated earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Taxation, again a nonpartisan group in Congress, says that 27 million Americans don’t get what the governor said they would in the tax program. Al Gore and I want to live within our means. We’re not going to give it all away in one big tax cut and certainly not to the 1% of the public that doesn’t need it now. We’re focusing our tax cut on the middle class in the areas they tell us they need it. Tax credits for better and more expensive child care, tax credits for middle class families that don’t have health insurance from their employers. The tax deduction I talked about earlier. Very exciting deduction for up to $10,000 a year in the cost of a college tuition. A $3,000 tax credit for the cost — well, actually for a family member who stays home with a parent or grandparent who is ill. And a very exciting tax credit program that I hope I’ll have a chance to talk about later, Bernie, that encourages savings by people early in life and any time in life by having the federal government match savings for the 75 million Americans who make $100,000 or less up to $2,000 a year. Very briefly, if a young couple making $50,000 a year saves $1,000, the government will put another $1,000 in that account. By the time they retire, they’ll not only have guaranteed Social Security, but more than $200,000 in that retirement fund. Now, that’s —MODERATOR: Your time is up, Senator.CHENEY: You have to be a CPA to understand what he just said. The fact of the matter is the plan is so complex that the ordinary American is never going to ever figure out what they even qualify for. It’s a classic example of wanting to have a program, in this case a tax program, that will, in fact, direct people to live their lives in certain ways rather than empowering them to make decisions for themselves. It is a big difference between us. They like tax credits, we like tax reform and tax cuts.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Would you support the effort of House Republicans who want legislation to restrict distribution of the abortion drug RU-486?CHENEY: The abortion issue is a very tough one, without question, and a very important one. Governor Bush and I have emphasized while, while we are clearly both pro-life, that’s what we believe. We want to reduce the incidence of abortion on our society. Many on the pro-choice side have said the same thing. Even Bill Clinton has advocated reducing abortion to make it as rare as possible. With respect to the question of RU-486, we believe that — of course, that it’s recently been approved by the FDA. That really was a question of whether or not it was safe to be used by women. They didn’t address the sort of the question of whether or not there should or should not be abortion in the society so much as evaluate that particular drug. What we would like to be able to do is to look for ways to reach across the divide between the two points of view and find things that we can do together to reduce the incidence of abortion. Such things as promoting adoption as an alternative. Encouraging parental notification. And we also think banning the horrific practice of partial birth abortions is an area where there could be agreement. Congress has twice passed by overwhelming margins, a significant number of votes from both parties, the ban on partial birth abortions. Twice it’s been vetoed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore. We would hope eventually they would recognize that’s not a good position for them to be in. With respect to the RU-486 proposal, at this stage I haven’t looked in particular at that particular piece of legislation. Governor Bush made it clear the other night he did not anticipate that he would be able to go in and direct the FDA to reverse course on that particular issue, primarily because the decision they made was on the drug, not the question of whether or not it would support abortion.LIEBERMAN: It’s a very important question and one on which these two tickets have dramatically different points of view. My answer is no, I would not support legislation that is being introduced in Congress to override the Food and Drug Administration decision on RU-486. The administration, FDA worked 12 years on this serious problem. They made a judgment based on what was good for women’s health. A doctor has to pescribe and care for a woman using it. I think it’s a decision we ought to let stand because it was made by experts. But let me say more generally that the significant difference here on this issue is that Al Gore and I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. Our opponents will not. We know that this is a difficult personal, moral, medical issue, but that is exactly why it ought to be left under our law to a woman, her doctor and her God. Now, one area in which we agree, Al Gore and I, we believe that the government ought to do everything it can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And, therefore, the number of abortions. Incidentally, here there is good news to report. The number of abortions is actually down in America over the last eight years. In fact, over the last eight years the number of teenage pregnancies has dropped 20%. And the reason it has is that there are good programs out there that Al Gore and I will continue to support, such as family planning and programs that encourage abstinence. But when the health of a woman is involved, I think the government has to be respectful. I supported, in fact, a bill in the Senate that would have prohibited late-term abortions except in cases where the health or life of the mother was involved. I did not support the so-called partial birth abortion bill because it would have prohibited that form of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy regardless of the effect on the health and life of the woman. That’s unacceptable.MODERATOR: This question is for you, Senator. If Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic prevails, notwithstanding the election results, would you support his overthrow?LIEBERMAN: Well, there’s good news from Belgrade today, Bernie, as you know. It’s unconfirmed. The encouraging news is that the state news agency is reporting that Mr. Kostunica is the president-elect. There are some press reports that are unconfirmed that say that Milosevic has actually left Belgrade. That is a very happy ending to a terrible story. It’s the end of a reign of terror. If that is not confirmed and does not happen, then I think the United States, with its European allies, ought to do everything we can to encourage the people of Serbia to do exactly what they’ve been doing over the last few days to rise up and end this reign of terror by Milosevic, and bring themselves back into the family of nations where they will be welcomed by the United States and others. You know, I’m very proud on this night as it appears that Milosevic is about to or has fallen, of the leadership role the United States played in the effort to stop his aggression and genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo. I know our opponents have said they thought it was overreaching. It wasn’t. It was a matter of principle in America’s national interest and values. The fact is that we stopped the aggression, we stopped the genocide, and therefore strengthened our relationship with our European allies in NATO. And, in fact, made the United States more respected and trusted by our allies and more feared by our enemies. I think that Vice President Gore played a critical role, passionate purposive role in leading the administration, along with Republican supporters like Bob Dole and John McCain, to do the right thing in the Balkans. And hopefully tonight we’re seeing the final results of that bold and brave effort.MODERATOR: Secretary Cheney.CHENEY: I noted, Bernie, like Joe, I’m pleased to see what happened in Yugoslavia today. I hope it marks the end of Milosevic. I think probably more than anything else it’s a victory for the Serbian people. They’ve taken to the streets to support their democracy, to support their vote. In some respects this is a continuation of a process that began ten years ago all across eastern Europe and has only now arrived in Serbia. We saw it in Germany, we saw it in Rumania, we saw it in Czechoslovakia, as the people of eastern Europe rose up and made their claim for freedom. And I think we all admire that. I think with respect to how this process has been managed most recently, we want to do everything we can to support Mr. Milosevic’s departure. Certainly, though, that would not involve committing U.S. troops. I do think it’s noteworthy that there appears to be an effort underway to get the Russians involved. I noted the other night, for example, Tuesday night at the debate in Boston, Governor Bush suggested exactly that we ought to try to get the Russians involved to exercise some leverage over the Serbians. It’s now clear from the press that, in fact, that’s exactly what they were doing. It’s — Governor Bush was correct in his assessment and his recommendation. He has supported the administration on Kosovo. He lobbied actively against passage of the Byrd-Warner provision which would have set a specific deadline, one he felt was too soon, for forcing the U.S. troops out. He’s been supportive of the policy that we’ve seen with respect to Yugoslavia. And I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. I would go beyond that. I think this is an opportunity for the United States to test President Putin of Russia. That in fact now is the time we ought to find out whether he’s committed to democracy. Whether or not he’s willing to support the forces of freedom and democracy diplomatically there in the area of eastern Europe. And it’s a test for him whether he represents the old guard in the Soviet Union. One of the most important challenges we face as a nation is how we manage that process of integrating those 150 million eastern Europeans into the security and economic framework of Europe.MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America’s armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors. There may be occasion when it’s appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, there ought to be a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars. And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We’ve seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time we’ve seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. For example General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he’s now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We’re overcommitted and underresourced. This has had some other unfortunate effects. I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in ’95 getting ready to get out of the service because he’s only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He’s concerned that if he had to send them into combat it would mean lives lost. That is a legitimate concern, this is a very important area. The fact that the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. Major responsibility for us in the future, a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them the resources they need to do the job we ask them to do for us and give them good leadership.MODERATOR: Senator, you’re shaking your head in disagreement.LIEBERMAN: I am. I want to assure the American people that the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most powerful force in the world. And that Al Gore and I will do whatever it takes to keep them that way. It’s not right, and it’s not good for our military, to run them down essentially in the midst of a partisan political debate. The fact is that you’ve got to judge the military by what the military leaders say. Secretary Bill Cohen, a good republican, and Gen. Shelton the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will both tell you the American military is ready to meet any threat we may face in the world today. The fact is, judging by its results from Desert Storm to the Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo, to the operations that are still being conducted to keep Saddam Hussein in a box in Iraq, the American military has performed brilliantly. This administration has turned around the drop in spending that began in the mid-’80’s and right through the Bush-Cheney administration and the early years of the Clinton administration, but now that’s stopped. We passed the largest pay increase in a generation for our military. And the interesting fact here, in spite of the rhetoric that my opponent has just spoken, the reality is if you look at our projected budgets for the next ten years, Al Gore and I actually commit twice as much, $100 billion in additional funding for our military than Governor Bush does. And their budget allows nothing additional for acquisition of new weapons systems. That’s something the same Gen. Mike Ryan of the airforce and all the other chiefs of the services will not be happy about because they need the new equipment, the new systems that Al Gore and I are committed to giving them.CHENEY: Bernie, this is a special interest of mine. I would like a chance to elaborate further, if I might. The facts are dramatically different. I’m not attacking the military, Joe. I have enormous regard for the men and women of the U.S. military. I had the privilege of working with them for the four years I was the Secretary of Defense. No one has a higher regard than I do for them. It’s irresponsible to suggest we shouldn’t have this debate, that we should ignore what is a major, major concern. If you have friends and relatives serving in the U.S. military, you know there’s a problem. If you look at the data that’s available, 40% of our Army helicopters are not combat ready. The combat readiness level in the Air Force dropped from 85% to 65%. Significant problems of retention. The important thing for us to remember is that we’re a democracy and we’re defended by volunteers. Everybody out there tonight wearing the uniform, standing on guard to protect the United States is there because they volunteered to put on a uniform. When we don’t give them the spare parts they need, when we don’t give our pilots the flying hours they need to maintain their proficiency, when we don’t give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let’s them know why they’re putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale. That’s an extraordinarily valuable trust. There is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than his role as Commander in Chief, and the obligation he undertakes on behalf o fall of us when he decides when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that’s old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties in the next conflict if we don’t look to those basic fundamental problems now. With all due respect this administration has a bad track record in this regard, and it’s available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk to our men and women in uniform, and wants to spend time with the members of the Joint Chiefs, wants to look at readiness levels and other — other indicators. Final point, the issue of procurement is very important because we’re running now off the buildup of the investment we made during the Reagan years. As that equipment gets old, it has to be replaced. We’ve taken money out of the procurement budget to support other ventures. We have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military.LIEBERMAN: It’s important to respond to this. Yes, of course it’s an important debate to have as part of this campaign, but I don’t want either the military to feel uneasy or the American people to feel insecure. What I’m saying now I’m basing on serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee talking to exactly the people Dick Cheney has mentioned, the Secretary of Defense, the Chiefs of Staff. I’ve visited our fighting forces around the world. I’m telling you that we are ready to meet any contingency that might arise. The good news here and the interesting news is that we have met our recruitment targets in each of the services this year. In fact, in the areas where our opponents have said we are overextended, such as the Balkans, the soldiers there have a higher rate of re-enlistment than anywhere else in the service because they feel a sense of purpose, a sense of mission. In fact, this administration has begun to transform the American military to take it away from being a Cold War force to prepare it to meet the threats of the new generation of tomorrow, of weapons of mass destruction, of ballistic missiles, terrorism, cyber warfare. The fact is that Governor Bush recommended in his major policy statement on the military earlier this year that we skip the next generation of military equipment; helicopters, submarines, tactical air fighters, all the rest. That would really cripple our readiness. Exactly the readiness that Dick Cheney is talking about. Al Gore and I are committed to continuing this acquisition program, transforming the military. There’s still fewer people in uniform today, but person-to-person, person-by-person, unit-by-unit, this is the most powerful and effective military, not only in the world today, but in the history of the world. And again, Al Gore and I will do whatever is necessary to keep it that way.MODERATOR: Senator Lieberman, this question to you. Once again in the Middle East, peace talks on the one hand, deadly confrontations on the other, and the flashpoint, Jerusalem, and then there’s Syria. Is United States policy what it should be?LIEBERMAN: Yes, it is. It has truly pained me in the last week to watch the unrest and the death occurring in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So much work has been done by the people there with the support of this administration. So much progress has been made in the original Oslo agreements between the Israelis, the Palestinians, adopted in 1993, and the peace between Israel and Jordan thereafter. I mean America has a national strategic interest and principled interest in peace in the Middle East, and Al Gore has played a critical role in advancing that process over the last eight years. What pains me is I watched the unrest in recent days between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That these two peoples have come in some senses, generations forward, centuries forward, in the last seven years. They are so close to a final peace agreement, I hope and pray that the death and unrest in the last week will not create the kinds of scars that make it hard for them to go back to the peace table with American assistance and achieve what I’m convinced the great majority of the Israeli and Palestinian people want, and indeed these people throughout the Middle East, which is peace. Secretary Albright has been in Paris meeting with prime minister Barak and chairman Arafat. I hope and pray her mission is successful, that there is a cease fire, and the parties return to the peace table. We’ve been on a very constructive course in the Middle East, played an unusual, unique role. And I’m convinced that Al Gore and I will continue to do that. I hope I might, through my friendships in Israel and throughout the Arab world, play a unique role in bringing peace to this — this sacred region of the world.CHENEY: Bernie, it has been a very, very difficult area to work in for a long time. Numerous administrations going back certainly to World War II have had to wrestle with the problem of what should happen to the Middle East. We made significant breakthroughs, I think, at the end of the Bush administration because of the Gulf War. In effect, we had joined together with Arab allies and done enormous damage to the Iraqi armed forces. Iraq was the biggest military threat to Israel. By virtue of the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were no longer a factor. They used to fish in troubled waters whenever they had the opportunity in the Middle East. With the end of the Soviet Union, the implosion of the empire, that created a vacuum if you will, and made it easier for us to operate there. We were able to, I think, reassure both Arabs and Israelis would play a major role there. We have the ability and the will to deploy forces if we had to, to engage in military operations to help our friends and oppose our foes. We were able to convene them in a conference. The first time Arab and Israelis sat down face-to-face and began this process of trying to move the peace process forward. I think also a lot of credit goes to some great men like Yitzak Rabin. His tragic passing was of great consequence, a great tragedy for everybody who cares about peace in the Middle East. He was a man who had the military stature to be able to confidently persuade the Israelis to take risks for peace. I think Barak has tried to same thing. I hope that we can get this resolved as soon as possible. My guess is the next administration is going to be the one that is going to have to come to grips with the current state of affairs there. I think it’s very important that we have an administration where we have a president with firm leadership who has the kind of track record of dealing straight with people, of keeping his word so friends and allies both respect us and our adversaries fear us.MODERATOR: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would, quote, “Take him out.” Would you agree with such a deadly policy?CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We’ll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions, and a very robust inspection regime was in place under the U.N. auspices and it was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, the work he had been doing that had not been destroyed during the war in biological and chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program. Unfortunately now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, two Gulf States, have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and French are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and thumbing their nose at the international sanctions regime, and of course U.N. inspectors have been kicked out and there’s been absolutely no response. . We’re in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It’s unfortunate. I also think it’s unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don’t know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he’s not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to — to stop that activity. I don’t think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.MODERATOR: Senator.LIEBERMAN: It would, of course, be a very serious situation if we had evidence, credible evidence, that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. I must say, I don’t think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case. I think that’s a matter of such critical national security importance that it ought to be left to the Commander in Chief, leaders of the military, Secretary of State to make that kind of decision without the heat of a political campaign. The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The Gulf War was a great victory. And incidentally, Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support President Bush and Secretary Cheney in that war. We’re both very proud we did that. But, the war did not end with a total victory. Saddam Hussein remained there. As a result, we have had almost ten years now of instability. We have continued to operate almost all of this time military action to enforce a no-fly zone. We have been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors. We ought to do, and we’re doing everything we can to get the inspectors back in there. But in the end there’s not going to be peace until he goes. And that’s why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act with Senator Trent Lott why I have kept in touch with the indigenous Iraqi opposition, broad based, to Saddam Hussein. The Vice President met with them earlier this year. We are supporting them in their efforts and will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days, get rid of a despot. We’ll welcome you back into the family of nations where you belong.MODERATOR: Senator Lieberman, this question is for you. Many experts are forecasting continuing chaotic oil prices in the world market. Wholesale natural gas prices here in our country are leaping. Then there are coal and electricity. Have previous Republican and Democratic Congresses and administrations, including this one, done their job to protect the American people?LIEBERMAN: Not enough, but this administration and Vice President Gore and I have had both a long-term strategy to develop energy independence and a short-term strategy. In fact, if the — this administration had been given the amount of funding that it had requested from the Republican Congress, we would be further along in the implementation of that long-term strategy aimed at developing cleaner sources of energy, giving tax credits to individuals and businesses to conserve and use energy more efficiently. Aimed at a partnership for a new generation of vehicles with the American automobile industry which is making great progress and can produce a vehicle that can get 80 miles per gallon. We also have a short-term strategy. To deal with exactly the kind of ups and downs of energy prices. I know it was controversial, but Al Gore and I believed it was important in the short-term to reach into the strategic petroleum reserve, take some of the oil we have, put it in the market, show the big oil companies and the OPEC oil-producing countries that we’ve got some resources with which we can fight back. We aren’t going to lay back and let them roll over our economy. We did it also because gasoline prices were rising and home heating oil inventories were real low. Both of our tickets agree on LIHEAP keeping the low income housing assistance program, but our opponents offer no assistance to middle-class families hit by rising gas prices and a shortage of home heating oil. The fact is that since the reserve was opened the price of oil on world markets has dropped $6 a barrel. That’s a good result and I’m proud of it.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.CHENEY: This is an area, again, where I think again Joe and I have fairly significant disagreements. My assessment is that there is no comprehensive energy policy today. That as a nation, we are in trouble because the administration has not addressed these issues. We have the prospects of brownouts in California. We have a potential home heating oil crisis in the northeast. We have gasoline price rises in various other places. For years now the administration has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, but they haven’t done it. In fact, we’ve gone exactly in the opposite direction. We have the lowest rate of domestic production of oil now in 46 years. You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. Our imports are at an all-time record high. In June we imported almost 12 million barrels of oil a day. That means we are more subject to the wide fluctuations and swings in price. We have other problems. We don’t have refinery capacity. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country for over ten years. They’re operating at 96% or 97% capacity. Even with more crude available they’re probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating oil for this winter. We have a growing problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. That will allways be the case but we ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction. We need to do a lot more about generating the capacity for power here at home. We need to get on with the business and we think we can do it very safely in an environmentally sound manner. We don’t think we ought to buy into this false choice that somehow we cannot develop energy resources without being cautious with the environment. We can. We have the technology to do it and we ought to do it. We do support the low income energy assistance program. We think it’s important that senior citizens don’t suffer this winter, but we need to get on to the business of having a plan to develop our domestic energy resources in producing more supplies, and this administration hasn’t produced them.LIEBERMAN: May I respond to that?MODERATOR: Senator, I’m going to continue.LIEBERMAN: I yield.MODERATOR: Thank you, sir. Your congressional record, you sponsored a bill that said no to oil and gas exploration in the Wyoming wilderness areas of your home state. However, you co-sponsored a bill that said yes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Your explanation?CHENEY: It shows I have a balanced approach to how we deal with environmental issues.MODERATOR: Not a case of not in my backyard?CHENEY: No. I think we have to make choices. The Wyoming wilderness bill, frankly was one of my proudest achievements as a member of Congress. I worked on that with my good friend Al Simpson for about four years. We set aside a part of Wyoming, nearly a million acres of wilderness that ought to be separate and not be developed. We think that was important. There are a lot of areas around the country where Governor Bush and I support restraint. For example we support the moratorium on drilling off the coast of California, but there are places where we think we ought to go forward and develop those resources. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is one of them. It’s on the north slope right next to Prudhoe Bay. The infrastructure is there to be able to deliver that product to market. We think we can do it given today’s technology in a way that will not damage the environment, will not permanently marr the countryside at all, and so what we’re looking for with respect to environmental policy and energy policy is balance. We do have to make choices, we recognize that. The way you phrased the question, frankly I welcome because it shows, in fact, we are trying to pursue a balanced approach and the suggestion that somehow all we care about is energy development isn’t true. But we do have to get on with developing those resources or we’re going to find ourselves ever more dependent on foreign sources. We’re going to find that the fact that we don’t have an energy policy out there is one of the major storm clouds on the horizon for our economy. I think if you look for something that could develop, some problem that could arise, that might, in fact, jeopardize our continuing prosperity, it’s the possibility that we might find ourselves without adequate supplies of energy in the future. And there would be no quicker way to shut down our economy than that.LIEBERMAN: Bernie, we agree on the problem but we couldn’t disagree more on the response to the problem. The problem is accurately stated. No matter how strong we are economically, if we remain dependent on a source of energy that is outside our control, we’re not going to be as strong as we should be. Others around the world can effectively yank our chain, and we cannot allow that to continue to happen. I’m afraid that our opponent’s response to this is one-sided, and it is essentially to develop the resources within the United States almost regardless of where. I’m against drilling in the Arctic Refuge. This is one of the most beautiful, pristine places that the good Lord has created on earth. It happens to be within the United States of America. It’s not worth it to do that for what seems to be the possibility of six months’ worth of oil, seven to 12 years from now. That’s not much of a response to the immediate problem that gasoline consumers and home heating oil customers are facing this winter. There are more resources within the United States that we can develop. This isn’t mentioned much and appreciated much. In the last eight years drilling for gas on federal lands has gone up 60% and it’s been done in an environmentally protected way. The administration has encouraged the drilling for deep gas and oil going on in the western Gulf today. The answer here is new technology that will create millions of new jobs. Let me just say this. If we can get three miles more per gallon from our cars we’ll get a — we’ll save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the refuge at its best in Alaska would produce. The choice to me is clear. We have to develop fuel cells, alternative energy, encourage people to conserve and to be efficient.MODERATOR: This question is for you, Senator. We all know Social Security is the backbone of the retirement system in our nation. Can either of you pledge tonight categorically that no one will lose benefits under your plans?LIEBERMAN: Yes, indeed. I can pledge to the American people categorically that no one will lose benefits under our plan for Social Security as far forward as 2054. And let me come back and say, Bernie, that Al Gore and I view Social Security as probably the best thing the government did in the second half — the last century. It has created a floor under which seniors cannot fall, and so many of them depend on it for their basic living, for their livelihood. It’s critically important to protect it. That’s why Al and I have committed to putting that Social Security surplus in a lockbox, not touching it. That’s what allows us to keep Social Security solvent to 2054. Our opponents have an idea for privatizing Social Security that will jeopardize Social Security payments to recipients. And I looked at this idea. If I may use an oil industry analogy, which is to say that sometimes as you know, Dick, better than I, you have to drill deep to find out whether there’s oil in a well. For a while I was drilling into this idea of privatization of Social Security. The deeper I got the drier the well became and it seemed to me at the end it was going to dry up Social Security. It requires taking as much as a trillion dollars out of the Social Security fund. The independent analysts have said that would put the fund out of money in 2023, or if it’s not out of money, benefits will have to be cut by over 50%. That’s just not worth doing. Al Gore and I are going to guarantee Social Security and add to it the retirement savings plan that I mentioned earlier which will help middle-class families looking forward. They will have not only Social Security, but a superb extra retirement account as well. Social Security plus with us. With all due respect, Social Security minus from the Bush-Cheney ticket.CHENEY: You won’t be surprised if I disagree with Joe’s description. The Social Security system is in trouble. It’s been a fantastic program and has been there for 65 years that has provided benefits for senior citizens over that period of time. For my parents. It means a great deal to millions of Americans. And Governor Bush and I want to make absolutely certain that the first thing we do is guarantee the continuation of those payments, those benefits and keep those promises that were made. But if you look down the road, you say you’re 30 years old today, and I have two daughters about that age. They seriously question whether or not there will be any system left for them. That’s because the demographics that work out there, it’s almost an iron law. They know how many people there are, when they reach retirement, we know when the baby boom generation is coming along, how long they will live after that, it will drive the system into bankruptcy unless we reform and deal with it. The reform we would like to offer is to allow our young people to begin to take a portion of the payroll tax, 2% of it, and invest it in a personal retirement account. That does several things. First of all, it gives them a stake in the Social Security system. That becomes their property. They own it. They can pass it on to their kids if they want. They don’t have that kind of equity in Social Security today. Secondly, we can generate a higher return off that investment than you get in the existing system. Today you get about a 2% return of what you pay into Social Security. We think we can generate at least 6%. At least three times what we’re able to get now. And long-term by generating a bigger return, we’ll put additional funds into the system that will help us survive that crunch that is otherwise going to hit in the future. Bottom line is there’s a choice here. With respect to Al Gore and Joe’s plan, they don’t reform Social Security. They add another huge obligation on top of it that future generations will have to pay. They don’t touch the basic system itself. They don’t reform it and don’t save it. We have a plan to do that and a plan to give our young people a choice and more control over their own lives.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Washington is a caldron of political bickering and partisanship. The American people, gentleman, have had enough. How would you elevate political discourse and purpose?CHENEY: Well, I think there are a number of ways to do it. First of all, I agree with your assessment. I’ve been out of Washington for the last eight years and spent the last five years running a company global concern. And been out in the private sector building a business, hiring people, creating jobs. I have a different perspective on Washington than I had when I was there in the past. I’m proud of my service for 25 years, but also proud I had the opportunity to go out and get a different experience. And you’re absolutely right. People are fed up. They’ve had enough with the bickering and the partisanship that seems to characterize the debate that goes on in the nation’s capital. I’ve seen it done differently though. I’ve seen it in Texas. I’ve watched George Bush. And one of the reasons I was eager to sign on when he asked me to become his running mate is because I’ve been so tremendously impressed with what he’s done as the Governor of Texas. He came in when he had a legislature completely controlled by the other party. He managed to reach across partisan lines and unite republicans, and democrats and independents and put them to work to achieve good things for the State of Texas. Partly because he didn’t point the finger of blame looking for scapegoats he was quick to share the credit. He ended up, as a result of that activity of his first term, having the top Democrat in the state, Bob Bulloch, endorse George Bush for reelection. It’s possible to change the tone. It is possible to get people to work together and to begin to focus on achieving results. I think it will take new leadership. I don’t think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various groups for failings. I think you have to be able to reach out and work together and build coalitions. I think George W. Bush has done it in Texas and can do it at the national level.LIEBERMAN: You’re absolutely right. There’s too much partisanship in Washington. It puzzles me. You think people in public life and politics would want to do what would make them popular, and too often people in both parties act in a way that brings down the institutions of government, and each of us individually, and it’s a shame. I have tried very hard in my career to call them as I see them and work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get things done. I’m proud of my record in that regard, and I certainly think that would be an asset that I could bring to the vice presidency should I be fortunate enough to be elected. In my senate career I’ve worked with Bob Dole on Bosnia. I worked with John McCain on cultural values. I worked with Connie Mack on foreign policy. Don Nichols on the International Religious Freedom Act. If I go on much longer I’ll get in trouble with my own party. That’s the way things get done. I’m proud of those partnerships. Let me say a word about Al Gore. In his years in the house and Senate, he formed similar bipartisan partnerships. If you look back over the last eight years, the most significant accomplishments of this administration in which Al Gore was centrally involved were the result, most of them, of bipartisan agreements. After all, the Welfare Reform Act, which Al Gore promised to lead the effort on to get people off of welfare to set time limits, to get people to enjoy the dignity of work. That was a bipartisan act that was adopted. The Anti-Crime Act that has helped to lower crime more than 20% in our country was also bipartisan. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which was critical to getting our economy to the point and our government to the point of unprecedented surplus we enjoy today also was bipartisan, and Al Gore was involved. I would say that’s exactly the kind of bipartisan leadership that he and I can bring to Washington to get things done.CHENEY: With all due respect, Joe, there’s an awful lot of evidence that there hasn’t been any bipartisan leadership out of this administration or Al Gore. The fact is the Medicare problems have not been addressed. We have had eight years of problems with prescription drugs not being addressed. Social Security problem’s not been addressed. The educational problem has not been addressed. We’ve had eight years of talk but no action. They’ve been in a position of responsibility in the White House. The powerful interests, if you will, in Washington, D.C. and been unable to work with others. Medicare is a good example. The Breaux Commission, a good effort at a bipartisan solution for Medicare whether you bought or didn’t buy the answer that was generated, the fact is the administration set it up and pulled the plug on it because they would rather have an issue, not a solution. They haven’t lead from a bipartisan standpoint and I think Al Gore’s record isn’t very good.LIEBERMAN: Dick Cheney must be one of the few people who think nothing has been accomplished in the last eight years. Promises were made and promises were kept. Has Al Gore — did Al Gore make promises in 1992? Absolutely. Did he deliver? Big time. If I may put it that way. That’s the record. Look at the 20 — look at the 22 million new jobs. Look at the 4 million new businesses. Look at the lower interest rates, low rate of inflation, high rate of growth. I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, “Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” Most people would say yes. I’m pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you’re better off than you were eight years ago, too.CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)MODERATOR: This question is to you.LIEBERMAN: I can see my wife and I think she’s thinking, “I wish he would go out into the private sector.”CHENEY: I’m going to try to help you do that, Joe.LIEBERMAN: I think you’ve done so well there, I want to keep you there. (LAUGHTER)MODERATOR: Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, you are black for this question. Imagine yourself an African-American. You become the target of racial profiling either while walking or driving. African-American Joseph Lieberman, what would you do about it?LIEBERMAN: I would be outraged. It is such an assault on the basic promise that America makes that the law will treat individuals as individuals regardless of their status. That is to say their race, their nationality, their gender, sexual orientation, etcetera, etcetera. And the sad fact is that racial profiling occurs in this country. I have a few African-American friends who have gone through this horror and, you know, it makes me want to kind of hit the wall because it’s such an assault on their humanity and their citizenship. We can’t tolerate it anymore. That’s why I’ve supported legislation in the first instance in Congress. Because it’s the most we could get done to do hard studies to make the case of the extent to which racial profiling is occurring in our country. But it’s also why I’m so proud that Al Gore said two things. First we would issue, if we’re fortunate enough to be elected, an executive order prohibiting racial profiling. And secondly the first Civil Rights Act legislation we would send to Congress would be a national ban on racial profiling. It is just wrong. It is unAmerican, and to think that in the 21st Century this kind of nonsense is still going on. We have to stop it. The only way to stop it is through the law. The law, after all, is meant to express our values and our aspirations for our society. And our values are violently contradicted by the kind of racial profiling that I know exists. I had a friend a while ago who works in the government, works at the White House, African-American, stopped, surrounded by police for no other cause that anyone can determine than the color of his skin. That can’t be in America anymore.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.CHENEY: Bernie, I would like to answer your question to the best of my ability, but I don’t think I can understand fully what it would be like. I try hard to put myself in that position and imagine what it would be like, but I’ve always been part of the majority, never part of a minority group. It has to be a horrible experience. The sense of anger and frustration and rage that go with knowing that the only reason you were stopped, the only reason you were arrested, was because of the color of your skin would make me extraordinarily angry, and I’m not sure how I would respond. I think that we have to recognize that while we’ve made enormous progress in the U.S. in racial relations and come a great long way, we still have a very long way to go. We still have not only the problems we’re talking about here tonight in terms of the problems you mentioned in profiling, but beyond that, we still have an achievement gap in education, income differentials, differences in life span. We still have, I think, a society that — where we haven’t done enough yet to live up to that standard that we’d all like to live up to. I think in terms of equality of opportunity, that we judge people as individuals. As Martin Luther King said, we ought to judge people on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. I would hope we can continue to make progress int that regard in the years ahead.MODERATOR: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all — all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?LIEBERMAN: Very current and difficult question. I’ve been thinking about it. I want to explain what my thoughts have been. Maybe I should begin this answer by going back to the beginning of the country and the Declaration of Independence which says there at the outset that all of us are created equal and that we’re endowed not by any bunch of politicians or philosophers, but by our Creator, with those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the beginning of our history, that promise that ideal was not realized or experienced by all Americans, but over time since then we have extended the orbit of that promise. In our time at the frontier of that effort is extending those kinds of rights to gay and lesbian Americans who are citizens of this country and children of the same awesome God just as much as any of the rest of us are. That’s why I have been an original co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against in the workplace. And I’ve sponsored other pieces of legislation and taken other actions that carry out that ideal. The question you pose is a difficult one for this reason. It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support. I must say I’m thinking about this, because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who said to me, isn’t it fair. We don’t have legal rights to inheritance, visitation when one partner is ill, to health care benefits. That’s why I’m thinking about it. My mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don’t get to choose, and we shouldn’t be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don’t. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s no one’s business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if these relationships should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk. The fact of the matter is that it is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I’m also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.MODERATOR: It occurs to me your moderator has committed a boo-boo. I asked the racial profiling question of you and you responded and then I asked the sexual orientation question of you. I should not have done that in terms of rotation. Gentlemen, I apologize.LIEBERMAN: We forgive you.MODERATOR: Thank you.LIEBERMAN: You’re human, like we are.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. Vice President of the United States of America, what would you bring to the job that you’re opponent wouldn’t?CHENEY: We clearly come from different political perspectives. Joe is a Democrat from New England, I’m a Republican from the west, from Wyoming. And I think that weighs into it to some extent. Clearly we’re both in the positions we’re in because of our personal relationships with our principals. I think the areas that I would bring are the things that Governor Bush emphasized when he picked me. That I have been White House Chief of Staff and ran the White House under President Ford. Spent ten years in the House, eight of that in the leadership. Served as Secretary of Defense, and then had significant experience in the private sector. I think that where there are differences between Joe and myself in terms of background and experience, I clearly have spent a lot of time in executive positions running large organizations both in private business as well as in government. And that is a set of qualifications that Governor Bush found attractive when he selected me. I’ll leave it at that.MODERATOR: Senator?LIEBERMAN: I have great respect for Dick Cheney. I don’t agree with a lot of things he said in this campaign. But I have a lot of respect for him. He was a very distinguished Secretary of Defense, and I don’t have anything negative to say about him. I want to say with the humility that is required to respond to this statement that I think what I would bring to the office of the vice presidency is a lifetime’s experience. Growing up in a working class family, having the opportunity to go to a great public school system, then to go on to college and then to be drawn really by President Kennedy, as well as the values of service my family gave me, into public life. Wanting to make a difference. I have had extraordinary opportunities, thanks again to those folks back home in Connecticut,  as a state senator, attorney general trying to enforce the law to protect them and the environment and consumers, and to litigate on behalf of humans rights. And for the last 12 years as a member of the Senate of the United States focusing on national security questions, environmental protection, economic growth and values. But perhaps what I most bring is a friendship and shared values and shared priorities with Al Gore. I have tremendous respect for Al Gore. I’ve known him for 15 years. He’s an outstanding person as a public official and as a private person. His life is built on his faith. It’s devoted to his family. He volunteered for service in Vietnam from the beginning. In Congress he’s been willing to take on the big interests and fight for average people. As vice president I think he’s been the most effective vice president in the history of the United States and he has the right program to use the prosperity all the American people have earned to help particularly hard working middle-class families raise up their children to enjoy a better life. I think that’s what this is all about, why I’m so proud to be his running mate.MODERATOR: And because of my boo-boo I’m going to direct this question again to Secretary Cheney. Have you noticed a contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent on positions and issues since he was nominated?CHENEY: We’ve been trying very hard to keep this on a high plane, Bernie.LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Bernie.CHENEY: I do have a couple of concerns where I like the old Joe Lieberman better than I do the new Joe Lieberman. Let’s see if I can put them in those terms. Joe established an outstanding record, I thought, in his work on this whole question of violence in the media. And the kinds of materials that were being peddled to our children. And many of us on the Republican side admired him for that. There is, I must say, the view now that having joined with Al Gore on the ticket on the other side, that the depth of conviction that we had admired before isn’t quite as strong as it was, perhaps, in the past. The temptation on the one hand to criticize the activities of the industry, as was pointed out recently in the Federal Trade Commission where they’re taking clearly material meant for adults and selling it to our children, while at the same time they are participating in fundraising events with some of the people responsible for that activity has been a source of concern for many of us. We were especially disturbed, Joe, at a recent fundraiser you attended where there was a comedian that got up and criticized George Bush’s religion. I know you’re not responsible for having uttered any words of criticism of his religion. My concern would be, frankly, that you haven’t been as — as consistent as you had been in the past. That a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of us who had admired your firmness of purpose over the years have felt that you’re not quite the crusader for that cause that you once were.LIEBERMAN: Bernie, you’ll not be surprised to hear that I disagree. First let me talk about that joke about religion which I found very distasteful. And believe me, if anybody has devoted his life to respecting the role of religion in American life and understands that Americans from the beginning of our history have turned to God for strength and purpose, it’s me. And any offense that was done, I apologize for. I thought that humor was unacceptable. Let me come to the question of Hollywood and then answer the general question. Al Gore and I have felt for a long time, first as parents and then only second as public officials, that we cannot let America’s parents stand alone in this competition that they feel they’re in with Hollywood to raise their own kids and give their kids the faith and values they want to give them. I’ve been a consistent crusader on that behalf. John McCain and I actually requested the Federal Trade Commission report that came out three or four weeks ago which proved conclusively that the entertainment industry was marketing adult-rated products to our children. That is just not acceptable. One finding was that they were actually using 10 to 12-year-olds to test screen adult-rated products. When that report came out, Al Gore and I said to the entertainment industry, stop it. If you don’t stop it in six months, we’ll ask the Federal Trade Commission to take action against you. There was no similar strong response from our opponents. We repeated that message when we went to Los Angeles. I repeat it today. We won’t stop until the entertainment industry stops marketing its products to our children. Al Gore and I — I’m out. Maybe I can come back to it.MODERATOR: Please continue. You have about ten seconds.LIEBERMAN: Al Gore and I agree on most everything, but we disagree on some things. But he said to me, be yourself, that’s why I chose you, don’t change a single position you have. And I have not changed a single position since Al Gore nominated me to be his vice president.MODERATOR: Gentlemen, now closing statements. A prior coin toss has determined that you begin, Senator Lieberman.LIEBERMAN: That went very quickly. Thank you, Bernie, and thanks, Dick Cheney, for a very good debate. I’m told tens of millions of people have been watching this debate tonight. I must say, I wish one more person were here to watch and that is my dad, who died 15 years ago. If my dad were here, I would have the opportunity to tell him that he was right when he taught me that in America, if you have faith, work hard and play by the rules, there is nothing you cannot achieve. And here I am even the son of a man who started working the night shift on a bakery truck can end up being a candidate for Vice President of the United States. That says a lot about the character of this nation and the goodness of you, the American people. I will tell you that Hadassah and I have traveled around this country in the last couple of months and met thousands and thousands of parents just like our moms and dads, hard working middle-class people paying their taxes, doing the jobs to keep the country running. Trying so hard to teach their kids right from wrong and believing in their hearts that their kids can make it. I agree with them. But to make it they need a leader who will stand up and fight for them for good education, the best education in the world. For a sound retirement system, for prescription drug benefits for their parents. And for a government that is fiscally responsible, balances the budget. Keeps interest rates down so they can afford to buy a home or send their kids to college. To me Al Gore is that leader and will be that kind of president. You know, for 224 years Americans have dreamed bigger dreams and tried bolder solutions than any other people on earth. Now is not the time to settle for less than we can be. As good as things are today, Al Gore and I believe that with your help and God’s help we can make the future of this good and blessed country even better. Thank you, God bless you and good night.MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.CHENEY: Bernie, I want to thank you and Joe as well. I’ve enjoyed the debate this evening. And thank the folks here at the Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, they’ve done a tremendous job of making this possible. This is a very important decision you’re going to make on November 7. We have a fundamental choice between whether or not we continue with our old ways of big government, high taxes and ever more intrusive bureaucracy, or whether we take a new course for a new era. Governor Bush and I want to pursue the new course. We want to reform the Social Security system to guarantee benefits will be there for our retired folks, as well as make it possible for our young people to invest a portion of their payroll tax into a retirement account that they’ll control and give them greater control over their own lives. We want to reform the Medicare system to make certain the benefits are there for our senior citizens, but also to provide prescription drug coverage for them and give them a range of choices in terms of the kind of insurance we have. We want to reform the education system. We want to restore our public schools to the greatness they once represented so that every parent has the opportunity to choose what is best for their child and so that every child has an opportunity to share in the American dream. We also want to reform the tax code. We think it’s very important now that we have a surplus, that a portion of that surplus go back to the people who earned it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s your money. You’re entitled to it, and we would like to see to it that we provide tax relief for everybody who pays taxes. Finally, we think it’s very important to rebuild the U.S. military. The military is in trouble. The trends are in the wrong direction. The finest men and women in uniform that you’ll find anyplace in the world but they deserve our support. They deserve the resources that we need to provide for them and they deserve good leadership. George Bush is the man to do this. I’ve seen him do it in Texas. What we need is to be able to reach across the aisle. Put together coalitions of Republicans and Democrats and build the kinds of coalitions that will get something done, finally, in Washington. George Bush is good man, an honorable man, a man of great integrity. He will make a first rate president.MODERATOR: Senator Cheney and Senator Lieberman, your debate now joins American political history. We thank you.LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Bernie. It was a great evening. (Applause)MODERATOR: Well, you hear the appreciation here. Our thanks also to Centre College, the community of Danville and, of course, the Blue Grass State, Kentucky. Ladies and gentlemen, please join my colleague, Moderator Jim Lehrer, for the next presidential debate next Wednesday night at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. For the Commission on Presidential Debates, I’m Bernard Shaw, good night from Danville, Kentucky.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "f4ddee2e-2acb-46d1-a32f-64f461214847"
  },
  {
    "year": 1988,
    "date": "September 25, 1988",
    "title": "The First Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 25, 1988 Debate TranscriptSeptember 25, 1988The First Bush-Dukakis Presidential DebateLEHRER: Good evening. On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates I am pleased to welcome you to this first presidential debate of the 1988 campaign. I’m Jim Lehrer of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour. My colleagues on the panel are John Mashek of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Ann Groer of The Orlando Sentinel; and Peter Jennings of ABC News. For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates for president of the United States following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two candidates. The candidates are Vice President George Bush, the Republican nominee; Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.(Applause)LEHRER: Our questions this evening will be about equally divided between foreign and domestic policy matters. The first question by agreement between the two candidates goes to Vice President Bush. It is a domestic question. You have two minutes for an answer, sir. The polls say the number one domestic issue to a majority of voters is drugs. What is there about these times that drives or draws so many Americans to use drugs?BUSH: I think we’ve seen a deterioration of values. I think for a while as a nation we condoned those things we should have condemned. For a while, as I recall, it even seems to me that there was talk of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs, and I think that’s all wrong. So we’ve seen a deterioration in values, and one of the things that I think we should do about it in terms of cause is to instill values into the young people in our schools. We got away, we got into this feeling that value- free education was the thing. And I don’t believe that at all I do believe there are fundamental rights and wrongs as far as use. And, of course, as far as the how we make it better, yes, we can do better on interdiction. But we’ve got to do a lot better on education, and we have to do, be tougher on those who commit crimes. We’ve got to get after the users more. We have to change this whole culture. You know, I saw a movie – “Crocodile Dundee.” And I saw the cocaine scene treated with humor, as though this was a humorous little incident. And it’s bad. Everybody ought to be in this thing. Entertainment industry, people involved in the schools, education. And it isn’t a Republican or a Democrat or a liberal problem. But we have got to instill values in these young people. And I have put forward a many-point drug program that includes what I would do as president of the United States; in terms of doing better on interdiction; and in terms of better in the neighborhoods. But I think we’re all in this together, and my plea to the American people is values in the schools.LEHRER: Governor, you have one minute to respond.DUKAKIS: I agree with Mr. Bush that values are important. But it’s important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that’s been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We’ve been dealing with him; he’s been dealing drugs to our kids. Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences. I remember being in a high school in my own state as we were organizing something we call the Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs, and a young 16 year old girl coming up to me, desperate, addicted, dependent, saying, Governor, I need help. We’re providing that young woman with help. But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989.LEHRER: Governor, a follow-up question. You have two minutes to answer it. Are you suggesting, sir, that President Reagan is one of the causes of the drug problem in this country?DUKAKIS: I’m saying that those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership, Jim, have a special responsibility, not only to come up with programs, and I have outlined in detail the very important, very strong program of enforcement as well as drug education prevention. And Mr. Bush is right – the two go hand in hand. But if our government itself is doing business with people who we know are engaged in drug profiteering and drug trafficking, if we don’t understand that that sends out a very, very bad message to our young people, it’s a little difficult for me to understand just how we can reach out to that youngster that I talked about and to young people like her all over the country, and say to them we want to help you. Now, I’ve outlined in great detail a program for being tough on enforcement at home and abroad, doubling the number of drug enforcement agents, having a hemispheric summit soon after the 20th of January when we bring our democratic neighbors and allies together here in this hemisphere and go to work together. But we also have to take demand seriously. You know, we have five percent of the world’s population in this country. We’re consuming 50 percent of the world’s cocaine. Doing better in the neighborhoods. But I think we’re all in this together, and my plea to the American people is values in the schools.LEHRER: Governor, you have one minute to respond.DUKAKIS: I agree with Mr. Bush that values are important. But it’s important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that’s been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We’ve been dealing with him; he’s been dealing drugs to our kids. Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences. I remember being in a high school in my own state as we were organizing something we call the Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs, and a young 16 year old girl coming up to me, desperate, addicted, dependent, saying, Governor, I need help. We’re providing that young woman with help. But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989.LEHRER: Governor, a follow-up question. You have two minutes to answer it. Are you suggesting, sir, that President Reagan is one of the causes of the drug problem in this country?DUKAKIS: I’m saying that those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership, Jim, have a special responsibility, not only to come up with programs, and I have outlined in detail the very important, very strong program of enforcement as well as drug education prevention. And Mr. Bush is right – the two go hand in hand. But if our government itself is doing business with people who we know are engaged in drug profiteering and drug trafficking, if we don’t understand that that sends out a very, very bad message to our young people, it’s a little difficult for me to understand just how we can reach out to that youngster that I talked about and to young people like her all over the country, and say to them we want to help you. Now, I’ve outlined in great detail a program for being tough on enforcement at home and abroad, doubling the number of drug enforcement agents, having a hemispheric summit soon after the 20th of January when we bring our democratic neighbors and allies together here in this hemisphere and go to work together. But we also have to take demand seriously. You know, we have five percent of the world’s population in this country. We’re consuming 50 percent of the world’s cocaine. And in my state I’m proud to say we’ve organized a drug education and prevention program which the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration says is a model for the country. We’re helping youngsters; we’re reaching out to them. And we’re beginning with drug education and prevention beginning in the early elementary grades in every elementary school in our state, and that’s the kind of effort we need in every elementary school in the United States of America. And we’ve got to begin early, in the first, second and third grade, before our youngsters begin to experiment with these very, very dangerous substances. I guess the question I would ask of Mr. Bush is how we instill those values, how we create this environment for the drug free schools that we want in this country. If he or representatives of the administration are either with or involving people like Noriega in our foreign policy, or don’t pursue that connection in a way that makes it possible for us to cut it off and to be an example to our kids all over the country.LEHRER: A minute to rebut, Mr. Vice President.BUSH: Well, the other day my opponent was given a briefing by the CIA. I asked for and received the same briefing. I am very careful in public life about dealing with classified information. And what I’m about to say is unclassified. Seven administrations were dealing with Mr. Noriega. It was the Reagan-Bush administration that brought this man to justice. And as the governor of Massachusetts knows, there was no evidence that governor – that Mr. Noriega was involved in drugs, no hard evidence until we indicted him. And so I think it’s about time we get this Noriega matter in perspective. Panama is a friendly country. I went down there and talked to the president of Panama about cleaning up their money laundering, and Mr. Noriega was there, but there was no evidence at that time, and when the evidence was there, we indicted him. And we want to bring him to justice. And so call off all those pickets out there that are trying to tear down seven different administrations.LEHRER: All right, the next question will be asked by John Mashek. It goes to Governor Dukakis, and you’ll have two minutes to answer.MASHEK: Governor Dukakis, another troublesome issue for voters this year is the bulging federal deficit. In a Dukakis administration, you say taxes will be raised only as a last resort. Would you identify for us then please three specific programs that you are willing to cut to bring that deficit down?DUKAKIS: Yes, I’ve been very specific about those, John. And let me lay out for you my own strategy for bring that deficit down, because as a chief executive that’s balanced ten budgets in a row, I’ve had to make those tough decisions and those tough choices. First, I’ve suggested that there are certain weapons systems which we don’t need and we can’t afford. Mr. Bush has been critical of me for that, but I think those are the kinds of tough choices you have to make. I’ve also suggested that there are weapons systems that we should proceed on, and I’ve outlined those in detail. Secondly, we’ve got to invest in economic growth in this country, in every part of this country. Building that kind of growth expands revenues and helps to bring down that deficit. Thirdly, we have to bring interest rates down, and we will as we come up with a good, solid plan with the Congress for bringing that deficit down. And, finally, we’ve got to go out there and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren’t being paid to this country. It’s very unfair to the average taxpayer who pays his taxes and pays them on time to permit these monies to go uncollected. I’ve also suggested that on the domestic side there are areas where we can make some cuts. We ought to be able to come up with an agricultural policy in this country that gives our farm families a fair price and a decent future without spending $20-25 billion a year, which is what we’ve been doing under this administration. We can help people to live better lives, and at the same time save money by helping hundreds of thousands of families on welfare to get off or welfare, and to become productive citizens again. The thing I don’t understand about Mr. Bush’s approach to this is how he could possibly be serious about bringing that deficit down given what he says he wants to do. He seems to want to spend a great deal of money on just about every weapon system; he says he’s against new taxes, although he’s broken that pledge at least times in the last year that I know of; he wants to give the wealthiest taxpayers in this country a five year, $40 billion tax break. He also wants to spend a lot of money on additional programs. If he keeps this up, he’s going to be the Joe Isuzu of American politics.(Laughter)DUKAKIS: But I hope you won’t take my five seconds away from me. I will say this –LEHRER: Your two minutes is up, Governor.DUKAKIS: If he’s serious about what he’s saying, then the only place he can go to balance that budget is to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and he tried that in 1985, and I think he’s going to try it again.LEHRER: You have a minute to rebut.BUSH: Is this the time to unleash our one-liners? That answer was about as clear as Boston harbor.(Laughter)BUSH: Let me help the governor. There are so many things there, I don’t quite know where to begin. When you cut capital gains, you put people to work. John Kennedy proposed cutting capital gains. Paul Tsongas, a liberal senator from Massachusetts said the dumbest thing I did was to oppose the capital gains cut. It’s not going to cost the government money. It’s going to increase revenues to the federal government, and it’s going to create jobs. So that’s one of the things that I think makes a big difference between us. Massachusetts doesn’t have an enormous defense budget, but nevertheless, the governor raised taxes five different times. That happens to be a fact. And so let’s kind of stay on the issue, and I have made a specific proposal for what I call a flexible freeze. And it permits – economists on the East Coast and West think it’s good – it permits the president to sort out the priorities, and we continue to grow because I will not raise taxes.LEHRER: Your time is up, too. A follow-up, John.MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, you have vowed not to raise taxes of any kind during your administration and at the same time you’ve proposed this capital gains cut, you’ve proposed more incentive breaks for the oil industry. You’ve suggested new spending programs and even some Republicans say the flexible freeze you just spoke about will hardly make a dent in the deficit. Is the deficit no longer really a concern of yours, the Republican Party or the taxpayers?BUSH: I think it’s the Republican Party and my concern to bring it down. And presidential leadership that I want to provide in this area will bring it down, but we’ve got to get the Democrats – Congress under control. They do all the spending, they appropriate every dime and tell us how to spend every dime. I’d like to ask the Governor to join in getting for the president what 43 governors have, the line-item veto. He has to operate in Massachusetts under a balanced budget proviso. I would like a balanced budget amendment. But the dynamics of the economy – we cut the taxes and revenues are up by 25 percent in three years. So the problem is – it’s not that the working is being taxed too little or the person working out – the woman working in some factory being taxed too little. It is that we are continuing to spend too much. So, my formula says grow at the rate of inflation. Permit the president to set the priorities on where we do the spending. And remember the Federal deficit has come down $70 billion in one year, in 1987. And if we – and the – actually this year Congress is doing a little better in controlling the growth of spending. Spending was only up something like 4 percent. So, it isn’t that we’re taking too little – from taxpayer – we’re spending too much still. And the formula I’ve given you works, we’ve put it through a good economic model, we’ve got good economists on the West Coast, Michael Boskin and Marty Feldstein up there who’s a very respected economist in the – Massachusetts. And they agree, that if we can do what I’ve said, we can get it down without going and socking the American taxpayer once again. Capital gains, one more point on that, please let’s learn from history. A capital gains differential will increase jobs, increase risk taking, increase revenues to the Federal Government.LEHRER: Governor, you have a minute to rebut.DUKAKIS: Well, I hope all of those Americans out there who are watching us, listening to us and trying to make up their mind about which one of us ought to be president of the United States listen to the Vice President very carefully. What he’s proposing after over a trillion in new debt which has been added in the Federal debt in the course of the past eight years, an IOU our children and grandchildren will be paying for years, is a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country, an average of about $30,000 that we’re going to give to people making $200,000 a year. Why that’s more than the average teacher makes. We’ve had enough of that, ladies and gentlemen. We’ve run up more debt in the last eight years than under all the presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. It’s time for a chief executive who can make tough choices, can work with the Congress, can get that deficit down and begin to build a strong fiscal foundation under this country.LEHRER: All right, the next question will be asked by Anne Groer and it will go the Vice President. You have two minutes to answer, sir.GROER: Mr. Vice President, you’ve said you want a kinder, gentler presidency, one that helps the less fortunate. Today, 37 million Americans including many working families with aging parents and young children cannot afford any health insurance, but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. What will you do to provide protection for them and how will you pay for it?BUSH: One thing I will not do is sock every business in the country and, thus, throw some people out of work. I want to keep this economic recovery going. More Americans at work today than any time in history, a greater percentage of the work force. What I will do is permit people to buy into Medicaid. I believe that’s the answer. I am proud to have been part of an administration that past the first catastrophic health bill. And in that there are some Medicaid provisions that will be very helpful to the very kind of people we’re talking about here. But we’ve got to keep going forward without killing off the engine and throwing people out of work. So, the answer lies, it seems to me, in full enforcement of the catastrophic program. It lies to me in flexibility in Medicaid so people at the lowest end can buy in there and get their needs covered and then it also – I do not want to see us mandate across the board that every company has to do this, because I really think that marginal operators are going to go say, “We can’t make it.” And I think then you’re going to see that people are put out of work. All these programs – and this cost on his – is – was – I saw an estimate, I’d love to know what he thinks, $35 – $40 billion – and it seems to me that somebody pays that. There isn’t any such thing as something free out there. It either gets passed along as increased prices or it gets passed along by people being put out of work so the business can continue to compete. So, I think we ought to do it in the Medicaid system. I think we ought to do it by full enforcement of the catastrophic health insurance. I think we ought to do it by everybody doing what they can do out of conscience. It’s a terrible problems in terms of flexibility on private insurance. But I just don’t want to mandate it and risk putting this – setting the recovery back.LEHRER: A rebuttal, Governor?DUKAKIS: But, George, that’s no answer.BUSH: You don’t like the answer, but it’s an answer.DUKAKIS: Well, no, it’s no answer to those 37 million people, most of them members of working families who don’t have a dime of health insurance and don’t know how to pay the bills if their kids get sick at night. I was in Houston on Tuesday meeting with a group of good citizens, working citizens. All of them with little or no health insurance. One of them was a father who had been laid off a few months ago and lost his health insurance. Has an 11 year old son and can’t let that son compete in sports and Little League, because he’s afraid he’s going to get hurt and he won’t be able to provide health insurance to pay those bills. My state just became the only state in the nation to provide for universal health care and we did it with the support of the business community and labor and the health care community and with virtually everybody in the state. The fact of the matter is that employers who today are insuring their employees are paying the freight, because they’re paying for those who aren’t. And I think it’s time that when you got a job in this country it came with health insurance. That’s the way we’re going to provide basic health security for all of the citizens of this country of ours.LEHRER: Follow-up, Anne?GROER: Yes. Since your Massachusetts health plan has been attacked by the Vice President and you have defended it in this way, I would like to move on to perhaps one of the most costly medical catastrophes facing Americans today and that is AIDS. In – at the end of September, the thousands of AIDS patients will lose their access to AZT, which is the only Federally approved drug for treatment of the disease. Now, I’d like to now, sir, if – what your position is on extending that and what it is you think the government ought to be doing about making AZT and other drugs available to people who are suffering from this disease.DUKAKIS: Well, Anne, let me just say before I answer your question that I didn’t know that the Vice President attacked our program in Massachusetts. I hope he hasn’t. Because has won the support of a great many people all over the state and I think it’s a model for what I hope we can do across the country. But when I proposed my plan this past Tuesday, he or one of his spokesmen called it socialized medicine. The last time the Vice President used that phrase, I suspect he remembers it, don’t you? It was in 1964 and that’s what he called Medicare. Well, he was wrong then and he’s wrong now. (Applause)LEHRER: If I may interrupt at this point and caution the audience as I did before we went on the air, please hold it down. You’re only taking time away from your candidate when you do that. Governor, continue, please.DUKAKIS: Let me say this about AIDS. It’s the single most important public health crisis, single most important public health emergency we’ve had in our lifetimes and I think there are a number of things we have to do including supporting legislation which is now moving through the Congress, which will commit this nation to the resources to find a cure which will provide broad education and prevention, which will provide sensitive and caring treatment for the victims of AIDS. I think we have to demonstrate some flexibility and I think the FDA is attempting to do so now in trying to make it possible for new and experimental drugs to be available to people who are at risk at AIDS and I would hope that we could bring that kind of a policy to bear beginning in January. And I would encourage the current administration to proceed with that kind of flexibility where it’s appropriate and where it’s done carefully and responsibly. But we have not had the kind of leadership we should have had. In this particular area, I think the Vice President and I are in general agreement on what we have to do. The special Federal commission made good solid recommendations. I think we’re both supportive of them and I would strongly lead in that area as I have in my state as Governor.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, a minute of rebuttal.BUSH: Well, we’re on the right track. The NIH is doing a good job in research. The Surgeon General is doing a good job in encouraging the proper kind of education. I notice that the Governor did not mention any testing. But we got to have a knowledge base. Testing should be confidential, but we have to have a knowledge. We can’t simply stick our heads in the sands in terms of testing. I’m Chairman of the President’s Task Force on Regulatory Relief and we are working with the FDA and they have sped up bringing drugs to market that can help. And you got to be careful here, because there’s a safety factor, but I think these things – and then also I am one who believes we’ve got to go the extra mile in clean – being sure that that blood supply is pure. We cannot have a lack of confidence in the blood supply when it comes to operations and surgery and things of this nature. So, research, speeding the drugs to market, testing, blood supply are very important elements of this.LEHRER: Next question will be asked by Peter Jennings. It goes to the Governor.JENNINGS: Good evening, Mr. Vice President, Governor. Governor, one theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern – you’ve both mentioned leadership tonight, so I’d like to stay with that for a second. The theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern is passionless, technocratic –DUKAKIS: Passionless?JENNINGS: Passionless, technocratic, the smartest clerk in the world. Your critics maintain that in the 1960’s your public passion was not the war in Vietnam or civil rights, but no fault auto insurance. And they say in the 1970’s you played virtually no role in the painful busing crisis in Boston. Given the fact that a president must sometimes lead by sheer inspiration and passion. We need to know if this is a fair portrait of your governing or if it is a stereotype. And if it isn’t fair, give us an example of where you have had that passion and leadership that sometimes a president needs?LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, a rebuttal.BUSH: Well, I don’t question his passion. I question – and I don’t question his concern about the war in Vietnam. He introduced or supported legislation back then that suggested that kids of Massachusetts should be exempt from going overseas in that war. Now, that’s a certain passion that in my view it’s misguided passion. He – we have a big difference on issues. You see, last year in the primary, he expressed his passion. He said, “I am a strong liberal Democrat” – August, ’87. Then he said, “I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.” That was what he said. He is out there on out of the mainstream. He is very passionate. My argument with the governor is, do we want this country to go that far left. And I wish we had time to let me explain. But I salute him for his passion. We just have a big difference on where this country should be led, and in what direction it ought to go.(Applause)LEHRER: Peter, a question? Question for the vice president, Peter.JENNINGS: I’d actually like to follow up if I may on this mention you’ve made of his card carrying membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. You’ve used the phrase “card carrying” so many times since Governor Dukakis first acknowledged that he was a card carrying member of the ACLU that some people have come to believe that you’ve used it to brand him in some way, to identify him as people were identified in the 1950’s as less than patriotic. I’d like to know why you keep repeating the phrase, and what’s the important issue here? What is so wrong with the governor being a member of an organization which has come to the defense of, among other people, Colonel Oliver North?BUSH: Nothings wrong with it. But just take a look at the positions of the ACLU. But, Peter, please understand, the liberals do not like me talking about liberal They don’t like it when I say that he says he’s a card carrying member. Now, if that quote was wrong, he can repudiate it, right here. I’ve seen it authoritatively written twice, and if I’ve done him an injustice, and he didn’t say it, I’m very, very sorry. But I don’t agree with a lot of – most of the positions of the ACLU. I simply don’t want to see the ratings on movies. I don’t want my ten year old grandchild to go into an X-rated movie. I like those ratings systems. I don’t think they’re right to try to take the tax exemption away from the Catholic Church. I don’t want to see the kiddie pornographic laws repealed; I don’t want to see “under God” come out from our currency. Now, these are all positions of the ACLU. And I don’t agree with them. He has every right to exercise his passion, as what he said, a strong, progressive liberal. I don’t agree with that. I come from a different point. And I think I’m more in touch with the mainstream of America. They raised the same thing with me on the Pledge of Allegiance. You see, I’d have found a way to sign that bill. Governor Thompson of Illinois did. I’m not questioning his patriotism. He goes out and says the man is questioning my patriotism. And then all the liberal columnists join in. I am not. I am questioning his judgment on these matters, or where he’s coming from He has every right to do it. But I believe that’s not what the American people want, and when he said, when he said at the convention, ideology doesn’t matter, just competence, he was moving away from his own record, from what his passion has been over the years. And that’s all I’m trying to do, is put it in focus. And I hope people don’t think that I’m questioning his patriotism when I say he used his words to describe his participation in that organization.LEHRER: Governor, a response.DUKAKIS: Well, I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this. Of course, the vice president is questioning my patriotism. I don’t think there’s any question about that, and I resent it. I resent it. My parents came to this country as immigrants. They taught me that this was the greatest country in the world. I’m in public service because I love this country. I believe in it. And nobody’s going to question my patriotism as the vice president has now repeatedly. The fact of the matter is if the Pledge of Allegiance was the acid test of one’s patriotism–the vice president’s been the presiding officer in the United States Senate for the past seven and a half years. To the best of my knowledge he’s never once suggested that a session of the Senate begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.(Applause)DUKAKIS: Mr. Bush, I don’t question your patriotism. When you’re attacked for your military record, I immediately said it was inappropriate, it had no place in this campaign, and I rejected it. I would hope that from this point on, we get to the issues that affect the vast majority of Americans, jobs, schools, health care, housing, the environment. Those are the concerns of the people that are watching us tonight. Not labels that we attach to each other, questions about each other’s patriotism and loyalty.LEHRER: The time is up, governor. Let’s go now to John Mashek, again. A question for the vice president.MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, in a debate during the Republican primaries, you said most of the nation’s homeless are suffering from mental illness, an assertion immediately challenged by one of your rivals. Estimates of the homeless range from a low of 250,000 by the government, to around three million, including working families and their children. What commitment are you willing to make tonight to this voiceless segment of our society?BUSH: I want to see the McKinney Act fully funded. I believe that that would help in terms of shelter. I want to see – when I talked at our convention about a thousand points of light, I was talking about the enormous numbers of shelters and organizations that help. The governor’s wife has been very active in the homeless. My campaign chairman, Secretary Jim Baker’s wife. This isn’t government. These are people that care, that are trying to give of themselves. The government has a role. It is to fully fund the McKinney Act. There are certain army bases that the act calls for that can be used in certain cases to shelter people when it’s rough. And so I think that we’re on the right track. I don’t see this, incidentally, as a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or conservative idea. I see an involvement by a thousand points of light. I see the funding that is required, and I hope the Congress will fully fund this bill. They gave it a great deal of conscience and a great deal of work. And we’re on the track on this one. But – and I, look, mental – that was a little overstated it. I’d say around 30 percent. And I think maybe we could look back over our shoulders and wonder whether it was right to let all those mental patients out. Maybe we need to do a better job in mental clinics to help them. Because there is a major problem there. A lot of them are mentally sick. And we’ve got to attend to them. But fully, my short range answer is fully fund that McKinney Act.LEHRER: Governor, a response.DUKAKIS: Well, this is another fundamental difference that I have with the vice president, just as I do in the case of health care for 37 million members of working families in this country who don’t have health insurance. The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you’ve cut back by 90 percent on our commitment to affordable housing for families of low and moderate income. And when you do that, you’ve have homeless families. We didn’t have two and a half million, or three million homeless people living on streets and in doorways in this country ten years ago. We’ve got to begin to get back to the business of building and rehabilitating housing for families of low and moderate income in this country; housing for young families that they can look forward some day to buy. We’ve got communities in this country increasingly where our own kids can’t afford to live in the communities that they grew up in. That’s an essential commitment. And I think the housing community is ready. But it’s going to take a president who’s committed to housing, who’s had experience in building and rehabilitating housing who understands that affordable housing for families of low and moderate income, for young families, first time home buyers, is an essential part of the American dream. And while I’m all for the McKinney bill, that, by itself, simply won’t do. We’ve got to have a president that can lead on this issue, that can work with the Congress, and I’m prepared to do so. This is one of the most important priorities that faces this country.LEHRER: John, a question for the governor.MASHEK: Governor, you’ve mentioned the American dream of home ownership, and it’s certainly become an impossible one for many of the young people of our nation who are caught up in this economic squeeze of the middle class, as you’ve said so frequently during the campaign. And yet in spite of your answer just a few minutes ago, what promise can you realistically hold out to these people that with the costs of housing going up, and with limited help available from Washington, are we destined to become a nation of renters?DUKAKIS: Well, I certainly hope not. And it’s all a question of what our priorities are. Mr. Bush talked about values. I agree with him. What are our values? Isn’t providing housing for families of low and moderate income, isn’t it making possible for young families, first time home buyers to own their own home some day something that’s part of the American dream? I think so. You know, back after World War II when we had hundreds of thousands of GIs who came back from the war, we didn’t sit around. We went out and built housing. The government was very much involved; so was the housing industry; so was the banking industry; so were housing advocates; so were non-profit agencies; so were governors and mayors and people all over this country who believe deeply in home ownership and affordable housing. Now, that’s the kind of leadership that I want to provide as president of the United States. This isn’t a question of a little charity for the homeless. This is a question of organizing the housing community. I’ve talked to bankers and builders and developers, the housing advocates, community development agencies, and they want leadership from Washington. Washington, by itself, can’t do it all. We shouldn’t expect that. But governors are ready; mayors are ready. Builders and community leaders are ready. It will require some funds, John. And we ought to be prepared to provide those funds. But that, too, will require some choices. Mr. Bush wants to spend billions and trillions on Star Wars. Well, that’s a choice we have to make, isn’t it? Do we spend money on that weapon system in the billions and trillions, or is providing some decent and affordable housing for families of this country something that is at least as important and probably more so. Because it’s so essential to our economic strength and to our future. Now, that’s the kind of presidency I believe in. And simply to say, well, the McKinney bill will do it just doesn’t do. We need a president who will lead on this issue, who has had experience on this issue. It’s the kind of priority that will be at the top of our list beginning in January of 1989.LEHRER: A response, Mr. Vice President.BUSH: I think the governor is blurring housing and the homeless. Let’s talk about housing which the question was. When you talk to those bankers, did they discuss where interest rates were when your party controlled the White House? Ten days before I took the oath of office as president they were 21 and a half percent. Now, how does that grab you for increasing housing? Housing is up. We are serving a million more families now. But we’re not going to do it in that old Democratic, liberal way of trying to build more bricks and mortars. Go out and take a look at St. Louis at some of that effort. It is wrong. I favor home ownership. I want to see more vouchers. I want to see control of some of these projects, and I want to keep the interest rates down. They’re half, now of what they were when we came into office, and with my policy of getting this deficit under control, they’ll be a lot less. But if we spend and spend and spend, that is going to wrap up the housing market, and we’ll go right back to the days of the misery index and malaise that President Reagan and I have overcome – thank God for the United States on that one.LEHRER: All right, the next question is to the governor. Ann Groer will ask it.GROER: Governor Dukakis, is there a conflict between your opposition to the death penalty and your support for abortion on demand, even though in the minds of many people, that’s also killing?DUKAKIS: No, I don’t think there is. There are two very different issues here, and they’ve got to be dealt with separately. I’m opposed to the death penalty. I think everybody knows that. I’m also very tough on violent crime. And that’s one of the reasons why my state has cut crime by more than any other industrial state in America. It’s one of the reasons why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in the country. It’s one of the reasons why we have a drug education and prevention program that is reaching out and helping youngsters all over our state, the kind of thing I want to do as president of the United States. You know, the vice president says he wants to impose the death penalty on drug traffickers, and yet his administration has a federal furlough program which is one of the most permissive in the country, which gave last year 7,000 furloughs to drug traffickers and drug pushers, the same people that he says he now wants to execute. The issue of abortion is a very difficult issue, one that I think that we all have to wrestle with, we have to come to terms with. I don’t favor abortion. I don’t think it’s a good thing. I don’t think most people do. The question is who makes the decision. And I think it has to be the woman, in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs, that makes that decision.LEHRER: Response, Mr. Vice President.BUSH: Well, the Massachusetts furlough program was unique. It was the only one in the nation that furloughed murderers who had not served enough time to be eligible for parole. The federal program doesn’t do that. No other state programs do that. And I favor the death penalty. I know it’s tough and honest people can disagree. But when a narcotics wrapped up guy goes in and murders a police officer, I think they ought to pay with their life. And I do believe it would be inhibiting. And so I am not going to furlough men like Willie Horton, and I would meet with their, the victims of his last escapade, the rape and the brutalization of the family down there in Maryland. Maryland would not extradite Willie Horton, the man who was furloughed, the murderer, because they didn’t want him to be furloughed again. And so we have a fundamental difference on this one. And I think most people know my position on the sanctity of life. I favor adoption. I do not favor abortion.LEHRER: Question for the vice president, Ann?GROER: Yes. Mr. Vice President, I’d like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might. Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it. You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother’s life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions. But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail?BUSH: I haven’t sorted out the penalties. But I do know, I do know that I oppose abortion. And I favor adoption. And if we can get this law changed, everybody should make the extraordinary effort to take these kids that are unwanted and sometimes aborted, take the – let them come to birth, and then put them in a family where they will be loved. And you see, yes, my position has evolved. And it’s continuing to evolve, and it’s evolving in favor of life. And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support – rape, incest and the life of the mother. Sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about this, but it’s much clearer for me now. As I’ve seen abortions sometimes used as a birth control device, for heavens sakes. See the millions of these killings accumulate, and this is one where you can have an honest difference of opinion. We certainly do. But no, I’m for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can come to grips with the penalty side, and of course there’s got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be.LEHRER: Governor.DUKAKIS: Well, I think what the vice president is saying is that he’s prepared to brand a woman a criminal for making this decision. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think it’s enough to come before the American people who are watching us tonight and say, well, I haven’t sorted it out. This is a very, very difficult and fundamental decision that all of us have to make. And what he is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that he’s prepared to brand a woman a criminal for making this choice.BUSH: I just –DUKAKIS: Let me finish. Let me simply say that I think it has to be the woman in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs that makes that decision, and I think that’s the right approach, the right decision, and I would hope by this time that Mr. Bush had sorted out this issue and come to terms with it as I have. I respect his right to disagree with me. But I think it’s important that we have a position, that we take it, and we state it to the American people.LEHRER: Peter Jennings, a question for the vice president.JENNINGS: Mr. Vice President, I’m struck by your discussion of women and the sanctity of life. And it leads me to recall your own phrase, that you are haunted by the lives which children in our inner cities live. Certainly the evidence is compelling. There’s an explosion of single parent families. And by any measure, these single parent families, many with unwanted children, are the source of poverty, school drop outs, crime, which many people in the inner city simply feel is out of control. If it haunts you so, why over the eight years of the Reagan-Bush administration have so many programs designed to help the inner cities been eliminated or cut?BUSH: One of the reasons, and I first would like to know which programs you’re talking about, and then we could talk on the merits of the programs. But, you see, my fundamental philosophy is give local and state government as much control as possible. That might be the explanation, if you tell me the program. I do strongly support the WIC program. I think it is good. I think part of the answer to this haunting of these children that are out there and suffering lies in extension of Medicaid, to challenge the states, and maybe we’re going to have to enforce more on the states in terms of Medicaid taking care of these. But, Peter, so much of it is, gets into a whole other phase of things. The neighborhood, the kind of environment people are growing up in, and that leads me to the programs I’m talking about in terms of education. I think that part of it is the crime infested neighborhoods, and that’s why I’m a strong believer in trying to control crimes in the neighborhood, why I was so pleased to be endorsed by the policemen on the beat, the Boston Police Department the other day. I think they understand my commitment to helping them in the neighborhoods. And so it’s a combination of these things. But do not erode out of the system the thousand points of light. The people that are out there trying to help these kids, the programs like cities and schools, the work that Barbara Bush is doing so people can learn to read in this country and then go on and break this cycle of poverty. I’m for Head Start and moving that up. And I’ve already made a proposal – and yes, it will cost some money. But I favor that. So these are the combination of things I want, and the fact that I don’t think the federal government can endorse a $35 billion program does not mean I have less compassion than the person who endorses such a program.LEHRER: Governor.DUKAKIS: Well, I must have been living through a different eight years then the ones the vice president’s been living through, because this administration has cut and slashed and cut and slashed programs for children, for nutrition, for the kinds of things that can help these youngsters to live better lives. It’s cut federal aid to education; it’s cut Pell grants and loans to close the door to college opportunity on youngsters all over this country. And that, too, is a major difference between the vice president and me. Let me just give you one other example. We have a great many people, hundreds of thousands of people living on public assistance in this country. The 50 governors of this nation have proposed to the Congress that we help those families to get off of welfare, help those youngsters, help their mothers to become independent and self-sufficient. It’s taken months and months and months to get Mr. Bush and the administration to support that legislation, and they’re still resisting. That’s the way you help people. Being haunted, a thousand points of light – I don’t know what that means. I know what strong political leadership is. I know what’s happened over the course of the past eight years. These programs have been cut and slashed and butchered, and they’ve hurt kids all over this country.LEHRER: A question for the governor, Peter.JENNINGS: Governor, the crisis is no less a crisis for you if you are elected president. Where would you get the money to devote to the inner cities which is clearly needed. And can you be specific about the programs not only you’d reinstate, but the more imaginative ones that you’d begin.DUKAKIS: Well, I said a few minutes ago, Peter, that you could improve the lives of families and youngsters and save money at the same time. Welfare reform is one way to do it. If we invest in job training, in child care for those youngsters, in some extended health benefits so that that mother and her kids don’t lose their health benefits when she goes to work, we can help literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, to get off of welfare, to become independent and self-sufficient, to be taxpaying citizens, and to improve their lives, the quality of lives, their futures, and the futures of those children.That’s just one example of how you can save money and improve the quality of life at the same time. In my own state, for example, we now have that universal health care system, which the vice president opposes, I think very unwisely. One of the greatest barriers to opportunity for a family and for those children is the threat that they mat lose their health insurance. Think about that father down there in Houston who has to tell his youngster that he can’t play little league ball that he can’t go out on the ball field because he’s afraid he’s going to get hurt.And yet, Mr. Bush says well, I don’t think we ought to expect business to provide health insurance for their employees, when responsible employers, a majority of employers in this country do and are paying more for their insurance to reimburse hospitals for free care on account of people that are not insured, that have to go to that hospital.So these are the ways that you help families, you help youngsters to live better lives, and more decent lives. Were ready to go to work at the state and local level, all of us. I know the private sector is. People are all over the country. But it takes presidential leadership. It takes a commitment to being involved and the leading. And that’s the kind of presidency I want to lead.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President.BUSH: What troubles me is that when I talk of the voluntary sector and a thousand points of light and a thousand different ways to help on these problems, the man has just said he doesn’t understand what I’m talking about.This is the problem I have with the big spending liberals. They think the only way to do it is for the federal government to do it all. The fact happens to be that education spending is up by the federal government; it is up. It is not down.But here’s the point he misses. The federal government spends seven percent of the total on education, and the rest of the state governments and local governments and the thousand points of lightened I’m talking about private schools and private church schools and things of this nature–are putting up 93 percent.But the federal spending for education is up, and I want to be the education president, because I want to see us do better. We’re putting more money per child into education, and we are not performing as we should. We’ve gotten away fro values and the fundamentals. And I would like to urge the school superintendents and the others around the country to stand up now and keep us moving forward on a path towards real excellence.And we can do it. But itÏ€s not going to be dedicated by some federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.LEHRER: All right, let’s move now to some questions on foreign and national security policy. John Mashek will ask the first question of the governor.MASHEK: Governor, the vice president continually refers to your lack of experience, weakness, naivete on foreign policy and national security matters. He says you are prepared to eliminate weapons system that will result in the unilateral disarmament of this country. Is that true?DUKAKIS: Of course not. Of course that’s a charge that’s always made against any governor who runs for the presidency. I think it was one of the things that Mr. Bush said about Mr. Reagan back in 1980. Remember that, George? And yet some of our finest presidents, some of our strongest international leaders were governors-Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt.Its not the amount of time you spend in Washington. It’s not the length of your resume. It’s your strength, it’s your values, it’s the quality of the people you pick. It’s your understanding of the forces of change that are sweeping the world, and whether or not you’re in a position to provide leadership to make those forces of change work for us and not against us.The vice president has a long resume. But it didn’t stop him from endorsing the sale of arms to the Ayatollah. And we now know that he was not out of the loop; he was in meeting after meeting listening to Secretary Shultz and Secretary Weinberger opposing that, and yet he supported it.His experience didn’t prevent him from participating or involving or in some way being involved in the relationship between this government and Mr. Noriega and drug trafficking in Panama.He went to Philippines in the early 80Ï€s and commended Ferdinand Macros for his commitment to democracy. And he continues to support a failed policy in Central America which is getting worse and worse, and which has in fact increased Cuban and Soviet influence in that region.So I don’t believe that the fact you’ve got that long resume or had that experience is the real question. The question is values; the question is strength, the question is your willingness to provide the kind of leadership that must be provided. I’m ready to provide that leadership. I want to be the commander in chief of this country. I think it take fresh leadership now, and an understanding of those forces of change to provide the kind of strength that we need, and perhaps the vice president can explain what he was doing when he supported the trading of arms to terrorist nation, and his involvement in Panama and that endorsement of Mr. Macros. But I don’t think it’s just experience that makes the difference. It’s strength; it’s values.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President.BUSH: Well, I thought the question was about defense. The governor was for a nuclear freeze that would have locked in a thousand Soviet intermediate nuclear force weapons and zero for the West. And because we didn’t listen to the freeze advocates, and strengthen the defense of this country, we now have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age. Now, we’re sitting down and talking to the Soviets about strategic arms, and he wants to do away with the Midgetman and the MX, the modernization or our nuclear capability. That is not the way you deal with the Soviets. I’ve met Mr. Gorbachev. Met Mr. Shevardnadze and talked substance with him the other day. These people are tough. But now we have a chance. I few have experience and now how to handle it, but please do not go back to the days when the military was as weak as they could be, when the morale was down, and when we were the laughing stock around the world.And now we are back, because we have strengthened the defenses of this country, and believe me, I don’t want to see us return to those days.As to Ferdinand Marcos, he isn’t there any more. It was under our administration that Mrs. Aquino came in. But I’ll tell you what I was thinking of. I flew a combat mission, my last one was over Manila. And he was down there fighting against imperialism. And he had just-LEHRER: Mr. Vice PresidentBUSH: And he just lifted martial law. And he just called for new elections. And all of those things happened because the Philippines do crave democracy. And out he goes.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, your time is up. John, a question for the vice president.MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, the governor has suggested that you’ve never met a weapons system that you didn’t like or want. Are you prepared to tell the voters one system in this time of tight budgetary restraints and problems at the Pentagon that you’d be willing to cut or even eliminate that wouldn’t endanger national security?BUSH: I don’t think it’s a question of eliminating. I can tell him some I’m against. A-6F, for example. DIVAD. And I can go on and on. Minuteman III, penetration systems. I mean, there’s plenty of them that I oppose, but what I am not going to do, when we are negotiating with the Soviet Union, sitting down talking to Mr. Gorbachev about how we achieve a 50 percent reduction in our strategic weapons, I’m not going to give away a couple of aces I that very tough card game. I’m simply not going to do that.And under me, when I lead this country, the secretary of defense is going to have to make the choices, between how we keep, how we protect the survivability of our nuclear deployment on the Midgetman missile, or on the Minuteman, whatever it is. We’re going to have to-the MX. We’re going to have to do that. It’s Christmas.(Laughter)BUSH: Wouldn’t it be nice to be perfect?DUKAKIS: I hope it isn’t Christmas when you make that decision.BUSH: wouldn’t it be nice to be the ice man so you never make a mistake? These are the-my answer is do not make these unilateral cuts, and everybody now realizes that peace through strength works, and so this is where I have a big difference.Of course we’re going to have to make some determination on this, and we’re going to have to make it on the convention forces. But now we’ve got a very good concept called competitive strategies. We will do what we do best. It’s a strategy that we’ve been working on for a couple of years. It is going to take us to much better advantage in conventional forces.But look, let me sum it up. I want to be the president that gets conventional forces balance. I want to be the one to banish chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth. But you have to have a little bit of experience to know where to start. And I think I’ve had that.LEHRER: Governor?DUKAKIS: Well, first let me say with respect to the freeze, that back in the spring of 1982 Mr. Bush was a lot more sympathetic to the freeze than he seems to be today. As a matter of fact, he said it was not and should not be subject to partisan demagoguery because it was too important for the United States or for the world. I didn’t hear, John, exactly where he was going to cut and what he was going to do.But I know this, we have serious financial problems in this country. We’ve piled up over a trillion dollars in debt and the next president of the United States is going to have to make some choices.Mr. Bush wants to spend billions on Star Wars. He apparently wants to spend billions on the MX on railroad cars, a weapons system we don’t need and can’t afford. I thought the administration was opposed to the Midgetman. I thought the administration was at the negotiating table in Geneva suggesting that we ban mobile missile systems entirely. But those are the choices the next president of the United States is going to have to make.I’m for the Stealth, I’m for the D-5, I’m for going ahead with the advance Cruise missile. But I don’t think we need these other systems. I don’t think we need them to remain strong. We’ve got to move ahead with the strategic arms negotiation process, with the comprehensive test ban treaty and with negotiations leading to conventional force reduction in Europe with deeper cuts on the Soviet side and Senator Bentsen and I will pursue that policy.LEHRER: Anne Groer, a question for the Vice President.GROER: Well, Mr. Vice President, you said you’ve met with Secretary General Gorbachev, you’ve met with Mr. Shevardnadze, but for the last forty years Americans have been taught to regard the Soviet Union as the enemy. Yet, President Reagan has signed two arms control treaties and he’s promised to share Star Wars technology with the very country he once called the evil empire. So, perhaps you can tell us this evening, should we be doing a lot to help the economics and the social development of a country that we have so long regarded as an adversary?BUSH: What I think we ought to do is take a look at perestroika and glasnost, welcome them, but keep our eyes open. Be cautious. Because the Soviet change is not fully established yet. Yes, I think it’s fine to do business with them. And, so, I’m encouraged with what I see when I talk to Mr. — what I hear when I talk to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, but can they pull it off.And when they have a –they a –deals that are good for us, as China started to do–the changes in China since Barbara and I lived there is absolutely amazing, in terms of incentive, in partnership and things of this nature. And now the Soviet Union seems to be walking down that same path. We should encourage that. We ought to say this is good.But where I differ with my opponent is I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defend systems or support some freeze when they have superiority. I’m not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment.And the interesting place-one of the things that fascinates me about this perestroika and glasnost is wheats going to happen in Eastern Europe. You see the turmoil in Poland today. And I think we have enormous opportunity for trade. I don’t want to go back to the Carter grain embargo on the Soviets. We are once again reliable suppliers and I would never use food as a political tool like our predecessors did. But this is an exciting time. But all I’m suggesting is let’s not be naïve in dealing with the Soviets and make a lot of unilateral cuts hoping against hope that they will match our bid.Look at the INF treaty. And if we haven’t learned from the negotiating history on that, we’ll never learn. The freeze people were wrong. The Reagan-Bush administration was right.LEHRER: Governor Dukakis.DUKAKIS: It was a very different George Bush who was talking much more sympathetically about the freeze in the spring of 1982 than he is today. And you were right then, George, when you said it was no time for partisan demagoguery. Nobody is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm or somehow reduce our strength, of course not. What we’re talking about is a combination of a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. Strong, well-equipped, well-trained, well-maintained conventional forces. And at the same time a willingness to move forward steadily, thoughtfully cautiously.We have serious differences with the Soviet Union. We have very fundamental differences about human rights, democracy and our basic system, our basic view of human beings and of what life is all about. But there are opportunities there now. Senator Bentsen and I have a plan for the 1990Ï€s and beyond. Mr. Bush and Mr. Quayle do not.And we want to pursue that plan in a way which will bring down the level of nuclear armament, will build a more stable and more peaceful world while making choices here at home. Let’s not forget that our national security and our economic security go hand in hand. We cannot be strong militarily when we’re teeter-tottering on top of a mountain of debt which has been created in the past eight years. That’s why we need a Democratic administration in Washington in 1989.(Applause)LEHRER: Anne Groer, a question for the Governor.GROER: Yes. Governor Dukakis, speaking of seeming changes of position, you have gone from calling the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, a fantasy and a fraud, to saying recently that you would continue SDI research and might even deploy the system if Congress supported such a move. Why the change of heart?DUKAKIS: No, there’s been no change of heart. I said from the beginning that we ought to continue research into the strategic system at about the level that was added in 1983, that’s about a billion dollars a year. But I don’t know of any reputable scientist who believed that this system, at least as originally conceived could possibly work, this notion of some kind of astrodome over ourselves that could protect us from enemy attack. It makes real sense. And as a matter of fact, the system that the administration is now talking about is very different from the one that was originally proposed in 1983.So, I’m for continued research, but I also want strong conventional forces. Now, the other day, Mr. Bush said, ≥Well, if we continue with Star War-Star Wars-we have to cut some place.≤ He hasn’t told us where. We know where they’re cutting. We know where you’re cutting right now. You’re cutting into the fiber and muscle of our conventional forces. You’re cutting back on maintenance and equipment.An Air Force General not too long ago in Europe who said that pretty soon we’d have airplanes without engines, tank commanders who can’t drive their tanks more than three-quarters of a mile, because they don’t have enough fuel. Coast Guard cutters tied up at the dock this summer, not patrolling. They’re supposed to be our first line of defense against drugs and the war against drugs, because they don’t have enough fuel.You have to make choices. We’re not making those choices. And to spend billions and billions of dollars as Mr. Bush apparently wants to, although, he, himself has been all over the lot on this issue lately-on Star Wars-in my judgment makes no sense at all. We need a strong, credible, effective nuclear deterrent. We have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads right now on land, on sea and in the air, enough to blow up the Soviet Union forty times over. They have about 12,000. So, we’ve got to move forward with those negotiations, get the level of strategic weapons down.But to continue to commit billions to this system makes no sense at all and I think Mr. Bush has been reconsidering his position over the course of the past few weeks. That’s-at least that’s what I read. Maybe he’ll tell us where he stand on it tonight.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President.BUSH: I’m not reconsidering my position. Two questions: How do you deter nuclear attack without modernizing our nuclear forces when the Soviets are modernizing and how come you spend-willing to spend a dime on something that you consider a fantasy and a fraud. Those are two hypo-rhetorical questions.He is the man on conventional forces that wants to eliminate two carrier battle groups. The armed forces, the conventional forces of the United States have never been more ready. Every single one of the Joint Chiefs will testify to the fact that readiness is in an historic high. And secondly, in terms of the cutting of the Coast Guard, the Democratic controlled Congress, so please help us with that, who cut $70 million from the Coast Guard out of the interdiction effort on narcotics.(Applause)BUSH: He’s got to get this thing more clear. Why do you spend a billion dollars on something you think is a fantasy and a fraud? I will fully research it, go forward as fast as we can. We’ve set up the levels of funding and when it is deployable, I will deploy it. That is my position on SDI and it’s never wavered a bit.LEHRER: Peter Jennings, a question for Governor Dukakis.JENNINGS: Well, Governor, and Vice President Bush, you’ve both talked tonight about hard choices. Let me try to give you one. Somewhere in the Middle East tonight, nine Americans are being held hostage. If you are commander-in-chief and Americans are held hostage, what will be more important to you, their individual fate, or the commitment that the United States Government must never negotiate with terrorists. And if any Americans are held hostage and you become president, to what lengths would you go to rescue them?DUKAKIS: Peter, it’s one of the most agonizing decisions a president has to make. These are American citizens, we care deeply about them. Their families care deeply about them, want them back and understandably so and we want to do everything we can to bring them back.But if there’s one thing we also understand it is that you cannot make concessions to terrorists, ever, ever. Because if you do, it’s an open invitation to other terrorists to take hostages and to blackmail us. And that’s the tragedy of the Iran/Contra scandal.As a matter of fact, Mr. Bush was the Chairman of a task force on international terrorism which issued a report shortly before that decision was made and said, and rightly so, that we never ever can make concessions to terrorists and hostage takers. And, yet, after sitting through meeting after meeting, he endorsed that decision, endorsed the sale of arms to the Ayatollah in exchange for hostages, one of the most tragic, one of the most mistaken foreign policy decisions we’ve ever made in this country and I dare say encouraged others to take hostages as we now know.So, there can be no concessions under any circumstances, because if we do it’s an open invitation to others to do the same. We’ve got to be tough on international terrorism. We’ve got to treat it as international crime. We’ve got to attack at all points, we’ve go to use undercover operations. We have to be prepared to use military force against terrorist base camps, we have to work closely with our allies to make sure that they’re working with us and we with them and we can give no quarter when it comes to breaking the back of international terrorism.Yes, we should make every effort to try to help those hostages come home, but it can never be because we make concessions. That was a tragic mistake that we made, a mistake that Mr. Bush made and others made and it should never ever be made again.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?BUSH: I wrote the anti-terrorist report for this government. It is the best anti-terrorist report written. Yes, we shouldn’t trade arms for hostages. But we have made vast improvements in our anti-terrorism. Now, it’s fine to say that sometimes you have to hit base camps, but when the president saw this state sponsored-fingerprints of Muammar Khadaffi on the loss of American life, he hit Libya. And my opponent was unwilling to support that action.DUKAKIS: That’s not true. That’s not true.BUSH: And since that action, terrorist action against the United States citizens have gone down.DUKAKIS: That’s not true.BUSH: And I have long ago said I supported the president on this other matter. And I’ve said mistakes were made. Clearly nobody’s going to think the president started out thinking he was going to trade arms for hostages. That is a very serious charge against the president. The matter has been thoroughly looked into. But the point is sometimes the action-(Laughter)BUSH: – has to be taken by the Federal Government and when we took action, it had a favorable response.LEHRER: A question for the Vice President. Peter?JENNINGS: It seems perhaps a good subject, Mr. Vice President, on which to make the point that you’ve campaigned vigorously as part of a leadership team. But so far you won’t tell the American people in considerable measure what advice you gave the president, including the sale of arms to Iran and what should have been done about the hostages. To the best of my knowledge there’s no Constitutional requirement which prevents you from doing so. Jimmy Carter urged his Vice President, Walter Mondale, to tell the American people. Would you now ask President Reagan for permission to tell the American people what advice you did give him? And if you don’t, how do we judge your judgment in the Oval Office in the last eight years?BUSH: You’re judged by the whole record. You’re judged by the entire record. Are we closer to peace? Are we doing better in anti-terrorism? Should we have listened to my opponent who wanted to send the UN into the Persian Gulf or in spite of the mistakes of the past, are we doing better there? How is our credibility with the GCC countries on the Western side of the Gulf. Is Iran talking to Iraq about peace? You judge on the record. Are the Soviets coming out of Afghanistan? How does it look in a program he called or some one of these marvelous Boston adjective up there and-about Angola-now, we have a chance-several Bostonians don’t like it, but the rest of the country will understand.(Applause)BUSH: Now we have a chance. Now we have a chance. And, so, I think that I’d leave it right there and say that you judge on the whole record. And let me say this-all he can talk about-he goes around ranting about Noriega. Now, I’ve told you what the intelligence briefing he received said about that. He can talk about Iran/Contra and also-I’ll make a deal with you, I will take the blame for those two incidents if you give me half the credit for all the good things that have happened in world peace since Ronald Reagan and I took over from the Carter administration.(Applause)BUSH: I still have a couple of minutes left. And there is a difference principle –LEHRER: Sorry, Mr. Vice President.BUSH: It’s only on yellow here. Wait a minute.(Laughter)LEHRER: I’m wrong. Go ahead. My apologies.BUSH: Jim –LEHRER: You said nobody’s perfect.BUSH: I said I wasn’t perfect. Where was I?DUKAKIS: 25th of December, Mr. Vice President.(Laughter)BUSH: I finished.DUKAKIS: He can have another ten seconds if he wants, Jim.LEHRER: Governor, you have a minute to respond.DUKAKIS: Well, the matter of judgment is very important. And I think it’s important to understand what happened here.A report on international terrorism chaired by the Vice President was released and made some very specific recommendations about how to deal with terrorism. They were ignored. The Vice President ignored them. He says mistakes were made. Very serious mistakes in judgment were made. He says, ≥Well, let’s concede that the administration has been doing business with Noriega. Has made him a part of our foreign policy and has been funneling aid to Contras through convicted drug dealers.≤I think those are very very serious questions of judgment, which those of you who are watching us here tonight have a right to judge and review. We’re not going to make those kinds of mistakes. You cannot make concessions to terrorists. If you do, you invite the taking of more hostages. That’s a basic principle. It was ignored in that case and it was a very very serious mistake in judgment.LEHRER: A question from John Mashek. It goes to the Vice President.MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, Democrats and even some Republicans are still expressing reservations about the qualifications and credentials of Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, your chosen running mate, to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What do you see in him that others do not?(Laughter)BUSH: I see a young man that was elected to the Senate twice, to the House of Representatives twice. I see a man who is young and I am putting my confidence in a whole generation of people that are in their 30Ï€s and 40Ï€s. I see a man that took the leadership in the Job Training Partnership Act and that retrains people in this highly competitive changing society we’re in, so if a person loses his hob he is retrained for a benefit-for a-work that will be productive and he won’t have to go on one of these many programs that the liberal-talking about.I see a young man who is a knowledgeable-in defense and there are three people on our ticket that are knowledgeable-in the whole-in the race-knowledgeable in defense and Dan Quayle is one of them and I am one of them. And I believe that he will be outstanding. And he took a tremendous pounding and everybody now knows that he took a very unfair pounding. And I’d like each person to say did I jump to conclusions running down rumors that were so outrageous and so brutal. And he’s kept his head up. And he will do very very well. And he has my full confidence and he’ll have the confidence of people that are in their 30Ï€s and 40Ï€s and more. So, judge the man on his record not on the-lot of rumors and innuendo and trying to fool around with his name.My opponent says J. Danforth Quayle. Do you know who J. Danforth was, he was a man who gave his life in World War II, so ridiculing a person’s name is a little beneath this process. And he’ll do very well when we get into the debates.(Applause)DUKAKIS: Well, when it comes to ridicule, George, you win a gold medal. I think we can agree on that in the course of this campaign.(Applause)BUSH: Just the facts.DUKAKIS: But did I-did I sense a desire that maybe Lloyd Bentsen ought to be your running mate when you said there are three people on your ticket?BUSH: No, I think the debate ought to be between you and Lloyd.DUKAKIS: I think the American people have a right to judge us on this question, on how we picked a running mate, a person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, distinguished, strong, mature, a leader in the Senate, somebody whose qualifications nobody has questioned. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle.I doubt very much that Dan Quayle was the best qualified person for that job. And as a matter of fact, I think for most people the notion of President Quayle is a very very troubling thought.LEHRER: John will ask a question of the Governor. It will be the last question and then the Vice President will have a rebuttal.MASHEK: Well, Governor, you did select Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.DUKAKIS: I did indeed.MASHEK: And you have a lot of disagreement with him on fundamental issues, including the Reagan tax cuts, aid to the rebels in Nicaragua, the death penalty, gun control. Who’s right?(Laughter)DUKAKIS: Well, John, I’m a man that’s been a chief executive for ten years. I’ve picked a lot of people. I’ve picked cabinets. I’ve named judges. I know that the people you pick make an enormous difference in your ability to govern and I set high standards. I try to meet them and I insist that people who work for me meet them, if they don’t, they don’t stick around very long.But I didn’t pick Lloyd Bentsen because he was a clone of Mike Dukakis. I picked him because he was somebody who would be a strong Vice President, somebody who would be an active Vice President. Somebody who would come to me if somebody came up with a crazy idea that we ought to trade arms to the Ayatollah for hostages and say, ≥Mr. President, that’s wrong. We shouldn’t do that.≤ That’s the kind of Vice President I want.He, himself, has said, and rightly so, that he’ll be a strong Vice President. When the Vice President makes a decision, that will be his decision. And I’m very very proud of that choice. And I didn’t pick him because he agreed with me on everything.You know, Sam Rayburn once said that if two people agree on everything then only one person is doing the thinking. The fact is I’ve picked somebody who not only will be a great Vice President, but if, God forbid, something happens to the president, could step into that office and do so with distinction and with strength and with leadership. I doubt very much. I doubt very much that Mr. Bush’s selection for the Vice Presidency of the United States meets that test.(Applause)LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?BUSH: Well, I-we obviously have a difference. I believe it does meet the test. We’ll have an opportunity to see the two of them in action in a friendly forum, wonderful friendly fashion like this.(Laughter)BUSH: I had hoped this had been a little friendlier evening. I wanted to hitchhike a ride home in his tank with him. But now we’ve got the lines too carefully drawn here. But you talk about judgment. I mean, what kind of judgment-I mean, jumping all over the president on his decision on one area of farm policy. What kind of judgment sense has your chief education adviser now in jail in Massachusetts? I mean, there’s-I don’t think this is a fair argument. But nevertheless, I support my nominee for Vice President and he’ll do an outstanding job.LEHRER: Gentlemen, I was given some bad word a moment ago. There is time for one more question. Getting it in my ear and Ann Groer will ask it. Ann? To the Governor.GROER: Governor Dukakis, as many U.S. farmers face or undergo foreclosure, the United States is considering the possibility of forgiving a certain percentage of debt owed by Latin American and Third World countries, do you favor giving these countries a break in their loans and, if so, how do you explain that to the American farmers who are losing their land and livelihood?DUKAKIS: Well, I think we have to go to work on the problem of Third World debt and we’ve got to assist those Third World countries in dealing with this massive debt which they currently-which they have incurred and which is burdening them and which if we don’t do something about it and assist them along with other nations around the world, we’ll destroy their economies, destroy their future. And at the same time will destroy markets that are important to our farmers.But I also believe we need an agricultural policy which doesn’t cost us 15 to 20 to 25 billion dollars a year that it’s been costing us over the course of the past three or four years under this administration. I think it’s going to require good, solid credit policies. And thanks to the Congress we now have an agricultural credit bill which is helping and improving the situation with at least some of our farmers.I think it’s going to require a combination of supply management and reasonable price supports to make sure that our farmers get a decent price and I think it also is going to require an administration that understand that there are tremendous opportunities out there for the development of new uses for agricultural products, new uses which can help us to clean up our environment at the same time. Bio-degradable plastics-plastic-gasohol, which the Vice President has been involved in, road de-icers made from corn products. I mean, there are enormous opportunities out there to expand markets and to build a strong future for our farmers.But I don’t think there’s anything mutually exclusive or contradictory about building a strong farm economy in this country and assisting our family farms and providing a good strong future for rural communities and for rural America and at the same time working on Third World debt.As a matter of fact, Mexico, itself, is one of our biggest agricultural customers, so in the sense that we can work to help Mexico rebuild and expand and deal with these very serious economic problems we help our farmers at the same time.LEHRER: Mr. Vice President?BUSH: I oppose supply management and production controls. I support the farm bill, the 1985 farm bill and spending is moving in the right direction. I want to expand our markets abroad and that’s why I’ve called for that first economic summit to be on agriculture.I will not go back to the way the Democrats did it and used food as a political weapon and throw a grain embargo on the farmers in this country. I want to see rural redevelopment and I have been out front in favor of alternate sources of energy and one of them is gasohol and comes from using your corn and I think we can do better in terms of biodegradable for a lot of product, so I’m optimistic about the agricultural economy.In terms of the Third World, I support the Baker plan. I want to see market economies spring up all around the world and to the degree they do, we are succeeding. And I don’t want to see the banks let off the hook. I would oppose that, but I think were on the right track in agriculture and I am very very encouraged. But let’s not go back to that-what they call supply management and production control, that’ll simply price us out of the international market. Let’s try to expand our markets abroad.LEHRER: All right. That really is the end. Now, let’s go to closing statements. They will be two minutes each in duration by agreement. Vice President Bush goes first. Governor Dukakis second. Mr. Vice President.BUSH: I talked in New Orleans about a gentler and kinder nation and I have made specific proposals on education and the environment and on ethics and energy and how we do better in battling crime in our country. But there are two main focal points of this election. Opportunity and peace.I want to keep this expansion going. Yes, we want change but we are the change. I am the change. I don’t want to go back to malaise and misery index. And, so, opportunity. Keep America at work. The best poverty program is a job with dignity in the private sector. And in terms of peace, we are on the right track. We’ve achieved an arms control agreement that our critics thought was never possible and I want to build on it. I want to see us finalize that START agreement and I want it to be the one to finally lead the world to banishing chemical and biological weapons.I want to see asymmetrical reductions in conventional forces. And then it gets down to a question of values. We’ve had a chance to spell out our differences on the Pledge of Allegiance here tonight and on tough sentencing of drug king pins and this kind of thing. And I do favor the death penalty. And we’ve got a wide array of differences on those. But in the final analysis-in the final analysis, the person goes into that voting booth, they’re going to say, ≥Who has the values I believe in? Who has the experience that we trust? Who has the integrity and stability to get the job done?≤ My fellow Americans, I am that man and I ask for your support. Thank you very much.(Applause)DUKAKIS: This has been an extraordinary 18 months for Kitty and me and for our family. We’ve had an opportunity to campaign all over this country and to meet with so many of you in communities and states and regions to get to know you. I’m more optimistic today than I was when I began about this nation providing we have the kind of leadership in Washington that can work with you, that can build partnerships, that can build jobs in every part of this country, not certain parts of this country.You know, my friends, my parents came to this country as immigrants like millions and millions of Americans before them and since, seeking opportunities, seeking the American dream. They made sure their sons understood that this was the greatest country in the world, that those of us especially who were the sons and daughters of immigrants had a special responsibility to give something to the country that had opened up its arms to our parents and given so much to them.I believe in the American dream. I’m a product of it and I want to help that dream come true for every single citizen in this land, with a good job and good wages, with good schools in every part of this country and every community in this country. With decent and affordable housing that our people can buy and own and live in, so that we end the shame of hopelessness in America. With decent and affordable healthcare for all working families.Yes, it’s a tough problem as Mr. Bush says, but itÏ€s not an insolvable problem. It’s one that we will solve and must solve, with a clean and wholesome environment and with a strong America that’s strong militarily and economically as we must be, an America that provides strong international leadership because we’re true to our values.We have an opportunity working together to build that future, to build a better America, to build a best America, because the best America doesn’t hide. We compete. The best America. We invest. The best America doesn’t leave some of its citizens behind. We live-we bring everybody along. And the best America is not behind us. The best America is yet to come. Thank you very much.(Applause)",
    "id": "a815092f-765f-4c13-910d-7f188375abf0"
  },
  {
    "year": 1988,
    "date": "October 13, 1988",
    "title": "The Second Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 13, 1988 Debate TranscriptOctober 13, 1988The Second Bush-Dukakis Presidential DebateSHAW: On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate. I am Bernard Shaw of CNN, Cable News Network. My colleagues on the panel are Ann Compton of ABC NEWS; Margaret Warner of Newsweek magazine; and Andrea Mitchell of NBC NEWS. The candidates are Vice President George Bush, the Republican nominee; and Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. (Applause)SHAW: For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two campaigns. However, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and I can ask this evening, and the candidates have no prior knowledge of our questions. By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond. Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?DUKAKIS: No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We’ve done so in my own state. And it’s one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that’s something I want to lead, something we haven’t had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that’s one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We’ve had great success in my own state. And we’ve reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that’s pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your one-minute rebuttal.BUSH: Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Bernie, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I’d say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I’m glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn’t.SHAW: Now to you, Vice President Bush. I quote to you this from Article III of the 20th amendment to the Constitution. Quote: “If at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become president,” meaning, if you are elected and die before inauguration dayBUSH: Bernie.SHAW: automatically automatically, Dan Quayle would become the 41st President of the United States. What have you to say about that possibility?BUSH: I’d have confidence in him. And I made a good selection. And I’ve never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young Senator in my entire life. And I’ve never seen a presidential campaign where the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee; never seen one before. (Applause)BUSH: But you know, Lloyd Bentsen jumped on Dan Quayle, when Dan Quayle said, he’s had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress. He had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term. He founded authored, the job training partnership act. It says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own that they’re going to have jobs. We’re moving into a new competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense; helped amend the INF treaty so we got a good, sound treaty, when these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we’d listened to them, we would never have had a treaty. And so I have great confidence in him. And it’s turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don’t like it when there’s an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I’m proud of my choice. And you know, I don’t think age is the only criterion. But I’ll tell you something, I’m proud that people who are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it, and I’m proud of it; that’s what I’d say. And he could do the job.SHAW: Gov. Dukakis, your one-minute rebuttal.DUKAKIS: Bernard, this was the first presidential decision that we as nominees were called upon to make. And that’s why people are so concerned. Because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make. The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War II, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the President and commander in chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, because I thought he was the best qualified person for the job. (Applause) GOY.DUKAKIS: Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle, and before he did it, he said, watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all And it sure did. It sure did. (Applause)SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President.COMPTON: Thank you, Bernie. Mr. Vice President, yes, we read your lips: no new taxes. But despite that same pledge from President Reagan, after income tax rates were cut, in each of the last five years, some Federal taxes have gone up, on Social Security, cigarettes, liquor, even long distance telephone calls. Now that’s money straight out of people’s wallets. Isn’t the phrase, no new taxes, misleading the voters?BUSH: No, because I’m pledged to that, and yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is, taxes have been cut, and yet income is up to the Federal Government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don’t want to kill it off by a tax increase. More Americans at work today than at any time in the history of the country, and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don’t want to do that, and I won’t do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it’s going to take discipline of the executive branch; it’s going to take discipline of the congressional branch. And that is what I call a flexible freeze that allows growth about 4 percent or the rate of inflation but does not permit the Congress just to add on spending. I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart: they know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress. And by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. So I’m pledged to do that. And those pessimists who say it can’t be done, I’m sorry, I just have a fundamental disagreement with themSHAW: Gov. Dukakis, your one-minute response.DUKAKIS: Ann, the Vice President made that pledge. He’s broken it three times in the past year already. So it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And what I’m concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening, the flexible freeze somebody described it the other day as a kind of economic slurpee he wants to spend billions on virtually every weapons system around. He says he’s not going to raise taxes, though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country a five-year $40 billion tax break, and we’re going to pay for it. And he’s been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. Now if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that’s already been added on the backs of the American taxpayer is going to increase even more, and if we continue with this for another four years, then I’m worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around. No, we need a chief executive who is prepared to lead; who won’t blame the Congress; who will lead to bring down that deficit, who will make tough choices on spendingSHAW: GovernorDUKAKIS: will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do it with the Congress of the United States. (Applause)SHAW: And to Governor Dukakis.COMPTON: Governor, let me follow up on that by asking you you’ve said it many times that you have balanced ten budgets in a row in Massachusetts. Are you promising the American people here tonight that within a four-year presidential term, you will balance the federal budget?DUKAKIS: No, I’m not sure I can promise that; I don’t think either one of us can really. There is no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this: that we will set as our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending; it will require a good strong rate of economic growth; it will require a plan that the president works out with the Congress doesn’t blame them, works it out with them, which brings that deficit down; it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren’t being paid in this country. And that’s grossly unfair to the average American who is paying his taxes and paying them on time and doesn’t have any alternative: it’s taken out of his paycheck. Mr. Bush says we are going to put the IRS on every taxpayer. That’s not what we are going to do. I’m for the taxpayer bill of rights. But I think it’s unconscionable, Ann, that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans when there are billions out there, over $100 billion, in taxes owed that aren’t being paid. Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily, $20, $25, $30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. Senator Bentsen said, as you recall at the debate with Senator Quayle, that if you give any of us $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. But sooner or later that credit card mentality isn’t going to work. And I want to bring to the White House a sense of strength and fiscal responsibility which will build a good strong foundation under which this country, or above which country can move, grow, invest, and build the best America for its people and for our kids and our grandkids.SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your response.BUSH: The Governor has to balance the budget in his state he is required to by law. He has raised taxes several times. I wish he would join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the American people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line-item veto. (Applause) I’d like to have that line-item veto for the president, because I think that would be extraordinarily helpful. And I won’t do one other thing that he’s had to do: took $29 million out of his state pension fund that’s equivalent at the federal level of taking out of the Social Security trust fund. I’m not going to do that; I won’t do that. (Applause) And so I’m still a little unclear as to whether he’s for or against the tax increase. I have been for the taxpayer bill of rights all along. And this idea of unleashing a whole bunch-an army, a conventional force army, of IRS agents into everybody’s kitchen I mean, he’s against most defense matters, and now he wants to get an army of JRS auditors going out there. (Laughter) I’m against that; I oppose that. (Boos and applause)SHAW: I’m going to say this and I’m going to say it once to every person in this auditorium: what these candidates are about is of utmost seriousness to the American voters; they should be heard and you should be quiet. If you are not quiet, I am going to implore the candidates to do something about quieting their own partisans. But we cannot get through this program with these outbursts. Margaret Warner for Governor Dukakis.WARNER: Good evening, Governor, Mr. Vice President. Governor, you won the first debate on intellect, and yet you lost it on heart.BUSH: Just a minute.WARNER: You’ll get your turn.DUKAKIS: I don’t know if the vice president agrees with that.WARNER: The American public admired your performance, but didn’t seem to like you much. Now, Ronald Reagan has found his personal warmth to be a tremendous political asset. Do you think that a president has to be likable to be an effective leader?DUKAKIS: Margaret, may I go back and just say to the vice president that I didn’t raid the pension fund of Massachusetts you are dead wrong, George, we didn’t do that. As a matter of fact, I’m the first governor in the history of my state to fund that pension system, and I’m very proud of that. (Applause) I have been in politics for twenty-five years, Margaret; I’ve won a lot of elections, I’ve lost a few, as you know, and learned from those losses. I won the Democratic nomination in fifty-one separate contests. I think I’m a reasonably likable guy. (Laughter, scattered applause) I’m serious though I think I’m a little more lovable these days than I used to be back in my youth when I began in my state legislature. But I’m also a serious guy. I think the presidency of the United States is a very serious office, and I think we have to address these issues in a very serious way. So I hope and expect that I will be liked by the people of this country as president of the United States; I certainly hope I will be liked by them on the 8th of November. (Laughter) But I also think it’s important to be somebody who is willing to make those tough choices. Now, we have just heard two or three times from the vice president: he’s not going to raise taxes. I repeat, within days after you made that pledge, you broke it; you said, well, maybe as a last resort we’ll do it. And you supported legislation this year that’s involved tax increases not once, but twice. So that pledge isn’t realistic, and I think the vice president knows it; I think the people of this country know it. The fact of the matter is that the next president of the United States is going to have to go to the White House seriously, he is going to have to work with the Congress seriously he can’t turn to the Congress and blame them for the fact that we don’t have a balanced budget and that we have billions and billions of dollars in red ink. And I am going to be a president who is serious, I hope and expect will be liked by the American people. But more than that, to do the kind of job that I’m elected to do, will do it with as much good humor as I can, but at the same time will do it in a way which will achieve the goals we want for ourselves and our people. And I think we know what they are: a good strong future, a future in which there is opportunity for all of our citizens.SHAW: One minute from the Vice President.BUSH: I don’t think it’s a question of whether people like you or not to make you an effective leader. I think it’s whether you share the broad dreams of the American people, whether you have confidence in the people’s ability to get things done or whether you think it all should be turned over, as many of the liberals do, to Washington, D.C. You see, I think it’s a question of values, not likability or loveability, it’s a question in foreign affairs in experience, knowing world leaders, knowing how to build on a superb record of this administration in arms control, because you’d know exactly how to begin. You have to learn from experience that making unilateral cuts in defense system is not the way that you enhance peace. You’ve got to understand that it is only the United States that can stand for freedom and democracy around the world and we can’t turn it over to the United Nations or other multilateral organizations. It is, though, trying to understand the heartbeat of the country. And I know these campaigns get knocked a lot, but I think I’d be a better President now for having had to travel to these communities and understand the family values and the importance of neighborhood. (Applause)BUSH: Please.SHAW: Margaret Warner for the Vice President.WARNER: I’d like to follow up on that Mr. Vice President. The tenor of the campaign you’ve been running, in terms of both the issues and your rhetoric has surprised even some of your friends. Senator Mark Hatfield who’s known your family a long time and who knew your father, the late Senator Prescott Bush, said, and I quote, “If his father were alive today, I’m sure his father would see it as a shocking transformation.” Is Senator Hatfield right?BUSH: What was he referring to?WARNER: He was referring to your performance in the campaign.BUSH: I think my dad would be pretty proud of me, because I think we’ve come a long long way and I think, you know three months ago, I remember some of the great publications in this country had written me off. And what I’ve had to do is define, not just my position, but to define his and I hope I’ve done it fairly. And the reason I’ve had to do that is that he ran on the left in the Democratic primary, ran firmly and ran with conviction and ran on his record. And then at that Democratic convention, they made a determination and they said there, ideology doesn’t matter, just competence. And in the process the negatives began. It wasn’t me that was there at that convention. Thank God I was up in the with Jimmy Baker camping out and I didn’t have to hear all the personal attacks on me out of that Democratic convention. And I’m not the one that compared the President of the United States rotting from like a dead fish from the head down. I didn’t do that. But I have defined the issues and I am not going to let Governor Dukakis go through this election without explaining some of these very liberal position he’s the one a liberal, traditional liberal a progressive liberal Democrat. He’s the one that brought up, to garner primary votes, the whole question of the ACLU. And I have enormous difference with the ACLU on their politic agenda. Not on their defending some minority opinion on the right or the left. I support that. But what I don’t like is this left wing political agenda and therefore I have to help define that and if he’s unwilling to do it, if he says ideology doesn’t matter, I don’t agree with him. (Applause)SHAW: One minute from Governor Dukakis.DUKAKIS: Well, Margaret, we’ve heard it again tonight and I’m not surprised, the labels. I guess the Vice President two or three times, said I was coming from the left. In 1980, President Reagan called you a liberal for voting for Federal gun control. And this is something Republicans have used for a long time. They tried it with Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. It’s not labels. It’s our vision of America. And we have two fundamentally different visions of America. The Vice President is complacent, thinks we ought to stick with the status quo, doesn’t think we ought to move ahead, thinking things are okay as they are. I don’t. I think this is a great country, because we’ve always wanted to do better, to make our country better, to make our lives better. We’ve always been a nation which was ambitious for America and we move forward. And that’s the kind of America I want. That’s the kind of leadership I want to provide. But I don’t think these labels mean a thing and I would hope that tonight in the course of the rest of this campaign, we can have good solid disagreements on issues. There’s nothing the matter with that. But let’s stop labeling each other and lets’ get to the heart of the matter which is the future of this country. (Applause)SHAW: Andrea Mitchell, for the Vice President.MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, Governor. Mr. Vice President, let me return for a moment to the issue of the budget, because so much has already been put off limits in your campaign that most people do not believe that the flexible freeze alone will solve the problem of the deficit. So, let’s turn to defense for a moment. Pentagon officials tell us that there is not enough money in the budget to handle military readiness, preparedness, as well as new weapons systems that have been proposed, as well as those already in the pipeline. You were asked in the first debate what new weapons systems you would cut. You mentioned three that had already been canceled. Can you tonight share with us three new weapons systems that you could?BUSH: If I knew of three new weapons systems that I thought were purely waste and weren’t protected by the Congress, they wouldn’t be in the budget. They would not be in the budget, but you want one now? I’ll give you one, that HMET, that heavy truck, that’s cost what is it $850 million and the Pentagon didn’t request it and, yet, a member of Congress, a very powerful one, put it in the budget. I think we can save money through this whole very sophisticated concept, Andrea, that I know you do understand of competitive strategies. It is new and it is very very different than what’s happened, but it’s not quite ready to be totally implemented. But it’s very important. I think we can say, through the Packard Commission Report and I’m very proud that David Packard, the originator of that report, is strongly supporting me. So, it’s not a question of saying our budget is full of a lot of waste. I don’t believe that. I do think this. We’re in the serious stages of negotiation with the Soviet Union on the strategic arms control talks. And we’re protecting a couple of options in terms of modernizing our strategic forces. My Secretary of Defense is going to have to make a very difficult decision in which system to go forward with. But we are protecting both of them. We are moving forward with negotiations and, you see, I just think it would be dumb negotiating policy with the Soviets to cut out one or the other of the two options right now. The Soviets are modernizing. They continue to modernize and we can’t simply we’ve got enough nuclear weapons, let’s freeze. We can’t do that. We have to have modernization, especially if we achieve the 50 percent reduction in strategic weapons that our President is taking the leadership to attain. And, so, that’s the way I’d reply to it and I believe we can have the strongest and best defense possible if we modernize, if we go forward with competitive strategies and if we do follow through on the Packard Commission report.SHAW: Governor Dukakis, one minute.DUKAKIS: Well, Andrea, we’ve just had another example of why the Vice President’s mathematics just don’t add up. I think you know because you’ve covered these issues, that there’s no way that we can build all of the weapons the Vice President says he wants to build within the defense budget. Everybody knows that including the people at the Pentagon. Now, my defense secretary is going to have a lot to do with those decisions, but it’s going to be the President who’s going to have to ultimately decide before that budget goes to the Congress what weapons systems are going to go and what are going to stay. We are not going to spend the billions and trillions that Mr. Bush wants to spend on Star Wars. We’re not going to spend billions on MX’s on railroad cars, which is a weapons system we don’t need, can’t afford and won’t help our defense posture at all. We’re not going to spend hundreds of millions on a space plane from Washington to Tokyo. Those are decisions that the chief executive has to make. Yes, we’re going to have a strong and credible and effective nuclear deterrent. We’re going to go forward with the Stealth and the D-5 and the advance cruise missile and good conventional forces. But the next President of the United States will have to make some tough and difficult decisions. I’m prepared to make them, the Vice President is not.SHAW: Governor, Andrea has a question for you.MITCHELL: Governor, continuing on that subject, then, you say we have to do something about conventional forces. You have supported the submarine launch missile, the D-5 you just referred to. Yet, from Jerry Ford to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of modernizing the land based missiles. Now, you have ruled out the MX and the Midgetman. More recently, some of your aides have hinted at some flexibility you might show about some other new form of missile. Can you tell us tonight why you have rejected the wisdom of people as diverse as Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, Al Gore, people in both parties and what type of land based missile would you consider?DUKAKIS: Well, Andrea, today we have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads, on land, on air and in the sea. That’s an incredibly powerful nuclear deterrent. I don’t rule out modernization, and there are discussions going on now in the Congress, I know with the Pentagon, about a less expensive modernized land-based leg of the triad. But there are limits to what we can spend. There are limits to this nation’s ability to finance these weapons systems. And one of the things that the Vice President either ignores or won’t address is the fact that you can’t divorce our military security from our economic security. How can we build a strong America militarily that’s teeter-tottering on a mountain of debt? And if we go forward with the kinds of policies that the Vice President is suggesting tonight and has in the past, that debt is going to grow bigger and bigger and bigger. So military security and economic security go hand in hand. And we will have a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. We’re going to have conventional forces that are well maintained, well equipped, well trained, well supported. And we have serious problems with our conventional forces at the present time, and they’ll get worse unless we have a president who is willing to make some of these decisions. And we also have important domestic priorities, in education and housing and health care, in economic development, in job training, in the environment. And all of these things are going to have to be addressed. That’s why I say again to all of you out there who have to deal with your household budgets and know how difficult it is that the next President has to do the same. I want the men and women of our Armed Forces to have the support they need to defend us; the support they need when they risk our lives to keep us free and to keep this country free. But we cannot continue to live on a credit card. We cannot continue to tell the American people that we’re going to build all of these systems, and at the same time, invest in important things here at home, and be serious about building a strong and good America. And that’s the kind of America I want to build.SHAW: One minute for the Vice President.BUSH: I think the foremost (Applause)BUSH: Can we start the clock over? I held off for the applause.SHAW: You can proceed, sir.BUSH: I think the foremost responsibility of a president really gets down to the national security of this country. The Governor talks about limits, what we can’t do, opposes these two modernization systems, talks now about well, we’ll develop some new kind of a missile. It takes eight years, ten years, to do that. He talked about a nuclear freeze back at the time when I was in Europe trying to convince European public opinion that we ought to go forward with the deployment of the INF weapons. And thank God, the freeze people were not heard. They were wrong. And the result is, we deployed, and the Soviets kept deploying, and then we negotiated from strength. And now we have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age to ban weapons. You just don’t make unilateral cuts in the naive hope that the Soviets are going to behave themselves. World peace is important, and we have enhanced the peace. And I’m proud to have been a part of an administration that has done exactly that. Peace through strength works.SHAW: Ann Compton for Gov. Dukakis.COMPTON: Governor, today they may call them role models, but they used to be called heroes, the kind of public figure who could inspire a whole generation, someone who was larger than life. My question is not, who your heroes were. My question instead is, who are the heroes who are there in American life today? Who are the ones who you would point out to young Americans as figures who should inspire this country?DUKAKIS: Well, I think when I think of heroes, I think back, not presently, Ann. But there are many people who I admire in this country today. Some of them are in public life in the Senate, the Congress. Some of my fellow governors who are real heroes to me. I think of those young athletes who represented us at the Olympics were tremendously impressive. We were proud of them. We felt strongly about them, and they did so well by us. I can think of doctors and scientists, Jonas Salk who for example discovered a vaccine which cured one of the most dread diseases we ever had. And he’s a hero. I think of classroom teachers, classroom teachers that I have had, classroom teachers that youngsters have today who are real heroes to our young people. Because they inspire them. They teach them. But more than that, they are role models. Members of the clergy who have done the same. Drug counselors out there in the street who are providing help to youngsters who come up to me and others who ask for help and want help, are doing the hard work, the heroic work, which it takes to provide that kind of leadership, that kind of counseling, that kind of support. I think of people in the law enforcement community who are taking their lives in their hands everyday, when they go up to one of those doors and kick it down and try to stop this flow of drugs into our communities and into our kids. So there are many, many heroes in this country today. These are people that give of themselves everyday and every week and every month. In many cases they are people in the community who are examples, and are role models. And I would hope that one of the things I could do as president is to recognize them, to give them the kind of recognition that they need and deserve so that more and more young people can themselves become the heroes of tomorrow, can go into public service, can go into teaching, can go into drug counseling, can go into law enforcement, and be heroes themselves to generations yet to come.SHAW: One minute for Vice President Bush.BUSH: I think of a teacher right here, largely Hispanic school, Jaime Escalante, teaching calculus to young kids, 80 percent of them going on to college. I think of a young man now in this country named Villadaris, who was released from a Cuban jail. Came out and told the truth in this brilliant book, Against All Hope, about what is actually happening in Cuba. I think of those people that took us back into space again, Rick Houk and that crew, as people that are worthy of this. I agree with the Governor on athletics. And there’s nothing corny about having sports heroes, young people that are clean and honorable and out there setting the pace. I think of Dr. Fauci. Probably never heard of him. You did, Ann heard of him. He’s a very fine research, top doctor, at the National Institute of Health, working hard doing something about research on this disease of AIDS. But look, I also think we ought to give a little credit to the President of the United States. He is the one who has gotten us that first arms control agreement.SHAW: Mr. Vice PresidentBUSH: And the cynics abounded. And he is leaving office with a popularity at an all-time high, because American peopleSHAW: Mr. Vice President, your time has expired.BUSH: say, he is our hero. (Applause)SHAW: Ann has a question for you, Mr. Vice President.COMPTON: Let’s change the pace a little bit, Mr. Vice President. In this campaign some hard and very bitter things have been spoken by each side about each side. If you’d consider for a moment Gov. Dukakis and his years of public service, is there anything nice you can say about him, anything you find admirable?BUSH: You’re stealing my close. I had something very nice to say in there.COMPTON: Somebody leak my question to you?BUSH: No, let me tell you something about that. And Barbara and I were sitting there before that Democratic convention. And we saw the Governor and his son on television the night before and his family, and his mother who was there. And I’m saying to Barbara, you know, we’ve always kept family as a bit of an oasis for us. You all know me, and we’ve held it back a little. But we used that as a role model, the way he took understandable pride in his heritage, what his family means to him. And we’ve got a strong family. And we watched that. And we said, hey, we’ve got to unleash the Bush kids. And so you saw ten grandchildren there jumping all over their grandfather at the convention. You see our five kids, all over this country, and their spouses. And so I would say that the concept of the Dukakis family has my great respect. And I would say, I don’t know whether that’s kind or not, it’s just an objective statement. I think the man anybody that gets into this political arena and has to face you guys everyday deserves a word of praise. Because it’s gotten a little ugly out there. It’s gotten a little nasty. It’s not much fun sometimes. And I would cite again Dan Quayle. I’ve been in politics a long time, and I don’t remember that kind of piling on, that kind of ugly rumor that never was true, printed. Now, come on. So some of it is unfair. But he’s in the arena. Teddy Roosevelt used to talk about the arena, you know, daring to fail greatly or succeed, no matter. He’s in there. So I salute these things. I salute those who participate in the political process. Sam Raybum had a great expression on this. He said here were all these intellectuals out there griping and complaining and saying it was negative coverage. Rayburn says, yeah, and that guy never ran for sheriff either. Michael Dukakis has run for sheriff, and so has George Bush.SHAW: Governor, a one-minute response.DUKAKIS: I didn’t hear the word “liberal” or “left” one time. I thank you for that.BUSH: That’s not bad. That’s true.DUKAKIS: And doesn’t that prove the point, George, which is that values like family and education and community, decent homes for young people that family on Long Island I visited on Monday where Lou and Betty Tolamo (phonetic) bought a house for some $19,000 back in 1962, have had seven children, they’re all making good livings. They can’t live in the community which they grew up in. Those are basic American values. I believe in them. I think you believe in them. They’re not left or right. They’re decent American values. I guess the one thing that concerns me about this, Ann, is this attempt to label things which all of us believe in. We may have different approaches. We may think that you deal with them in different ways. But they’re basically American, I believe in them. George Bush believes in them. I think the vast majority of Americans believe in them. And I hopeSHAW: Governor.DUKAKIS: the tone we’ve just heard might just be the tone we have for the rest of the campaign. I think the American people would appreciate that. (Applause)SHAW: Margaret Warner for the vice president.WARNER: Vice President Bush, abortion remains with us as a very troubling issue, and I’d like to explore that for a minute with you. You have said that you regard abortion as murder, yet you would make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. My question is, why should a woman who discovers through amniocentesis that her baby will be born with Tay-Sachs disease, for instance, that the baby will live at most two years, and those two years in incredible pain, be forced to carry the fetus to term, and yet a woman who becomes pregnant through incest would be allowed to abort her fetus?BUSH: Because you left out one other exception, the health of the mother. Let me answer your question and I hope it doesn’t get too personal or maudlin. Barb and I lost a child, you know that we lost a daughter, Robin. I was over running records in west Texas, and I got a call from her, come home; went to the doctor; the doctor said, beautiful child, your child has a few weeks to live. And I said, what can we do about it. He said, no, she has leukemia, acute leukemia, a few weeks to live. We took the child to New York. Thanks to the miraculous sacrifice of doctors and nurses, the child stayed alive for six months and then died. If that child were here today, and I was told the same thing, my granddaughter, Noel for example that child could stay alive for ten or fifteen years, or maybe for the rest of her life. And so I don’t think that you make an exception based on medical knowledge at the time. I think human life is very, very precious. And, look, this hasn’t been an easy decision for me to meet. I know others disagree with it. But when I was in that little church across the river from Washington and saw our grandchild christened in our faith, I was very pleased indeed that the mother had not aborted that child, and put the child up for adoption. And so I just feel this is where I’m coming from. And it is personal. And I don’t assail him on that issue, or others on that issue. But that’s the way I, George Bush, feel about it. (Scattered applause)SHAW: One minute for Governor Dukakis.DUKAKIS: Margaret, Kitty and I had very much the same kind of experience that the Bushes had: we lost a baby, lived about twenty minutes after it was born. But isn’t the real question that we have to answer not how many exceptions we make, because the vice president himself is prepared to make exceptions. It’s who makes the decision, who makes this very difficult, very wrenching decision? (Applause) And I think it has to be the woman, in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs, that makes that decision. Who are we to say, well, under certain circumstances, it’s all right, but under other circumstances it isn’t? That’s a decision that only a woman can make, after consulting her conscience and consulting her religious principles. And I would hope that we would give to women in this country the right to make that decision, and to make it in the exercise of their conscience and religious beliefs. (Applause)SHAW: Governor, Margaret has a question for you.WARNER: Governor, I’d like to return to the topic of the defense budget for a minute. You have said in this campaign that you would maintain a stable defense budget, yet you are on the board, on the advisory boardDUKAKIS: And, incidentally, may I say that that’s the decision of the Congress, and the president has concurred.WARNER: Yet you are on the board of a group called Jobs with Peace, in Boston, that advocates a 25-percent cut in the defense budget and the transfer of that money to the domestic economy. My question is, do you share that goal perhaps as a long-range goal, and, if not, are you aware of or why do you permit this group to continue to use your name on its letterhead for fundraising?DUKAKIS: I think I was on the advisory committee, Margaret. No, I don’t happen to share that goal. It’s an example of how oftentimes we may be associated with organizations all of whose particular positions we don’t support, even though we support in general the hope that over time, particularly if we can get those reductions in strategic weapons, if we can get a comprehensive test ban treaty, if we can negotiate with the Soviet Union and bring down the level of conventional forces in Europe with deeper cuts in the Soviet side, yes, at some point it may be possible to reduce defense outlays and use those for important things here at home, like jobs and job training and college opportunity and health and housing and the environment and the things that all of us care about. But I do think this, that the next president, even within a relatively stable budget and that’s what we are going to have for the foreseeable future will have to make those tough choices that I was talking about and that Mr. Bush doesn’t seem to want to make. And that really is going to be a challenge for the next president of the United States; I don’t think there’s any question about it. But I also see a tremendous opportunity now to negotiate with the Soviet Union to build on the progress that we’ve made with the INF Treaty, which I strongly supported and most Democrats did to get those reductions in strategic weapons, to get a test ban treaty, and to really make progress on the reduction of conventional forces in Europe. And if we can do that and do it in a way that gets deeper cuts on the Soviet side, which is where they ought to come from, then I think we have an opportunity over the long haul to begin to move some of our resources from the military to important domestic priorities that can provide college opportunity for that young woman whose mother wrote me from Texas just the other day, from Longview, Texas: two teachers, a mother and a father who have a child that’s a freshman in college, an electrical engineering major, a very bright student and they can’t afford to keep that child in college. So I hope that we can begin to move those resources. It’s not going to happen overnight; it certainly will have to happen on a step-by-step basis as we make progress in arms negotiation and arms control and arms reduction. But it certainly ought to be the long-term goal of all Americans and I think it is.SHAW: One minute for the vice president.BUSH: The defense budget today takes far less percentage of the gross national product than it did in President Kennedy’s time, for example moved tremendously. And you see, I think we’re facing a real opportunity for world peace. This is a big question. And it’s a question as to whether the United States will continue to lead for peace. See, I don’t believe any other country can pick up the mantel. I served at the UN. I don’t think we can turn over these kinds of decisions of the collective defense to the United Nations or anything else. So, what I’m saying is, we are going to have to make choices. I said I would have the Secretary of Defense sit down. But while the President is negotiating with the Soviet Union, I simply do not want to make these unilateral cuts. And I think those that advocated the freeze missed the point that there was a better way and that better way has resulted in a principle asymmetrical cuts. The Soviets take out more than we do and the principle of intrusive verification. And those two principles can now be applied to conventional forces, to strategic forces, providedSHAW: Mr. Vice PresidentBUSH: We don’t give away our hand before we sit down at the head table. (Applause)SHAW: Andrea Mitchell for Governor Dukakis.MITCHELL: Governor, you’ve said tonight that you set as a goal the steady reduction of the deficit. And you’ve talked about making tough choices, so perhaps I can get you to make one of those tough choices. No credible economist in either party accepts as realistic your plan to handle the deficit by tightening tax collection, investing in economic growth, bringing down interest rates, and cutting weapons systemsDUKAKIS: And some domestic programs as well, Andrea.MITCHELL: And some domestic programs as well. So, let’s assume now, for argument purpose, that it is the spring of 1989 and you are President Dukakis, and you discover that all of those economists were right and you were wrong. You are now facing that dreaded last resort increase taxes. Which tax do you decide is the least onerous?DUKAKIS: May I disagree with the premise of your question?MITCHELL: For the sake of argument, no. (Applause)DUKAKIS: As a matter of reality, Fm going to have to because we have had not one but two detailed studies which indicate that there are billions and billions of dollars to be collected that are not being paid these are not taxes owed by average Americans. We don’t have an alternative. We’ll lose it when it’s taken out of our paycheck before we even get it. But it’s the Internal Revenue Service which estimates now that we aren’t collecting $100 billion or more in taxes owed in this country. And that is just absolutely unfair to the vast majority of Americans who pay their taxes and pay them on time. The Dorgan Task Force, which included two internal revenue commissioners, one a Republican, one a Democrat. It was a bipartisan commission, a study by two respected economists, which indicated that we could collect some 40, 45, 50 billion dollars of those funds. The point is you’ve got to have a president who’s prepared to do this and to begin right away and, preferably, a president who was a governor of a state that’s had very, very successful experience at doing this. In my own state, we did it. In other states, we’ve done it. Republican governors as well as Democratic governors. And we’ve had great success at revenue enforcement. Now, the Vice President will probably tell you that it’s going to take an army of IRS collectors again. Well, his campaign manager, who used to be the secretary of the treasury, was taking great credit about a year ago and asking and receiving from the Congress substantial additional funds to hire internal revenue agents to go out and collect these funds, and I’m happy to join Jim Baker in saying that we agree on this. But, the fact of the matter is that this is something that we must begin it’s going to take at least the first year of the new administration. But, the Dorgan Task Force, the bipartisan task force estimated that we could collect about $35 billion in the fifth year, $105 billion over five years, the other study even more than thatSHAW: Governor.DUKAKIS: and that’s where you begin.SHAW: One minute response, Mr. Vice President.BUSH: Well, Andrea, you didn’t predicate that lack of economists’ support for what I call a flexible freeze, because some good very good economists do support that concept. And I think where I differ with the Governor of Massachusetts, because I am optimistic. They jumped on me yesterday for being a little optimistic about the United States. I am optimistic and I believe we can keep this longest expansion going. I was not out there when that stock market dropped wringing my hands and saying this was the end of the world as some political leaders were, because it isn’t the end of the world. And what we have to do is restrain the growth of spending. And we are doing a better job of it. The Congress is doing a better job of it. And the dynamics work. But they don’t work if you go raise taxes and then the Congress spends it continues to spend that. The American working man and woman are not taxed too little. The Federal Government continues to spend too much. (Applause)BUSH: Hold it.SHAW: Mr. Vice President, Andrea has a question for you.MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, you have flatly ruled out any change in Social Security benefits, even for the wealthy. Now, can you stand here tonight and look at a whole generation of 18 to 34 year olds in the eye the very people who are going to have to be financing that retirement and tell them that they should be financing the retirement of people like yourself, like Governor Dukakis, or for that matter, people such as ourselves here on this panel?BUSH: More so you than me.MITCHELL: We could argue about that.BUSH: No, but you got to go back to what social security was when it was created. It wasn’t created as a welfare program. It wasn’t created that is it was created as a whole retirement or supplement to retirement program. It wasn’t created as a welfare program. So, here’s what’s happened. We came into office and the Social Security Trust Fund was in great jeopardy and the President took the leadership working with the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress some tough calls were made and the Social Security Trust Fund was put back into sound, solvent condition. So, I don’t want to fool around with it. And there are several there’s a good political reason because it’s just about this time of year that the Democrats start saying the Republicans are going to take away your Social Security. It always works that way. I’ve seen it. In precinct politics in Texas and I’ve seen it at the national level. We have made the Social Security Trust Fund sound. And it is going to be operating at surpluses and I don’t want the liberal Democratic Congress to spend out of that Social Security Trust Fund or go and take the money out for some other purpose. I don’t want that. And I will not go in there and suggest changes in Social Security. I learned that the hard way and the Governor and I both supported slipping the COLAs for one year. He supported it at the National Governors Conference and I supported it in breaking a tie in a major compromise package and we got assailed by the Democrats in the election over that. And I am going to keep that Social Security Trust Fund sound and keep our commitment to the elderly and maybe down the line, maybe when you get two decades or one into the next century, you’re going to have to take another look at it, but not now. We do not have to do it. Keep the trust with the older men and women of this country.SHAW: Governor, you have one minute, sir.DUKAKIS: Andrea, I don’t know which George Bush I’m listening to. George Bush, a few years ago, said that Social Security was basically a welfare system.BUSH: Oh, come on.DUKAKIS: And in 1985, he flew back from the West Coast to cut that COLA. I voted against that at the National Governors Association. We won a majority, we didn’t win the two-thirds that was necessary nor to pass that resolution, George. But everybody knew what we were doing and I’ve opposed that. The reason that we raise concerns, not just in election years, but every year, because Republicans, once they’re elected and start cutting. You did it in 1985. The Administration tried to do it repeatedly, repeatedly in 81 82. And I’m sure you’ll try to do it again. Because there’s no way you can finance what you want to spend. There’s no way you can pay for that five year, $40 billion tax cut for the rich and still buy all those weapons systems you want to buy unless you raid the Social Security Trust Fund. (Applause)SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President.COMPTON: Mr. Vice President, there are three Justices on the Supreme Court who are in their 80’s and it’s very likely that the next President will get a chance to put a lasting mark on the Supreme Court. For the record, would your nominees to the Supreme Court have to pass something that has been called a kind of conservative ideological litmus test and would you give us an idea of perhaps who two or three people on your short list are for the Court.BUSH: One I don’t have a list yet. I feel pretty confident tonight, but not that confident. (Laughter)BUSH: Secondly, I don’t have any litmus test. But what I would do is appoint people to the Federal Bench that will not legislate from the Bench, who will interpret the Constitution. I do not want to see us go to again and Fm using this word advisedly a liberal majority that is going to legislate from the Bench. They don’t like the use of the word, but may I remind his strong supporters that only last year in the primary, to capture that Democratic nomination, he said, “I am a progressive liberal Democrat.” I won’t support judges like that. There is no litmus test on any issue. But I will go out there and find men and women to interpret. And I don’t have a list, but I think the appointments that the President has made to the Bench have been outstanding, outstanding appointments.COMPTON: Including Bork?BUSH: Yeah. I supported him. (Applause)DUKAKIS: If the Vice President of the United States thinks that Robert Bork was an outstanding appointment (Cheers and Applause)DUKAKIS: that is a very good reason for voting for Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen on the 8th of November. (Cheers and Applause)DUKAKIS: And I think the Vice President supported the Bork nomination. You know, Mr. Bush has never appointed a judge. I’ve appointed over 130, so I have a record. (Laughter)DUKAKIS: And I’m very proud of it. I don’t ask people whether they’re Republicans or Democrats. I’ve appointed prosecutors, I’ve appointed defenders. I don’t appoint people I think are liberal or people who think – who I think are conservative. I appoint people of independence and integrity and intelligence, people who will be a credit to the Bench. And those are the standards that I will use in nominating people to the Supreme Court of the United States. These appointments are for life. These appointments are for life. And when the Vice President talks about liberals on the Bench, I wonder who he’s talking about? Is he talking about a former Governor of the State of California, who is a former prosecutor, a Republican named Earl Warren, because I think Chief Justice Earl Warren was an outstanding Chief Justice and I think most Americans do too.SHAW: Ann Compton has a question for you, Governor Dukakis.COMPTON: Governor, millions of Americans are entitled to some of the protections and benefits that the Federal Government provides, including Social Security, pensions, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor. But in fact, there are so many millions of Americans who are eligible the government just can’t continue to pay for all of those programs as they’re currently constituted. A blue ribbon panel shortly after the election is likely to recommend that you go where the money is when you make budget cuts, and that means entitlements. Before the election would you commit yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements have to be redrawn?DUKAKIS: Andrea, why do people who want balanced budgets or to bring the deficit down always go to those programs which tend to benefit people of very modest means? Now, two-thirds of the people in this country who receive Social Security checks live entirely on that check; they have no other income. And yet Mr. Bush tried to cut their cost of living increase in 1985. Medicare is not getting less expensive; medical care for the elderly is getting more expensive, with greater deductibles, with fewer benefits, the kinds of things we’ve had under this Administration that have cut and chopped and reduced the kind of benefits that one gets under Medicare. Yes, we now have catastrophic health insurance, but it’s going to cost, and that’s going to be an additional burden on elderly citizens. It had bipartisan support; it should have had bipartisan support. But I suggest that we understand that those are going to be additional costs on senior citizens across this country. So I’m not going to begin, and I’m not going to go to entitlements as a means for cutting that deficit when we’re spending billions on something like Star Wars, when we’re spending billions on other weapon systems which apparently the Vice President wants to keep in his back pocket or some place, but which, if we continue to spend billions on them, will force us to cut Social Security, to cut Medicare, to cut these basic entitlements to people of very, very modest means. Now there are some things we can do to help people who currently do get entitlements to get off public assistance. I talked in our first debate about the possibilities of helping millions and millions of welfare families to get off of welfare, and I’m proud to say that we finally have a welfare reform bill And the Ruby Samsons and Dan Lawsons, hundreds of thousands of welfare mothers in this country and in my state and across the country who today are working and earning are examples of what can happen when you provide training to those welfare mothers, some daycare for their children so that those mothers can go into a training program and get a decent job.SHAW: GovernorDUKAKIS: That’s the way you bring a deficit down and help to improve the quality of life for people at the same time.SHAW: One minute for the Vice President.BUSH: I think I’ve addressed it. But let me simply say for the record, I did not vote to cut COLAs. And I voted the same way that he did three months before in a national governors’ conference. And he said at that time, in a quote, and this is a paraphrase, a freeze, that’s easy. So I don’t believe that we need to do what you’ve suggested here. And I’ve said that I’m going to keep this Social Security entitlement, to keep that trust fund sound. But I do think there are flexible ways to solve some of the pressing problems, particularly that affect our children. And I have made some good sound proposals. But again, we have a big difference on child care, for example. You see, I want the families to have the choice. I don’t want to see the Federal Government licensing grandmothers. I don’t want to see the Federal Government saying to communities, well, you can’t do this any more. We’re going to tell you how to do it all. I want flexibility, and I do you know, these people laugh about the thousand points of light. You ought to go out and see around this country what’s happening in the volunteer section: Americans helping America. And I want to keep it alive in child care and in other entitlements.SHAW: Margaret Warner for Gov. Dukakis.WARNER: Governor, I’m going to pass on the question I originally planned to ask you, to follow up on your rebuttal to a question Andrea asked, and that involves Social Security. Now it is true, as you said, that originally you sought an exemption for Social Security COLAs in this national governors’ association vote. But when you lost that vote, you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal. And what’s more, you had great criticism of your fellow governors who wouldn’t go along as political cowards.DUKAKIS: That is absolutely not true.WARNER: You said it takes guts and it takes will.DUKAKIS: That is absolutely not true. It had nothing to do with the debate on Social Security. It had to do with the discussion we had had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget.WARNER: My question is: Aren’t you demagoguing the Social Security issue?DUKAKIS: No, and I have to (Applause)DUKAKIS: I just have to correct the record. That simply isn’t true. Now, we’re not a parliamentary body, the National Governors Association. We vote on resolutions. If you don’t get a two-thirds, then your resolution doesn’t pass. But everybody knew that those of us who voted against the freezing of COLAs did so, we did so emphatically. And I never made that statement; never would. The point is that as we look at this nation’s future, and we have two very different visions of this future. I want to move ahead. The Vice President talks about a thousand points of light. I’m interested in 240 million points of light. I’m interested in 240 million citizens in this country who share in the American dream, all of them in every part of this country. But as we look at the decisions that the next president of the United States is going to have to make, I just don’t believe the place you go first is those programs, those so-called entitlements, which provide a basic floor of income and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, the disabled, for people who can’t make their way on their own, and in many cases, have given a great deal to this country. The Vice President did call Social Security a few years ago basically or largely a welfare program. It isn’t. It’s a contract between generations. It’s something that we pay into now so that we will have a secure retirement, and our parents and grandparents will have a secure retirement. It’s a very sacred contract, and I believe in it. So that’s not where we ought to go. There are plenty of places to cut. There’s lots we can do in the Pentagon where dishonest contractors have been lining their pockets at the expense of the American taxpayer. There are we certainly ought to be able toSHAW: GovernorDUKAKIS: Give our farm families a decent income with spending $20to $25 billion a year on farm subsidies, and I’m sure we can do that. That’s where we ought to go, and those are the programs we ought to review first.SHAW: One minute for the Vice President.BUSH: Well, let me take him up on this question of farm subsidies. We have a fundamental difference, approach on agriculture. He favors this supply maintenance or production controls. He said that. He’s been out in the state saying that, in Midwestern states. I don’t. I think the farm bill that he criticizes was good legislation, outstanding legislation. And I believe the answer to the agricultural economy is not to get the government further involved, but to do what I’m suggesting. In the first place, never go back to that Democratic grain embargo, that liberal Democrat grain embargo that knocked the markets right out from under us and made Mr. Gorbachev say to me when I was here, how do I know you’re reliable suppliers? We never should go back to that. And we ought to expand our markets abroad. We ought to have rural enterprise zones. We ought to move forward swiftly on my ideas of ethanol which would use more corn, and therefore, create a bigger market for our agricultural products. But let’s not go back and keep assailing a farm bill that passed with overwhelming Democrat and Republican support.SHAW: Mr. Vice President.BUSH: The farm payments are going down because the agricultural economy is coming back.SHAW: Margaret Warner has a question for you, Mr. Vice President.WARNER: Mr. Vice President, I’d like to cover a subject that wasn’t covered in the first debate. You have said in this campaign, I am an environmentalist, and described yourself as having zero tolerance for polluters. And yet your record does seem to suggest otherwise. When you were head of the President’s task force on regulatory relief, you did urge EPA to relax regulations involving the elimination of lead from gasoline. I believe you urged suspension of rules requiring industries to treat toxic waste before discharging them in sewers. And your group also urged OSHA to weaken the regulations requiring that workers be informed of dangerous chemicals at the work site. Finally, I believe you did support the President’s veto of the Clean Water Act. My question is, aren’t you–how do you square your campaign rhetoric with this record?BUSH: 90 percent reductions in lead since I chaired that regulatory task force; 90 percent. It’s almost you remember that expression, get the lead out? It’s almost out. Almost gone. Clean water? I’m for clean water. But what I’m not for what I’m not for is measuring it the way that the Democratic Congress does. We sent up a good bill on clean water, a sound bill on clean water. But the only way you can express your love for clean water is to double the appropriations for clean water, and then rant against the deficit. I am for clean water. I’ve been an outdoorsman and a sportsman all my life. I’ve been to these national parks. I led for the Earl Wallop bill or formerly Dingell-Johnson. I headed the task force when I was a member of the Congress way back in the late ’60s on these kinds of things, on the Republican side. I led for that. And so I refuse to measure one’s commitment as to whether you’re going to double the spending. That is the same old argument that’s gotten us into trouble on the deficit side. So I’ll just keep saying, I am one. I’m not going to go down there and try to dump the sludge from Massachusetts off the beaches off of New Jersey. I’m not going to do that. That boo was excessively loud. Can you add five seconds, Bernie, out of fairness? Come on, give me five. I mean, this guy, this is too much. But I’m not going to do that. I’m an environmentalist. I believe in our parks. I believe in the President’s commission on outdoors. And I’ll do a good job, because I am committed.SHAW: Gov. Dukakis, you have one minute to respond.DUKAKIS: Margaret, I’m not sure I can get all of this in in one minute. George, we have supply management today under the 1985 bill. It’s called set-asides. Secondly, if you were so opposed to the grain embargo, why did you ask the godfather of the grain embargo to be one of your top foreign policy advisers? I’m against the grain embargo; it was a mistake. I’m also against the pipeline embargo, which you folks attempted to impose. That was a mistake as well, and it cost thousands of jobs for American workers in the Midwest and all over the United States of America. Margaret, once again, I don’t know which George Bush I’m talking about here or looking at. The George Bush who was the charter member of the environmental wrecking crew that went to Washington in the early ’80s and did a job on the EPA, or the one we’ve been seeing and listening to the past two or three months. But let me say this, because he spent millions and millions of dollars of advertising on the subject of Boston Harbor. George, Boston Harbor was polluted for 100 years. I’m the first governor to clean it up. No thanks to you. No thanks to you. We’ve been cleaning it up for four years. We passed landmark legislation in ’84. No thanks to you. You did everything you could to kill the Clean Water ActSHAW: Governor.DUKAKIS: And those grants which make it possible for states and local communities to clean up rivers and harbors and streams. (Applause)MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, Jimmy Carter has called this the worst campaign ever. Richard Nixon has called it trivial, superficial and inane. Whoever started down this road first, of negative campaigning, the American people, from all reports coming to us, are completely fed up. Now, do you have any solutions to suggest? Is there time left to fix it? There are 26 days left. For instance, would you agree to another debate, before it’s all over, so that the American people would have another chance before election day to compare you two?BUSH: No. I will not agree to another debate. The American people are up to here with debates. They had thirty of them; we had seven of them. Now we’ve got three of them. I am going to carry this election debate all across this country in the last whatever remains of the last three and a half weeks, or whatever we have and the answer is no; I am not going to have any more debates, we don’t need any more debates. I’ve spelled out my position. In terms of negative campaigning, you know, I don’t want to sound like a kid in the schoolyard: he started it. But take a look at the Democratic convention take a look at it. Do you remember the Senator from Boston chanting out there and the ridicule factor from that lady from Texas that was on there; I mean, come on, this was just outrageous. But I’ll try harder to keep it on a high plane. If you could accept a little criticism, I went all across central Illinois and spoke about agricultural issues, about seven stops. We had some fun Crystal Gayle and Loretta Lynn with us, and they got up and sang, went to little towns and I talked agriculture. And not one thing did I see, with respect, on your network about my views on agriculture, and not one did I read in any newspaper. Why? Because you are so interested in a poll that might have been coming out, or because somebody had said something nasty about somebody else. And so I don’t know what the answer is. Somebody hit me and said Barry Goldwater said you ought to talk on issues more. How can Barry Goldwater sitting in Arizona know whether I’m talking on the issues or not when we put out position paper after position paper, he puts out position paper after position paper; and we see this much about it, because everyone else is fascinated with polls and who’s up or down today and who’s going to be up or down tomorrow. So I think we can all share, with respect, in the fact that maybe the message is not getting out. But it’s not getting out because there are too few debates. There will be no more debates. (Applause)SHAW: Governor Dukakis, you have one minute to respond, sir.DUKAKIS: I can understand, after the vice presidential debate, why Mr. Bush would want no more debates. (Laughter, boos) That’s my five seconds. Andrea, I think we both have a responsibility to try to address the issues. Yes, we have fundamental differences. I think a great many of them have come out today. And I think if we get rid of the labels–and I’m not keeping count, but I think Mr. Bush has used the label “liberal” at least ten times if I had a dollar, George, for every time you used that label, I’d qualify for one of those tax breaks for the rich that you want to give away. (Laughter, applause) Isn’t that the point? Most Americans believe in basic values. We have differences about how to achieve them. I want to move forward, I want this nation to move forward. I am concerned about the fact that 10 percent of our manufacturing and 20 percent of our banking and nearly half of the real estate in the city of Los Angeles are in the hands of foreign investors. I am concerned about what that does to our future. I’m concerned about the fact that so many of our securities are in the hands of foreign banks because of these massive deficits. But those are the issues on which we ought to be debating and if we can just put away the flag factories and the balloons and those kinds of thing and get on to a real discussion of these issues, I think we will have a good success.SHAW: Andrea Mitchell has a question for you, Governor Dukakis.MITCHELL: We are talking about issues, so let’s return to something you said earlier about the modernization of land-based missiles. You said that you didn’t rule it out that there are limits to what we can spend, and then you went on to talk about a much more expensive part of our defense strategy, namely, conventional forces. Do you somehow see conventional forces as a substitute for our strategic forces, and in not talking about the land-based missiles and not committing to modernizing, do you somehow believe that we can have a survivable nuclear force based on the air and sea legs of our triad?DUKAKIS: I think we ought to be looking at modernization, I think we ought to be exploring less expensive ways to get it on land, and we ought to make sure that we have an effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent. But we also need well-equipped and well-trained and well-supported conventional forces. And every defense expert I know, including people in the Pentagon itself, will tell you that given the level of defense spending and the level of defense appropriations which the Congress has now approved and the president has signed, there’s no way that you can do all of these things and do them well. That’s why tough choices will be required, choices I am prepared to make, Mr. Bush is not prepared to make. But, Andrea, I think we can go far beyond this as well, because we have opportunities now step-by-step to bring down the level of strategic weapons, get a test ban treaty, negotiate those conventional force reductions. I would challenge Mr. Gorbachev to join with us in limiting in eliminating regional conflict in the Middle East, in Central America. Let’s get him working on Syria, their client state, and see if we can’t get them to join Israel and other Arab nations, if at all possible, and Arab leaders, in finally bringing peace to that troubled region. And I think that’s one reason why we need fresh leadership in the White House that can make progress now in bringing peace to the Middle East. Let’s go to work and end this fiasco in Central America, a failed policy which has actually increased Cuban and Soviet influence. The democratic leaders of Central and Latin America want to work with us. I’ve met with them, I know them, I’ve spent time in South America-speak the language, so does Senator Bentsen. We want to work with them and build a new relationship, and they with us. But not a one of those key democratic leaders support our policy in Central America. And we’ve got to work with them if we are going to create an environment for human rights and democracy for the people of this hemisphere, and go to work on our single most important problem, and that is the avalanche of drugs that is poring into our country and virtually destroying those countries. Those are the kinds of priorities for national security and for foreign policy that I want to pursue Mr. Bush and I have major differences on these issues and I hope very much to be president and pursue them.SHAW: Mr. Vice President, you have one minute.BUSH: In terms of regional tensions, we have now gotten the attention of the Soviet Union. And the reason we’ve gotten it is because they see us now as unwilling to make the very kinds of unilateral cuts that have been called for and to go for the discredited freeze. My opponent had trouble, criticized us, on our policy in Angola. It now looks, because of steady negotiation, that we may have an agreement that will remove the Cubans from Angola. We see the Russians coming out of Afghanistan. That wouldn’t have stopped if we hadn’t been willing wouldn’t have even started, the Soviets coming out, if we hadn’t even been willing to support the freedom fighters there. And the policy in Central America, regrettably, has failed because the Congress has been unwilling to support those who have been fighting for freedom. Those Sandinistas came in and betrayed the trust of the revolution; they said it was about democracy, and they have done nothing other than solidify their Marxist domination over that country.SHAW: Ann Compton for Governor Dukakis.COMPTON: Governor, nuclear weapons need nuclear material replenished on a regular basis, and just this week yet another nuclear manufacturing plant was closed because of safety concerns. Some in the Pentagon fear that too much priority has been put on new weapons programs, not enough on current programs, and worry that the resulting shortage would be amounting to nothing less than unilateral nuclear disarmament. Is that a priority that you feel has been ignored by this administration, or are the Pentagon officials making too much of it?DUKAKIS: Well, it’s a great concern of mine and I think of all Americans, and perhaps the vice president can tell us what’s been going on. This is another example of misplaced priorities. An administration which wants to billions on weapons systems that we don’t need and can’t afford, and now confronts us with a very serious problem, and plants that are supposed to be producing tritium and plutonium and providing the necessary materials for existing weapons. Yes, if we don’t do something about it, we may find ourselves unilaterally, if I may use that term, dismantling some of these weapons. What’s been going on? Who’s been in charge? Who’s been managing this system? Why have there been these safety violations? Why are these plants being closed down? I don’t know what the latest cost estimates are, but it’s going to be in the range of 25, 50, 75, $100 billion. Now, somebody has to bear the responsibility for this. Maybe the Vice President has an answer. But I’m somebody who believes very strongly in taking care of the fundamentals first before you start new stuff. And that’s something which will be a priority of ours in the new administration because without it, we cannot have the effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent we must have.SHAW: Mr. Vice President, you have one minute.BUSH: That is the closest I have ever heard the Governor of Massachusetts come to support anything having to do with nuclear, that’s about as close as I’ve ever heard him Yes, this Savannah River plant needs to be made more safe. Will he join me in suggesting that we may need another plant? Maybe in Idaho, to take care of the requirements, nuclear material requirements, for our Defense Department? I hope he will. This sounds like real progress here, because we’ve had a big difference on the safe use of nuclear power for our energy base. I believe that we must use clean, safe nuclear power. I believe that the more dependent we become on foreign oil, the less our national security is enhanced. And therefore, I’ve made some proposals to strengthen the domestic oil industry by more incentive going in to look for, and find, and produce oil; made some incentives in terms of secondary and tertiary production. But we’re going to have to use more gas, more coal and more safe nuclear power for our energy base. So I am one who believes that we canSHAW: Mr. Vice President.BUSH: and must do what he’s talking about now.SHAW: Ann Compton has a question for you.COMPTON: Mr. Vice President, as many as 100 officials in this Administration have left the government under an ethical cloud. Some have been indicted, some convicted. Many of the cases have involved undue influence once they’re outside of government. If you become president, will you lock that revolving door that has allowed some men and women in the government to come back and lobby the very departments they once managed?BUSH: Yes, and I’ll apply it to Congress too. I’ll do both. I’ll do both. Because I think you see, I am one who I get kidded by being a little old fashioned on these things, but I do believe in public service. I believe that public service is honorable. And I don’t think anybody has a call on people in their Administrations going astray. His chief education adviser is in jail He’s in jail because he betrayed the public trust. The head of education. And yet this man, the governor, equated the President to a rotting fish. He said that a fish rots from the head down as he was going after Ed Meese. Look, we need the highest possible ethical standards. I will have an ethical office in the White House that will be under the President’s personal concern. I will see that these standards apply to the United States Congress. I hope I will do a good job as one who has had a relatively clean record with no conflicts of interest in his own public life, as has the Governor, to exhort young people to get into public service. But there is no corner on this sleaze factor, believe me. And it’s a disgrace, and I will do my level best to clean it up, recognizing that you can’t legislate morality. But I do believe that with my record in Congress, having led the new Congressmen to a code of ethics through major main emphasis on it in full disclosure, that I’ve got a good record. And there are more, if you want to talk about percentage appointments, more Members of Congress who have been under investigation percentage-wise that people in the executive branch. And so it isn’t one and state governments have had a tough time. His some of his college presidents aren’t exactly holier than thou. So let’s not be throwing stones about it. Let’s say, this isn’t Democrat or Republican, and it isn’t liberal or conservative. Let’s vow to work together to do something about it.SHAW: Governor, you have one minute to respond to it.DUKAKIS: And I would agree that integrity is not a Republican or a Democratic issue; it’s an American issue. But here again, I don’t know which George Bush I’m listening to. Wasn’t this the George Bush that supported Mr. Meese? Called James Watt an excellent Secretary of the Interior? Provided support for some of these people, supported the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court of the United States. We’ve had dozens we’ve had dozens and dozens of officials in this Administration who have left under a cloud, who have left with the special prosecutor in their arm, have been indicted, convicted. This isn’t the kind of Administration we need. And one of the reasons our selection of a running mate is so important, it is such a test of the kinds of standards we’ll set, is because it tells the American people in advance of the election just what kind of people we’re looking for. I picked Lloyd Bentsen. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle. I think that says a great deal to the American people about the standards we’ll set and the quality of the people that we will pick to serve in our Administration.SHAW: To each of you candidates, regrettably, I have to inform you that we have come to the end of our questions. That’s a pity. Before I ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I would like to thank all of you for joining us this evening. Governor Dukakis, yours is the first closing statement, sir. GOU.DUKAKIS: 28 years ago, as a young man just graduated from law school, I came to this city, came clear across the country, to watch John Kennedy be nominated for the presidency of the United States, right here in Los Angeles. I never dreamed that some day I would win that nomination and be my party’s nominee for president. That’s America. That’s why I’m proud and grateful to be a citizen of this country. 26 days from today you and millions of Americans will choose two people to lead us into the future as president and vice president of the United States. Our opponents say, things are okay. Don’t rock the boat. Not to worry. They say we should be satisfied. But I don’t think we can be satisfied when we’re spending $150 billion a year in interest alone on the national debt, much of it going to foreign bankers; or when 25 percent of our high school students are dropping out of school; or when we have 2-1/2 million of our fellow citizens, a third of them veterans, who are homeless and living on streets and in doorways in this country, when Mr. Bush’s prescription for our economic future is another tax giveaway to the rich. We can do better than that. Not working with government alone, but all of us working together. Lloyd Bentsen and I are optimists, and so are the American people. And we ask you for our hand for your hands and your hearts, and your votes on the 8th of November so we can move forward in the future. Kitty and I are very grateful to all of you for the warmth and the hospitality that you’ve given to us in your homes and communities all across this country. We love you, and we’re grateful to you for everything that you’ve given to us. And we hope that we’ll be serving you in the White House in January of 1989. Thank you, and God bless you. (Applause)SHAW: Vice President Bush, your closing statement, sir.BUSH: Sometimes it does seem that a campaign generates more heat than light. So let me repeat, I do have respect for my opponent, for his family, for the justifiable pride he takes in his heritage. But we have enormous differences. I want to hold the line on taxes, and keep this the longest expansion in modern history going until everybody in America benefits. I want to invest in our children. Because I mean it when I say I want a kinder and gentler nation. And by that I want to have child care where the families, the parents, have control. I want to keep our neighborhoods much, much better in terms of anti-crime, and that’s why I would appoint judges that have a little more sympathy for the victims of crime and a little less for the criminals. That’s why I do feel if some police officer is gunned down that the death penalty is required. I want to help those with disabilities fit into the mainstream. There is much to be done. This election is about big things. And perhaps the biggest is world peace. And I ask you to consider the experience I have had in working with a President who has revolutionized the situation around the world. America stands tall again, and as a result, we are credible. And we have now achieved an historic arms control agreement. I want to build on that. I’d love to be able to say to my grandchildren, four years after my first term, I’d like to say, your grandfather, working with the leaders of the Soviet Union, working with the leaders of Europe, was able to ban chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth. Lincoln called this country the last best hope of man on earth. And he was right then, and we still are the last best hope of man on earth. And I ask for your support on November 8th. And I will be a good president. Working together, we can do wonderful things for the United States and the Free World. Thank you very, very much.",
    "id": "31ed59ff-1b95-45b2-b66b-0839f5c6c339"
  },
  {
    "year": 2000,
    "date": "October 3, 2000",
    "title": "The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 3, 2000 TranscriptOctober 3, 2000The First Gore-Bush Presidential DebateMODERATOR: Good evening from the Clark Athletic Center at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of three 90-minute debates between the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Al Gore and the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas. The debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates and they will be conducted within formats and rules agreed to between the commission and the two campaigns. We’ll have the candidates at podiums. No answer to a question can exceed two minutes. Rebuttal is limited to one minute. But as moderator I have the option to follow up and to extend any particular give and take another three-and-a-half minutes. Even then, no single answer can exceed two minutes. The candidates under their rules may not question each other directly. There will be no opening statements, but each candidate may have up to two minutes for a closing statement. The questions and the subjects were chosen by me alone. I have told no one from the two campaigns, or the Commission, or anyone else involved what they are. There is a small audience in the hall tonight. They are not here to participate, only to listen. I have asked, and they have agreed, to remain silent for the next 90 minutes. Except for right now, when they will applaud as we welcome the two candidates, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore.(Applause)MODERATOR: And now the first question as determined by a flip of a coin, it goes to Vice President Gore. Vice President Gore, you have questioned whether Governor Bush has the experience to be President of the United States. What exactly do you mean?GORE: Well, Jim, first of all, I would like to thank the sponsors of this debate and the people of Boston for hosting the debate. I would like to thank Governor Bush for participating, and I would like to say I’m happy to be here with Tipper and our family. I have actually not questioned Governor Bush’s experience. I have questioned his proposals. And here is why. I think this is a very important moment for our country. We have achieved extraordinary prosperity. And in this election, America has to make an important choice. Will we use our prosperity to enrich not just the few, but all of our families? I believe we have to make the right and responsible choices. If I’m entrusted with the presidency, here are the choices that I will make. I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the national debt. I will put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox and protect them. And I will cut taxes for middle-class families. I believe it’s important to resist the temptation to squander our surplus. If we make the right choices, we can have a prosperity that endures and enriches all of our people. If I’m entrusted with the presidency, I will help parents and strengthen families because, you know, if we have prosperity that grows and grows, we still won’t be successful unless we strengthen families by, for example, ensuring that children can always go to schools that are safe. By giving parents the tools to protect their children against cultural pollution. I will make sure that we invest in our country and our families. And I mean investing in education, health care, the environment, and middle-class tax cuts and retirement security. That is my agenda and that is why I think that it’s not just a question of experience.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, one minute rebuttal.BUSH: Well, we do come from different places. I come from West Texas. The governor is the chief executive officer. We know how to set agendas. I think you’ll find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security. One-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut. And that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent’s plan, which will increase the size of government dramatically. His plan is three times larger than President Clinton’s proposed plan eight years ago. It is a plan that will have 200 new programs — expanded programs and creates 20,000 new bureaucrats. It it empowers Washington. Tonight you’re going to hear that my passion and my vision is to empower Americans to be able to make decisions for themselves in their own lives.MODERATOR: So I take it by your answer, then, Mr. Vice President, that in an interview recently with the “New York Times” when you said that you questioned whether or not Governor Bush has experience enough to be president, you were talking about strictly policy differences.GORE: Yes, Jim. I said that his tax cut plan, for example, raises the question of whether it’s the right choice for the country. And let me give you an example of what I mean. Under Governor Bush’s tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined. Now, I think those are the wrong priorities. Now, under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending for things like education and health care, I will put another dollar into middle class tax cuts. And for every dollar that I spend in those two categories, I’ll put $2 toward paying down the national debt. I think it’s very important to keep the debt going down and completely eliminate it. And I also think it’s very important to go to the next stage of welfare reform. Our country has cut the welfare rolls in half. I fought hard from my days in the Senate and as vice president to cut the welfare rolls and we’ve moved millions of people in America into good jobs. But it’s now time for the next stage of welfare reform, and include fathers and not only mothers.MODERATOR: We’re going to get a lot of those.BUSH: Let me just say that obviously tonight we’re going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our treasurey and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don’t we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills. There is a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government — the surplus is the government’s money. That’s not what I think. I think it’s the hard-working people of America’s money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. It’s a difference of opinion. It’s a difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself.MODERATOR: Let me just follow up one quick question. When you hear Vice President Gore question your experience, do you read it the same way, that he’s talking about policy differences only?BUSH: Yes. I take him for his word. Look, I fully recognize I’m not of Washington. I’m from Texas. And he’s got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second biggest state in the union. I have a proud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats, which is what our nation needs. Somebody that can come to Washington and say let’s forget all the finger pointing and get positive things done on Medicare, prescription drugs, Social Security, and so I take him for his word.GORE: Jim, if I could just respond. I know that. The governor used the phrase phony numbers, but if you look at the plan and add the numbers up, these numbers are correct. He spends more money for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense all combined. I agree that the surplus is the American people’s money, it’s your money. That’s why I don’t think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1%, because the other 99% have had an awful lot to do with building the surplus in our prosperity.MODERATOR: Three-and-a-half minutes is up. New question.BUSH: I hope it’s about wealthy people.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, you have a question. This is a companion question to the question I asked Vice President Gore. You have questioned whether Vice President Gore has demonstrated the leadership qualities necessary to be President of the United States. What do you mean by that?BUSH: Actually what I’ve said, Jim. I’ve said that eight years ago they campaigned on prescription drugs for seniors. And four years ago they campaigned on getting prescription drugs for seniors. And now they’re campaigning on getting prescription drugs for seniors. It seems like they can’t get it done. Now, they may blame other folks, but it’s time to get somebody in Washington who is going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get some positive things done when it comes to our seniors. And so what I’ve said is that there’s been some missed opportunities. They’ve had a chance. They’ve had a chance to form consensus. I’ve got a plan on Medicare, for example, that’s a two-stage plan that says we’ll have immediate help for seniors and what I call immediate Helping Hand, a $48 billion program. But I also want to say to seniors, if you’re happy with Medicare the way it is, fine, you can stay in the program. But we’re going to give you additional choices like they give federal employees in the federal employee health plan. They have a variety of choices to choose, so should seniors. And my point has been, as opposed to politicizing an issue like Medicare, in other words, holding it up as an issue, hoping somebody bites it and try to clobber them over the head with it for political purposes, this year, in the year 2000, it’s time to get it done once and for all. That’s what I’ve been critical about the administration for. Same with Social Security. I think there was a good opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to reform the Social Security system so seniors will never go without. Those on Social Security today will have their promise made, but also to give younger workers the option at their choice of being able to manage some of their own money in the private sector to make sure there’s a Social Security system around tomorrow. There are a lot of young workers at our rallies we go to that when they hear I’ll trust them at their option to be able to manage, under certain guidelines, some of their own money to get a better rate of return so that they’ll have a retirement plan in the future, they begin to nod their heads and they want a different attitude in Washington.MODERATOR: One minute rebuttal.GORE: Well, Jim, under my plan all seniors will get prescription drugs under Medicare. The governor has described Medicare as a government HMO. It’s not, and let me explain the difference. Under the Medicare prescription drug proposal I’m making, here is how it works, you go to your own doctor. Your doctor chooses your prescription. No HMO or insurance company can take those choices away from you. Then you go to your own pharmacy. You fill the prescription and Medicare pays half the cost. If you’re in a very poor family or if you have very high costs, Medicare will pay all the costs, a $25 premium, and much better benefits than you can possibly find in the private sector. Now here is the contrast. 95% of all seniors would get no help whatsoever under my opponent’s plan for the first four or five years. Now, one thing I don’t understand, Jim, is why is it that the wealthiest 1% get their tax cuts the first year, but 95% of seniors have to wait four to five years before they get a single penny?BUSH: I guess my answer to that is the man is running on Medi-scare. Trying to frighten people in the voting booth. It’s just not the way I think and it’s not my intentions and not my plan. I want all seniors to have prescription drugs in Medicare. We need to reform Medicare. There’s been opportunity to do so but this administration has failed to do it. And so seniors will have not only a Medicare plan where the poor seniors will have prescription drugs paid for, but there will be a variety of options. The current system today has meant a lot for a lot of seniors, and I really appreciate the intentions of the current system as I mentioned. If you’re happy with the system you can stay in it. But there are a lot of procedures that haven’t kept up in Medicare with the current times. No prescription drug benefits, no drug therapy, no preventative medicines, no vision care. We need to have a modern system to help seniors, and the idea of supporting a federally controlled 132,000-page document bureaucracy as being a compassionate way for seniors, and the only compassionate source of care for seniors is not my vision. I believe we ought to give seniors more options. I believe we ought to make the system work better. I know this. I know it will require a different kind of leader to go to Washington to say to both Republicans and Democrats, let’s come together. You’ve had your chance, Vice President, you’ve been there for eight years and nothing has been done. My point is, is that my plan not only trusts seniors with options, my plan sets aside $3.4 trillion for Medicare over the next ten years. My plan also says it requires a new approach in Washington, D.C. It’s going to require somebody who can work across the partisan divide.GORE: If I could respond to that. Under my plan I will put Medicare in an iron clad lockbox and prevent the money from being used for anything other than Medicare. The governor has declined to endorse that idea even though the Republican as well as Democratic leaders in Congress have endorsed it. I would be interested to see if he would say this evening he’ll put Medicare in a lockbox. I don’t think he will because under his plan if you work out the numbers  $100 billion comes out of Medicare just for the wealthiest 1% in the tax cut. Now here is the difference. Some people who say the word reform actually mean cuts. Under the governor’s plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he’s modeled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries. Let me give you one quick example. There is a man here tonight named George McKinney from Milwaukee. He’s 70 years old, has high blood pressure, his wife has heart trouble. They have an income of $25,000 a year. They can’t pay for their prescription drugs and so they’re some of the ones that go to Canada regularly in order to get their prescription drugs. Under my plan, half of their costs would be paid right away. Under Governor Bush’s plan, they would get not one penny for four to five years and then they would be forced to go into an HMO or to an insurance company and ask them for coverage, but there would be no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the terms and conditions.BUSH: I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, of we’re going to scare you in the voting booth. Under my plan the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It’s called Immediate Helping Hand. Instead of squabbling and finger pointing, he gets immediate help. Let me say something.MODERATOR: Your –[cross talk]GORE: Can I make another point? They get $25,000 a year income, that makes them ineligible.BUSH: Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I’m beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It’s fuzzy math. It’s a scaring — he’s trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan that he continues to criticize, I set one-third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody’s check. But I also dropped the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. Because by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you’re a family of four in Massachusetts, making $50,000, you get a 50% cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It’s from $4000 to about $2000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you, and the vice president would like to be spending the $2,000 on your behalf.MODERATOR: One quick thing, gentlemen. These are your rules. I’m doing my best. We’re way over the three and a half minutes. I have no problems with it. Do you want to have a quick response? We’re almost to five minutes on this.GORE: It’s just clear you can go to the website and look. If you make more than $25,000 a year you don’t get a penny of help under the Bush prescription drug proposal for at least four to five years, and then you’re pushed into a Medicare — into an HMO or insurance company plan, and there’s no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the conditions. And the insurance companies say it won’t work and they won’t offer these plans.MODERATOR: Let me ask you both this and we’ll move on on the subject. As a practical matter, both of you want to bring prescription drugs to seniors, correct?GORE: Correct.BUSH: Correct.GORE: The difference is I want to bring it to 100% and he wants to bring it to 5%.BUSH: That’s totally false for him to stand up here and say that. Let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear. They have had their chance to get something done. I’m going to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the system. All seniors will be covered, all poor seniors will have their prescription drugs paid for, and in the meantime, we’ll have a plan to help poor seniors and in the meantime it could be one year or two years.GORE: Let me call your attention to the key word there. He said all poor seniors.BUSH: Wait a minute. All seniors are covered under prescription drugs in my plan.GORE: In the first year?BUSH: If we can get it done in the first year, you bet. Yours is phased in in eight years.GORE: It’s a two-phase plan. For the first four years — it takes a year to pass it and for the first four years only the poor are covered. Middle class seniors like George McKinney and his wife are not covered for four to five years.MODERATOR: I have an idea. If you have any more to say about this, you can say it in your closing statements and we’ll move on, okay? New question. Vice President Gore. How would you contrast your approach to preventing future oil price and supply problems like we have now to the approach of Governor Bush?GORE: Excellent question. And here is the simple difference. My plan has not only a short-term component, but also a long-term component. And it focuses not only on increasing the supply, which I think we have to do, but also on working on the consumption side. Now, in the short-term we have to free ourselves from the domination of the big oil companies that have the ability to manipulate the price from OPEC when they want to raise the price. And in the long-term we have to give new incentives for the development of domestic resources like deep gas in the western Gulf, like stripper wells for oil, but also renewable sources of energy. And domestic sources that are cleaner and better. And I’m proposing a plan that will give tax credits and tax incentives for the rapid development of new kinds of cars and trucks and buses and factories and boilers and furnaces that don’t have as much pollution, that don’t burn as much energy, and that help us get out on the cutting edge of the new technologies that will create millions of new jobs. Because, when we sell these new products here, we’ll then be able to sell them overseas. There is a ravenous demand for them overseas. Now, another big difference is Governor Bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the big oil companies to go in and start producing oil there. I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months’ worth of oil and the oil wouldn’t start flowing for many years into the future. I don’t think it’s a fair price to pay to destroy precious parts of America’s environment. We have to bet on the future and move beyond the current technologies to have a whole new generation of more efficient, cleaner, energy technology.BUSH: It’s an issue I know a lot about. I was a small oil person for a while in west Texas. This is an administration that’s had no plan. And all of a sudden the results of having no plan have caught up with America. First and foremost we have to fully fund LIHEAP which is a way to help low income folks, particularly here in the east to pay for high fuel bills. Secondly, we need an active exploration program in America. The only way to become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore at home. You bet I want to open up a small part of Alaska. When that field is online it will produce one million barrels a day. Today we import one million barrels from Saddam Hussein. I would rather that a million come from our own hemisphere, our own country as opposed to Saddam Hussein. I want to build more pipelines to move natural gas throughout this hemisphere. I want to develop the coal resources in America. Have clean coal technologies. We’ve got abundant supplies of energy here in America and we’d better get after it, we better start exploring it or otherwise we’ll be in deep trouble in the future because of our dependency upon foreign sources of crude.MODERATOR: So if somebody is watching tonight and listening to what the two of you just said, is it fair to say, okay, the differences between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore are as follows. You’re for doing something on the consumption end and you’re for doing something on the production end?GORE: Let me clarify. I’m for doing something both on the supply side and production side and on the consumption side. Let me say, that I found one thing in Governor Bush’s answer that we certainly agree on, and that’s the low income heating assistance program. I commend you for supporting that. I worked to get $400 million just a couple of weeks ago. And to establish a permanent home heating oil reserve here in the northeast. Now, as for the proposals that I’ve worked for for renewables and conservation and efficiencies and new technologies. The fact is for the last few years in the Congress, we’ve faced a lot of opposition to them. They’ve only approved about 10% of the agenda I’ve helped to send up there. I think we need to get serious about this energy crisis, both in the Congress and in the White House, and if you entrust me with the presidency, I will tackle this problem and focus on new technologies that will make us less dependent on big oil or foreign oil.MODERATOR: How would you draw the difference?BUSH: Well I would first say he should have been tackling it for the last seven years. Secondly the difference is we need to explore at home. And the vice president doesn’t believe in exploration in Alaska. There’s a lot of shut-in gas that we need to be moving out of Alaska by pipeline. There’s an interesting issue up in the northwest as well. Do we remove dams that produce hydroelectric energy? I’m against removing dams in the northwest. I don’t know where the vice president stands but that’s a renewable energy source of energy. We need to keep that in line. I was in coal country in West Virginia yesterday. There is an abundant supply of coal in America. I know we can do a better job of clean coal technologies. I’m going to ask the Congress for $2 billion to make sure we have the cleanest coal technologies in the world. My answer to you is in the short-term we need to get after it here in America. We need to explore our resources and we need to develop our reservoirs of domestic production. We also need to have a hemispheric energy policy where Canada, Mexico and the United States come together. I brought this up recently with Vincent Fox the newly elected president in Mexico, he’s a man I know from Mexico. I talked to him about how best to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. This is a major problem facing America. The administration did not deal with it. It’s time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem.GORE: If I may just briefly, Jim, note. I found a couple of other things we agree upon. We may not find that many this evening, so I wanted to emphasize. I strongly support new investments in clean coal technology. I made a proposal three months ago on this. And also domestic exploration yes, but not in the environmental treasures of our country. We don’t have to do that. That’s the wrong choice. I know the oil companies have been itching to do that, but it is not the right thing for the future.BUSH: No. It’s the right thing for the consumers. Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers. And we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.GORE: Well can I have the last word on this?MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA’s approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?BUSH: I don’t think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I’m worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it’s a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those living all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. This is an issue that will require a new attitude. We’ve been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to — to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor’s life with a gun will understand that that’s not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman’s life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That’s not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman’s right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman’s right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman’s right to choose ought to be protected and defended.MODERATOR: Governor, we’ll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you’re elected president, not through appointments to the FDA, you won’t support legislation to overturn this?BUSH: I don’t think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.MODERATOR: That means you wouldn’t, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to —BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it’s been made unless it’s proven to be unsafe to women.GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order — he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume — you’re pro-life.BUSH: I am pro-life.MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to write social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they’re appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn’t misuse their bench. I don’t believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint. I’ve named four supreme court justices in the State of Texas and would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They’re good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.MODERATOR: What kind of appointments should they expect from you?GORE: We both use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don’t favor a litmus test, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think would have it quite likely they would uphold Roe v. Wade.MODERATOR: Is the vice president right? Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?BUSH: It sounds like the vice president’s not right very many times tonight. I just told you the criteria on which I’ll appoint judges. I have a record of appointing judges in the State of Texas. That’s what a governor gets to do. A governor gets to name supreme court judges. He also reads all kinds of things into my tax plan and into my Medicare plan. I want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to say about it.MODERATOR: Reverse the question. What code phrases should we read by what you said about what kind of people you would appoint?GORE: It would be likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade. I do believe it’s wrong to use a litmus test. If you look at the history of a lower court judge’s rulings, you can get a pretty good idea of how they’ll interpret questions. A lot of questions are first impression, and these questions that have been seen many times come up in a new context and so — but, you know, this is a very important issue. Because a lot of young women in this country take this right for granted and it could be lost. It is on the ballot in this election, make no mistake about it.BUSH: I’ll tell you what kind of judges he’ll put on. He’ll put liberal activists justices who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that’s what he’ll do.GORE: That’s not right.MODERATOR: New subject, new question. Vice President Gore, if President Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to accept the election results and leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there?GORE: Well, Milosevic has lost the election. His opponent, Kostunica, has won the election. It’s overwhelming. Milosevic’s government refuses to release the vote count. There’s now a general strike going on. They’re demonstrating. I think we should support the people of Serbia and Yugoslavia, as they call the Serbia plus Montenegro, and put pressure in every way possible to recognize the lawful outcome of the election. The people of Serbia have acted very bravely in kicking this guy out of office. Now he is trying to not release the votes and then go straight to a so-called runoff election without even announcing the results of the first vote. Now, we’ve made it clear, along with our allies, that when Milosevic leaves, then Serbia will be able to have a more normal relationship with the rest of the world. That is a very strong incentive that we’ve given them to do the right thing. Bear in mind also, Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal and he should be held accountable for his actions. Now, we have to take measured steps because the sentiment within Serbia is, for understandable reasons, against the United States because their nationalism — even if they don’t like Milosevic, they still have some feelings lingering from the NATO action there. So we have to be intelligent in the way we go about it. But make no mistake about it, we should do everything we can to see that the will of the Serbian people expressed in this extraordinary election is done. And I hope that he’ll be out of office very shortly.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, one minute.BUSH: Well, I’m pleased with the results of the election. As the vice president is. It’s time for the man to go. It means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO. That’s why it’s important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on Mr. Milosevic. But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well. Be a wonderful time for the Russians to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic that it’s in his best interest and his country’s best interest to leave office. The Russians have a lot of sway in that part of the world. We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. It’s an encouraging election. It’s time for the man to leave.MODERATOR: What if he doesn’t leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure from all over the world and he still doesn’t go? Is this the kind of thing, to be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?GORE: In this particular situation, no. Bear in mind that we have a lot of sanctions in force against Serbia right now. And the people of Serbia know that they can escape all those sanctions if this guy is turned out of power. Now, I understand what the governor has said about asking the Russians to be involved, and under some circumstances that might be a good idea. But being as they have not yet been willing to recognize Kostunica as the lawful winner of the election, I’m not sure it’s right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this — this dispute there because we might not like the results that comes out of that. They currently favor going forward with a runoff election. I think that’s the wrong thing. I think the governor’s instinct is not necessarily bad because we have worked with the Russians in a constructive way in Kosovo, for example, to end the conflict there. But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn’t use the Russians if they didn’t agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President.GORE: They don’t.BUSH: Let me say this to you, I wouldn’t use force. I wouldn’t use force.MODERATOR: You wouldn’t use force?BUSH: No.MODERATOR: Why not?BUSH: It’s not in our national interest to use force in this case. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference with what the president did in Kosovo which I supported and this. It’s up to the people in this region to take control of their country.MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief who clearly sets the mission. The mission is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.GORE: Let me tell you what I’ll do. First of all  I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I’ve set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we’ve tried every other course, if we’re sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don’t want to get involved everywhere doesn’t mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there’s a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that’s not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? The warning signs are real. Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. The other day I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. They said even if we are the strongest if we don’t do something if we don’t have a clear vision of the military, if we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power. It’s one of the major priorities of my administration.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions, whether it’s Milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area?GORE: Well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as I did. But I went anyway because I knew if I didn’t, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place. I served for eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control. I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years I’ve served on the National Security Council, and when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that’s where World War I started in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poisonous gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. We have to be willing to make good, sound judgments. Incidentally, I know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology. The governor has proposed skipping the next generation of weapons. I think that’s a big mistake, because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge.MODERATOR: Governor, how would you advise the voters to make the decision on this issue?BUSH: I think you’ve got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it’s — the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls and focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I’ve been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I’ve had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that’s an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I’ve shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there’s one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to — because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who’s shown the ability to get things done?GORE: If I could say one thing.MODERATOR: We are way over three-and-a-half minutes. Go ahead.GORE: One of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to re-establish the old-fashioned principle that politics ought to stop at the water’s edge. When I was in the United States Congress, I worked with former President Reagan to modernize our strategic weaponry and to pursue arms control in a responsible way. When I was in the United States Senate I worked with former President Bush, your father. I was one of only a few Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf War. I think bipartisanship is a national asset. We have to find ways to reestablish it in foreign policy and national security policy.MODERATOR: Do you have a problem with that?BUSH: Yeah. Why haven’t they done it in seven years?MODERATOR: New subject. New question. Should the voters of this election, Vice President Gore, see this in the domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies?GORE: Oh, absolutely. This is a very important moment in the history of our country. Look, we’ve got the biggest surpluses in all of American history. The key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn’t go just to the few. Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush’s plan, go to the wealthiest 1%. I think we have to make the right and responsible choices. I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors, not just to the poor, under Medicare, not relying on HMOs and insurance companies. I think that we have to help parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are just heart sick that their children are exposed to. I think we’ve got to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. I think that we have got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt will be completely eliminated by the year 2012. I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. I don’t think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. I think it needs to be moved out of the budget and protected. I’ll veto anything that takes money out of Social Security or Medicare for anything other than Social Security or Medicare. Now, the priorities are just very different. I’ll give you a couple of examples. For every new dollar that I propose for spending on health care, Governor Bush spends $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Those are very clear differences.MODERATOR: Governor, one minute.BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There’s differences. Under Vice President Gore’s plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. We’re talking about a massive government, folks. We’re talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. Imagine how many IRS agents it is going to take to be able to figure out his targeted tax cut for the middle class that excludes 50 million Americans. There is a huge difference in this campaign. He says he’s going to give you tax cuts. 50 million of you won’t receive it. He said in his speech he wants to make sure the right people get tax relief. That’s not the role of a president to decide right and wrong. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay a higher percentage of taxes then they do today, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won’t pay any tax at all. It’s a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own.GORE: Let me just say, Jim, you haven’t heard the governor deny these numbers. He’s called them phony and fuzzy. The fact remains almost 30% of his proposed tax cut goes to — only to Americans that make more than $1 million per year. More money goes to the — can I have a rebuttal here?MODERATOR: I want to see if he buys that.BUSH: Let me tell you what the facts are. The facts are after my plan, the wealthiest of Americans pay more taxes of the percentage of the whole than they do today. Secondly, if you’re a family of four making $50,000 in Massachusetts, you get a 50% tax cut. Let me give you one example. The Strunk family in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day. They make $51,000 combined income, they pay about $3500 in taxes. Under my plan, they get $1800 of tax relief. Under Vice President Gore’s plan, they get $145 of tax relief. Now you tell me who stands on the side of the fence. You ask the Strunks whose plan makes more sense. There is a difference of opinion. He would rather spend the family’s $1800 and I would rather the Strunks spend their own money.MODERATOR: Do you see it that way Mr. Vice President?GORE: No, I don’t, and I’m not going to go to calling names on his facts. I’m just gonna tell you what the real facts are. The analysis that he’s talking about leaves out more than half of the tax cuts that I have proposed. And if you just add the numbers up, he still hasn’t denied it, he spends more money on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% than all his new proposals for prescription drugs, healthcare, education, and national defense combined. Now those are the wrong priorities. $665 billion over ten years for the wealthiest 1%. As I said, almost 30% of it goes to Americans that make more than $1 million per year. Every middle class family is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal. Let me give you some specific examples. I believe college tuition up to $10,000 per year ought to be tax deductible so middle-class families can choose to send their children to college. I believe all senior citizens should be able to choose their own doctors and get prescription drugs from their own pharmacists with Medicare paying half the bill. I believe parents ought to be able to make more choices need more public and charter school choice to send their kids always to a safe school. We need to make education the number one priority in our country and treat teachers like the professionals that they are. And that’s why I have made it a number one priority in my budget, not a tax cut for the wealthy.BUSH: Let me talk about tax cuts one more time. This is a man whose plan excludes 50 million Americans.GORE: Not so.BUSH: Take for example the marriage penalty. If you itemize your tax return, you get no marriage penalty relief. He picks and chooses. He decides who the right people are. It’s a fundamental difference of opinion. I want my fellow Americans to hear one more time. We’ll spend $25 trillion — we’ll collect $25 trillion in revenue in the next 10 years and spend $21 trillion. Surely we can send 5% back to you that pay the bills. There’s a problem wait. I want to say something, Jim. This man has been disparaging my plan with all this Washington fuzzy math. I want you to hear a problem we’ve got here in the USA. If you’re a single mother making $22,000 a year and you have two children, under this tax code, for every additional dollar you make, you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making more than $200,000 a year, and that is not right. My plan drops the rate from 15% to 10% and increases the child credit from $500 to $1,000 to make the code more fair for everybody, not just a few, not just a handful. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get some relief.MODERATOR: Having cleared that up, we’re going to a new question. Education. Governor Bush. Both of you have promised dramatically to change — to change dramatically public education in this country. Of the public money spent on education, only 6% of that is federal money. You want to change 100% of the public education with 6% of the money, is that possible?BUSH: We can make a huge difference by saying if you receive federal money we expect you to show results. Let me give you a story about public education, if I might. It’s about Kipp Academy in Houston, Texas. A charter school run by some people from Teach For America. Young folks saying I’m going to do something good for my country. I want to teach. A guy named Michael runs the school. It is a school full of so-called at-risk children. It’s how we unfortunately label certain children. Basically it means they can’t learn. It’s a school of strong discipline and high standards. It’s one of the best schools in Houston. Here are the key ingredients. High expectations, strong accountabily. What Michael says, don’t put all these rules on us, just let us teach and hold us accountable for every grade. That’s what we do. And as a result, these mainly Hispanic youngsters are some of the best learners in Houston, Texas. That’s my vision for public education all around America. Many of you viewers don’t know, but Laura and I sent our girls to public school. They went to Austin High School. And many of the public schools are meeting the call. But, unfortunately, a lot of schools are trapping children in schools that just won’t teach and won’t change. Here is the role of the federal government. One is to change Head Start to a reading program. Two is to say if you want to access reading money, you can do so. The goal is for every single child to learn to Read. there must by K-2 diagnostic teaching tools, teacher training money, available. Three, we have to consolidate the federal programs to free districts to free the schools and encourage innovators like Michael. Let them reach out beyond the confines of the current structure to recruit teach-for-the-children type teachers. Four, we’re going to say if you receive federal money, measure third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade. Show us if they are learning to read, write, add and subtract and if so there will be bonus plans. But if not, instead of continuing to subsidize failure, the money will go to — the federal money will go to the parents for public school or charter school or tutorial or Catholic school. What I care about is children. And so does Michael Feinberg. And you know what? It can happen in America with the right kind of leadership.GORE: We agree on a couple of things on education. I strongly support new accountability, so does Governor Bush. I strongly support local control, so does Governor Bush. I’m in favor of testing as a way of measuring performance. Every school and every school district, have every state test the children. I’ve also proposed a voluntary national test in the fourth grade and eighth grade, and a form of testing the governor has not endorsed. I think that all new teachers ought to be tested in the subjects that they teach. We’ve got to recruit 100,000 new teachers. And I have budgeted for that. We’ve got to reduce the class size so that the student who walks in has more one-on-one time with the teacher. We ought to have universal pre-school and we ought to make college tuition tax deductible, up to $10,000 a year. I would like to tell you a quick story. I got a letter today as I left Sarasota, Florida. I’m here with a group of 13 people from around the country who helped me prepare. We had a great time. Two days ago we ate lunch at a restaurant. The guy that served us lunch gave me a letter today. His name is Randy Ellis. He has a 15-year-old daughter named Caley, who is in Sarasota High School. Her science class was supposed to be for 24 students. She’s the 36th student in that classroom. They sent me a picture of her in the classroom. They can’t squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during class. I want the federal government, consistent with local control and new accountability, to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so Caley will have a desk and can sit down in a classroom where she can learn.MODERATOR: All right. So having heard the two of you, the voters have just heard the two of you, what is the difference? What is the choice between the two of you on education?BUSH: The first is, the difference is there is no new accountability measures in Vice President Gore’s plan. He says he’s for voluntary testing. You can’t have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. That’s the difference. You may claim you’ve got mandatory testing but you don’t, Mr. Vice President. That’s a huge difference. Testing is the cornerstone of reform. You know how I know? Because it’s the cornerstone of reform in the State of Texas. Republicans and Democrats came together and said what can we do to make our public education the best in the country? We’ve done a long way working together to do so. The cornerstone is to have strong accountability in return for money and in return for flexibility. We’re going to ask you to show us whether or not — we ask you to post the results on the Internet. We encourage parents to take a look at the comparative results of schools. We have a strong charter school movement that I signed the legislation to get started in the State of Texas. I believe if we find poor children trapped in schools that won’t teach, we need to free the parents. We need to expand education savings accounts. Something that the vice president’s running mate supports. There’s big differences. He won’t support freeing local districts from the strings of federal money.GORE: First of all, I do have mandatory testing. I think the governor may not have heard what I said clearly. The voluntary national testing is in addition to the mandatory testing that we require of states. All schools, all school districts, students themselves, and required teacher testing, which goes a step farther than Governor Bush has been willing to go. Here are a couple of differences, though, Jim. Governor Bush is in favor of vouchers which take taxpayer money away from public schools and give them to private schools that are not accountable for how the money is used and don’t have to take all applicants. Now, private schools play a great role in our society. All of our children have gone to both public schools and private schools. But I don’t think private schools should have a right to take taxpayer money away from public schools at a time when Caley Ellis is standing in that classroom. Let me give you another example. I went to a school in Dade County, Florida where the facilities are so overcrowded the children have to eat lunch in shifts with the first shift for lunch starting at 9:30 in the morning. Look, this is a funding crisis all around the country. There are fewer parents of school-age children as a percentage of the voting population and there is the largest generation of students ever. We’re in an information age when learning is more important than ever. 90% of our kids go to public schools. We have to make it the number one priority. Modernize our schools, reduce class size, recruit new teachers, give every child a chance to learn with one-on-one time in a quality — high-quality, safe school. If it’s a failing school, shut it down and reopen it under a new principal with a turnaround team of specialists the way Governor Jim Hunt does in North Carolina. Here is another difference. The governor, if it’s a failing school, would leave the children in that failing school for three years and then give a little bit of money to the parents, a down payment on a down payment for private school tuition, and pretend that that would be enough for them to go out and go to a private school. It’s an illusion.MODERATOR: Wait a minute, Governor.BUSH: Okay. First of all, most of good governance is at the state level. See, here is the mentality. I’m going to make the state do this and make the state do that. All I’m saying is if you spend money, show us results and test every year, which you do not do, Mr. Vice President. You don’t test every year. You can say you do to the cameras but you don’t, unless you’ve changed your plan here on the stage.GORE: I didn’t say that.BUSH: You need to test every year. That’s how you determine if children are progressing to excellence. Secondly, one of the things that we have to be careful about in politics is throwing money at a system that has not yet been reformed. More money is needed and I spend more money, but step one is to make sure we reform the system to have the system in place that leaves no child behind. Stop this business about asking gosh, how old are you? If you’re 10 we’ll put you here, 12 you put here. Start asking the question, what do you know? If you don’t know what you’re supposed to know, we’ll make sure you do early before it’s too late.MODERATOR: New question. We’ve been talking about a lot of specific issues. It’s often said that in the final analysis about 90% of being the President of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign. Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken, that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire?GORE: When the action in Kosovo was dragging on and we were searching for a solution to the problem, our country had defeated the adversary on the battlefield without a single American life being lost in combat. But the dictator Milosevic was hanging on. I invited the former prime minister of Russia to my house and took a risk in asking him to get personally involved, along with the head of Finland, to go to Belgrade and to take a set of proposals from the United States that would constitute basically a surrender by Serbia. But it was a calculated risk that paid off. Now, I could probably give you some other examples of decisions over the last 24 years. I have been in public service for 24 years, Jim. And throughout all that time the people I have fought for have been the middle-class families, and I have been willing to stand up to powerful interests like the big insurance companies, the drug companies, the HMOs, the oil companies. They have good people and they play constructive roles sometimes, but sometimes they get too much power. I cast my lot with the people even when it means that you have to stand up to some powerful interests who are trying to turn the — the policies and the laws to their advantage. You can see it in this campaign. The big drug companies support Governor Bush’s prescription drug proposal. They oppose mine because they don’t want to get Medicare involved because they’re afraid that Medicare will negotiate lower prices for seniors who currently pay the highest prices of all.MODERATOR: Governor Bush?BUSH: I’ve been standing up to big Hollywood, big trial lawyers. Was – what was the question? It was about emergencies, wasn’t it?MODERATOR: It was about — okay.BUSH: You know, as governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe. I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Texas. I remember the floods that swept our state. I remember going down to Del Rio, Texas. I have to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that’s the time when you’re tested not only — it’s the time to test your mettle, a time to test your heart when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down. It broke my heart to go to the flood scene in Del Rio where a fellow and his family got completely uprooted. The only thing I knew to do was to get aid as quickly as possible with state and federal help, and to put my arms around the man and his family and cry with them. That’s what governors do. They are often on the front line of catastrophic situations.MODERATOR: New question. There can be all kinds of crises, Governor. A questions for you. There could be a crisis, for instance, in the financial area, the stock market could take a tumble, there could be a failure of a major financial institution. What is your general attitude toward government intervention in such events?BUSH: Well, it depends, obviously. But what I would do first and foremost, is I would get in touch with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, to find out all the facts and all the circumstances. I would have my Secretary of the Treasury be in touch with the financial centers not only here, but at home. I would make sure that key members of Congress were called in to discuss the gravity of the situation. And I would come up with a game plan to deal with it. That’s what governors end up doing. We end up being problem solvers. We come up with practical, common sense solutions for problems that we’re confronted with. In this case, in the case of a financial crisis, I would gather all the facts before I made the decision as to what the government ought or ought not to do.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. And I agree, it works extremely well now. On the international financial crises that come up, my friend, Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of Treasury is here, he’s a close advisor to me and great friend in all respects. I have had a chance to work with him and Alan Greenspan and others on the crisis following the collapse of the Mexican peso. When the Asian financial crisis raised the risk of world-wide recession that could affect our economy, And now, of course, the euro’s value has been dropping, but seems to be under control. But it started for me in the last eight years when I had the honor of casting the tie-breaking vote to end the old economic plan here at home and put into place a new economic plan that has helped us to make some progress, 22 million new jobs, the greatest prosperity ever. But it’s not good enough. My attitude is you ain’t seen nothing yet. We need to do more and better.MODERATOR: So, Governor, would you agree there is no basic difference here on intervening — on federal government intervening in what might be seen by others to be a private financial crisis?BUSH: No, there’s no difference on that. There is a difference, though, as to what the economy has meant. I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks have meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship and that’s the role of goverment to encourage that. In terms of in response to the question, no.GORE: Can I comment on that?MODERATOR: You may.GORE: You know, I think the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have. It’s their ingenuity, I agree with that. But you know, they were working pretty hard eight years ago. And now they had ingenuity eight years ago. The difference is we’ve got a new policy. And instead of concentrating on tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, we want — I want tax cuts for the middle-class families and I want to continue the prosperity and make sure that it enriches not just a few but all of our families. We have gone from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses. We have gone from a triple-dip recession during the previous 12 years to a tripling of the stock market. Instead of a high unemployment, we have the lowest African-American and Latin American unemployment rates in history and 22 million new jobs. It’s not good enough. Too many people have been left behind. We have got to do much more. The key is job training, education, investments in health care and education, environment, retirement security. And incidentally, we have got to preserve Social Security. I’m totally opposed to diverting one out of every six dollars out of the Social Security trust fund, as the Governor has proposed, into the stock market. I want new incentives for savings and investment for the young couples who are working hard so they can save and invest on their own on top of Social Security, not at the expense of Social Security, as the governor proposes.BUSH: Two points. One, a lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, “Just give us a chance to get up there, we’re going to make sure you get tax cuts.” It didn’t happen. Now he’s having to say that again. They’ve had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you. Secondly, the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal budget. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president’s expenditures. It’s been projected that they could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion. That means he’ll either have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion. This is a plan that is going to increase the bureaucracy by 20,000 people. His targeted tax cut is so detailed, so much fine print that it is going to require numerous IRS agents. We need somebody to simplify the code, to be fair, to continue prosperity by sharing some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic ladder.GORE: If I could respond, Jim. What he’s quoting is not the Senate Budget Commiitte, it is a partisan press release by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee that’s not worth the government — the taxpayer-paid paper that it’s printed on. Now, as for 20,000 new bureaucrats, as you call them, you know, the size of the federal government will go down in a Gore administration. In the reinventing government program you just look at the numbers. It is 300,000 people smaller today than it was eight years ago. Now, the fact is you’re going to have a hard time convincing folks that we were a whole lot better off eight years ago than we are today. But that’s not the question. The question is, will we be better off four years from now than we are today? And as for the surest way to threaten our prosperity, having a $1.9 trillion tax cut, almost half of which goes to the wealthy, and a $1 trillion Social Security privatization proposal is the surest way to put our budget into deficit – raise interest rates and put our prosperity at risk.BUSH: I can’t let the man continue with fuzzy math. It is 1.3 trillion Mr. Vice President. It will go to everybody who pays taxes. I’m not going to be the kind of president that says you get tax relief and you don’t. I’m not going to be a picker and chooser. What is fair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief.MODERATOR: I thought we cleared this up a while ago. New question on Social Security. Both of you have Social Security reform plans, so we could spend the rest of the evening and two or three other evenings talking about them in detail. We won’t do that. But —GORE: Suits me.MODERATOR: Many experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, Vice President Gore, say that it will be impossible for either of you, essentially, to keep the system viable on its own during the coming baby boomer retirement onslaught without either reducing benefits or increasing taxes. You disagree?GORE: I do disagree. Because if we can keep our prosperity going, if we can continue balancing the budget and paying down the debt, then the strong economy keeps generating surpluses. Here is my plan. I will keep Social Security in a lockbox and that pays down the national debt. And the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security. That extends the life of Social Security for 55 years. Now, I think that it’s very important to understand that cutting benefits under Social Security means that people like Winifred Skinner from Des Moines, Iowa, who is here, would really have a much harder time. Because there are millions of seniors who are living almost hand to mouth. And you talk about cutting benefits. I don’t go along with it. I am opposed to it. I’m also opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every $6 away from the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security is a trust fund that pays the checks this year with the money that is paid into Social Security this year. The governor wants to divert 1 out of every $6 off into the stock market, which means that he would drain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund in this generation over the next ten years, and Social Security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. His leading advisor on this plan actually said that would be okay, because then the Social Security Trust Fund could start borrowing. It would borrow up to $3 trillion. Now, Social Security has never done that. And I don’t think it should do that. I think it should stay in a lockbox, and I’ll tell you this. I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else other than Social Security.BUSH: I thought it was interesting that on the two minutes he spent about a million-and-a-half on my plan, which means he doesn’t want you to know what he’s doing is loading up IOUs for future generations. He puts no real assets into the Social Security system. The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security until the year 2015 which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. For those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear. A promise made will be a promise kept. You bet we want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money. That’s the difference of opinion. The vice president thinks it’s the government’s money. The payroll taxes are your money. You ought to put it in prudent, safe investments so that $1 trillion over the next ten years grows to be $3 trillion. The money stays within the Social Security system. It’s a part of the Social Security system. He claims it will be out of Social Security. It’s your money, it’s a part of your retirement benefit. It’s a fundamental difference between what we believe. I want you to have your own asset that you can call your own. That you can pass on from one generation to the next. I want to get a better rate of return for your own money than the paltry 2% that the current Social Security Trust gets today. Mr. Greenspan I thought missed an opportunity to say there’s a third way, and that is to get a better rate of return on the Social Security monies coming into the trust. There is $2.3 trillion of surplus that we can use to make sure that younger workers have a Social Security plan in the future. If we’re smart and if we trust workers and if we understand the power of the compounding rate of interest.GORE: Here is the difference. I give a new incentive for younger workers to save their own money and invest their own money, but not at the expense of Social Security, on top of Social Security. My plan is Social Security plus. The governor’s plan is Social Security minus. Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that’s diverted into the stock market. If you make bad investments, that’s too bad. But even before then the problem hits because the money contributed to Social Security this year is an entitlement. That’s how it works. And the money is used to pay the benefits for seniors this year. If you cut the amount going in 1 out of every $6, then you have to cut the value of each check by 1 out of every $6 unless you come up with the money from somewhere else. I would like to know from the governor — I know we’re not supposed to ask each other questions — but I’d be interested in knowing, does that trillion dollars come from the trust fund, or does it come from the rest of the budget?BUSH: No. There’s enough money to pay seniors today in the current affairs of Social Security. The trillion comes from the surplus. Surplus is money — more money than needed. Let me tell you what your plan is. It’s not Social Security plus, it’s Social Security plus huge debt. That is what it is. You leave future generations with tremendous IOUs. It’s time to have a leader that doesn’t put off tomorrow what we should do today. It’s time to have somebody to step up and say look, let’s let younger workers take some of their own money and under certain guidelines invest it in the private markets. The safest of federal investments yields 4%. That’s twice the amount of rate of return than the current Social Security Trust. It’s a fundamental difference of opinion here, folks. Younger worker after younger worker hears my call that says I trust you. And you know what, the issue is changing. Seniors now understand that the promise made will be a promise kept, but younger workers now understand we better have a government that trusts them and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.GORE: Could I respond to that, Jim? This is a big issue. Could we do another round on it?MODERATOR: We’re almost out of time.GORE: Just briefly. When FDR established Social Security, they didn’t call them IOUs, they called it the full faith and credit of the United States. If you don’t have trust in that, I do. If you take it out of the surplus in the trust fund, that means the trust fund goes bankrupt in this generation within 20 years.BUSH: This is a government that thinks a 2% rate of return on your money is satisfactory. It’s not. This is a government that says younger workers can’t possibly have their own assets. We need to think differently about the issue. We need to make sure our seniors get the promise made. If we don’t trust younger workers to manage some of their own money with the Social Security surplus, to grow from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, it will be impossible to bridge the gap without it. What Mr. Gore’s plan will do causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.MODERATOR: New question. Are there issues of character that distinguish you from Vice President Gore?BUSH: The man loves his wife and I appreciate that a lot. And I love mine. The man loves his family a lot, and I appreciate that, because I love my family. I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, “No controlling legal authority.” I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that — I believe they’ve moved that sign, “The buck stops here” from the Oval Office desk to “The buck stops here” on the Lincoln bedroom. It’s not good for the country and it’s not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There’s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don’t want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It’s time for a fresh start. It’s time for a new look. It’s time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism. And so I don’t know the man well, but I’ve been disappointed about how he and his administration have conducted the fundraising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn’t a fundraiser isn’t my view of responsibility.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I think we ought to attack our country’s problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person. You may want to focus on scandal. I want to focus on results. As I said a couple of months ago, I stand here as my own man and I want you to see me for who I really am. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years. We became grandparents a year-and-a-half ago. We’ve got four children. I have devoted 24 years of my life to public service and I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if you entrust me with the presidency, I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will work hard for you every day. I will fight for middle-class families and working men and women and I will never let you down.MODERATOR: So, Governor, what are you saying when you mention the fundraising scandals or the fundraising charges that involve Vice President Gore? What are you saying that the voters should take from that that’s relevant to this election?BUSH: They ought to factor in it when they go to the voting booth.MODERATOR: In what way?BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that — well, I think that’s part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that’s the way I’ve conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that’s the way I’ll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote.MODERATOR: Are you saying all this is irrelevant, Vice President Gore?GORE: No. I think the American people should take into account who we are as individuals, what our experience is, what our positions are on the issues and proposals are. I’m asking you to see me for who I really am. I’m offering you my own vision, my own experience, my own proposals. And incidentally, one of them is this. This current campaign financing system has not reflected credit on anybody in either party. And that’s one of the reasons I’ve said before, and I’ll pledge here tonight, if I’m president, the very first bill that Joe Lieberman and I will send to the United States Congress is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. And the reason it’s that important is that all of the other issues, whether prescription drugs for all seniors that are opposed by the drug companies or the patient’s bill of rights to take the decisions away from the HMOs and give them to the doctors and nurses, opposed by the HMOs and insurance companies, all these other proposals are going to be a lot easier to get passed for the American people if we limit the influence of special interest money and give democracy back to the American people. And I wish Governor Bush would join me this evening in endorsing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill.BUSH: You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the “New York Times” where he said he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fundraising Bill. But he wasn’t in the Senate with Senator Feingold. And so, look, I’m going to — what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I’m going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.MODERATOR: Senator McCain — hold on one second. Senator McCain said in August, “It doesn’t matter which one of you is President of the United States in January, there is going to be blood on the floor of the United States Senate,” and he’ll tie up the Senate until campaign finance reform is passed that includes a ban on soft money. First of all, would you support that effort by him, or would you sign a bill that is finally passed that included —BUSH: I would support an effort to ban corporate soft money and labor union soft money so long as there was dues check-off. I’ve campaigned on this since the primaries. I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who. I think we need to fully enforce the law. I think we need to have an attorney general that says if a law is broken, we’ll enforce it. Be strict and firm about it.GORE: Look, Governor Bush, you have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind. I think we ought to focus on the problems and not attack each other. One of the serious problems, hear me well, is that our system of government is being undermined by too much influence coming from special interest money. We have to get a handle on it. And like John McCain, I have learned from experience, and it’s not a new position for me. 24 years ago I supported full public financing of all federal elections. And anybody who thinks I’m just saying it, it will be the first bill I send to the Congress. I want you to know I care passionately about this and I will fight until it becomes law.BUSH: I want people to hear what he just said. He is for full public financing of Congressional elections. I’m absolutely, adamently opposed to that. I don’t want the government financing congressional elections.MODERATOR: On that wonderful note of disagreement, we have to stop here and we want to go now to your closing statements. Governor Bush is first. You have two minutes.BUSH: Thank you, Jim. Thank the University of Massachusetts and Mr. Vice President, thank you. It has been a good, lively exchange. There is a huge difference of opinion. Mine is I want to empower people in their own lives. I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation. It will require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, let’s come together to do what is right for America. It’s been my record as Governor of Texas, it will be how I conduct myself if I’m fortunate enough to earn your vote as President of the United States. I want to finally get something done on Medicare. I want to make sure prescription drugs are available for all seniors. And I want seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plans. I want to finally get something done on Social Security. I want to make sure the seniors have the promise made will be a promise kept, but I want younger workers to be able to manage some of their own money, some of their own payroll taxes in the private sector under certain guidelines to get a better rate of return on your own money. I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the United States in world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman, I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. I want anti-ballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail our allies and friends. I want to make sure the education system fulfills its hope and promise. I’ve had a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no child is left behind. I understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability systems. My intentions are to earn your vote and earn your confidence. I’m asking for your vote. I want you to be on my team. And for those of you working, thanks from the bottom of my heart. For those of you making up your mind, I would be honored to have your support.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, two minutes.GORE: I want to thank everybody who watched and listened tonight because this is indeed a crucial time in American history. We’re at a fork in the road. We have this incredible prosperity, but a lot of people have been left behind. And we have a very important decision to make. Will we use the prosperity to enrich all of our families and not just a few? One important way of looking at this is to ask who are you going to fight for? Throughout my career in public service, I have fought for the working men and women of this country, middle-class families. Why? Because you are the ones who have the hardest time paying taxes, the hardest time making ends meet. You are the ones who are making car payments and mortgage payments and doing right by your kids. And a lot of times there are powerful forces that are against you. Make no mistake about it, they do have undue influence in Washington, D.C. and it makes a difference if you have a president who will fight for you. I know one thing about the position of president, it’s the only position in our Constitution that is filled by an individual who is given the responsibility to fight not just for one state or one district or the well-connected or wealthy, but to fight for all of the people, including especially those who most need somebody who will stand up and take on whatever powerful forces might stand in the way. There is a woman named Winifred Skinner here tonight from Iowa. I mentioned her earlier. She’s 79 years old. She has Social Security. I’m not going to cut her benefits or support any proposal that would. She gets a small pension, but in order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week several hours a day picking up cans. She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order attend here tonight. I want to tell her, I’ll fight for a prescription drug benefit for all seniors and fight for the people of this country for a prosperity that benefits all.MODERATOR: We will continue this dialogue next week on October 11th at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The format then will be more informal, more conversational with the two candidates seated at a table with me. The third will be October 17th at Washington University in St. Louis, and that will follow a town-hall type format. Also on the day after tomorrow, October 5, there is a 90-minute debate between the democratic nominee for vice president, Senator Joe Lieberman and the republican candidate for vice president former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. It will be held at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. The moderator will be Bernard Shaw of CNN. Thank you, Governor Bush, Vice President Gore. See you next week. For now from Boston, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "38323412-978a-43c5-af35-c31a89b6d89e"
  },
  {
    "year": 1960,
    "date": "October 21, 1960",
    "title": "The Fourth Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 21, 1960 Debate TranscriptOctober 21, 1960The Fourth Kennedy-Nixon Presidential DebateQUINCY HOWE, MODERATOR: I am Quincy Howe of CB- of ABC News saying good evening from New York where the two major candidates for president of the United States are about to engage in their fourth radio-television discussion of the present campaign. Tonight these men will confine that discussion to foreign policy. Good evening, Vice President Nixon.MR. NIXON: Good evening, Mr. Howe.MR. HOWE: And good evening, Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Good evening, Mr. Howe.MR. HOWE: Now let me read the rules and conditions under which the candidates themselves have agreed to proceed. As they did in their first meeting, both men will make opening statements of about eight minutes each and closing statements of equal time running three to five minutes each. During the half hour between the opening and closing statements, the candidates will answer and comment upon questions from a panel of four correspondents chosen by the nationwide networks that carry the program. Each candidate will be questioned in turn with opportunity for comment by the other. Each answer will be limited to two and one-half minutes, each comment to one and one-half minutes. The correspondents are free to ask any questions they choose in the field of foreign affairs. Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked. Time alone will determine the final question. Reversing the order in their first meeting, Senator Kennedy will make the second opening statement and the first closing statement. For the first opening statement, here is Vice President Nixon.MR. NIXON: Mr. Howe, Senator Kennedy, my fellow Americans. Since this campaign began I have had a very rare privilege. I have traveled to forty-eight of the fifty states and in my travels I have learned what the people of the United States are thinking about. There is one issue that stands out above all the rest, one in which every American is concerned, regardless of what group he may be a member and regardless of where he may live. And that issue, very simply stated, is this: how can we keep the peace – keep it without surrender? How can we extend freedom – extend it without war? Now in determining how we deal with this issue, we must find the answer to a very important but simple question: who threatens the peace? Who threatens freedom in the world? There is only one threat to peace and one threat to freedom – that that is presented by the international Communist movement. And therefore if we are to have peace, we must know how to deal with the Communists and their leaders. I know Mr. Khrushchev. I also have had the opportunity of knowing and meeting other Communist leaders in the world. I believe there are certain principles we must find in dealing with him and his colleagues – principles, if followed, that will keep the peace and that also can extend freedom. First, we have to learn from the past, because we cannot afford to make the mistakes of the past. In the seven years before this Administration came into power in Washington, we found that six hundred million people went behind the Iron Curtain. And at the end of that seven years we were engaged in a war in Korea which cost of thirty thousand American lives. In the past seven years, in President Eisenhower’s Administration, this situation has been reversed. We ended the Korean War; by strong, firm leadership we have kept out of other wars; and we have avoided surrender of principle or territory at the conference table. Now why were we successful, as our predecessors were not successful? I think there’re several reasons. In the first place, they made a fatal error in misjudging the Communists; in trying to apply to them the same rules of conduct that you would apply to the leaders of the free world. One of the major errors they made was the one that led to the Korean War. In ruling out the defense of Korea, they invited aggression in that area. They thought they were going to have peace – it brought war. We learned from their mistakes. And so, in our seven years, we find that we have been firm in our diplomacy; we have never made concessions without getting concessions in return. We have always been willing to go the extra mile to negotiate for disarmament or in any other area. But we have never been willing to do anything that, in effect, surrendered freedom any place in the world. That is why President Eisenhower was correct in not apologizing or expressing regrets to Mr. Khrushchev at the Paris Conference, as Senator Kennedy suggested he could have done. That is why Senator wh- President Eisenhower was also correct in his policy in the Formosa Straits, where he declined, and refused to follow the recommendations – recommendations which Senator Kennedy voted for in 1955; again made in 1959; again repeated in his debates that you have heard – recommendations with regard to – again – slicing off a piece of free territory, and abandoning it, if – in effect, to the Communists. Why did the President feel this was wrong and why was the President right and his critics wrong? Because again this showed a lack of understanding of dictators, a lack of understanding particularly of Communists, because every time you make such a concession it does not lead to peace; it only encourages them to blackmail you. It encourages them to begin a war. And so I say that the record shows that we know how to keep the peace, to keep it without surrender. Let us move now to the future. It is not enough to stand on this record because we are dealing with the most ruthless, fanatical… leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the sixties, America must move forward in every area. First of all, although we are today, as Senator Kennedy has admitted, the strongest nation in the world militarily, we must increase our strength, increase it so that we will always have enough strength that regardless of what our potential opponents have – if the should launch a surprise attack – we will be able to destroy their war-making capability. They must know, in other words, that it is national suicide if they begin anything. We need this kind of strength because we’re the guardians of the peace. In addition to military strength, we need to see that the economy of this country continues to grow. It has grown in the past seven years. It can and will grow even more in the next four. And the reason that it must grow even more is because we have things to do at home and also because we’re in a race for survival – a race in which it isn’t enough to be ahead; it isn’t enough simply to be complacent. We have to move ahead in order to stay ahead. And that is why, in this field, I have made recommendations which I am confident will move the American economy ahead – move it firmly and soundly so that there will never be a time when the Soviet Union will be able to challenge our superiority in this field. And so we need military strength, we need economic strength, we also need the right diplomatic policies. What are they? Again we turn to the past. Firmness but no belligerence, and by no belligerence I mean that we do not answer insult by insult. When you are proud and confident of your strength, you do not get down to the level of Mr. Khrushchev and his colleagues. And that example that President Eisenhower has set we will continue to follow. But all this by itself is not enough. It is not enough for us simply to be the strongest nation militarily, the strongest economically, and also to have firm diplomacy. We must have a great goal. And that is: not just to keep freedom for ourselves but to extend it to all the world, to extend it to all the world because that is America’s destiny. To extend it to all the world because the Communist aim is not to hold their own but to extend Communism. And you cannot fight a victory for Communism or a strategy of victory for Communism with the strategy, simply of holding the line. And so I say that we believe that our policies of military strength, of economic strength, of diplomatic firmness first will keep the peace and keep it without surrender. We also believe that in the great field of ideals that we can lead America to the victory for freedom – victory in the newly developing countries, victory also in the captive countries – provided we have faith in ourselves and faith in our principles.MR. HOWE: Now the opening statement of Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Howe, Mr. Vice President. First uh – let me again try to correct the record on the matter of Quemoy and Matsu. I voted for the Formosa resolution in 1955. I have sustained it since then. I’ve said that I agree with the Administration policy. Mr. Nixon earlier indicated that he would defend Quemoy and Matsu even if the attack on these islands, two miles off the coast of China, were not part of a general attack an Formosa and the Pescadores. I indicated that I would defend those islands if the attack were directed against Pescadores and Formosa, which is part of the Eisenhower policy. I’ve supported that policy. In the last week, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have re-read the testimony of General Twining representing the Administration in 1959, and the Assistant Secretary of State before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1958, and I have accurately described the Administration policy, and I support it wholeheartedly. So that really isn’t an issue in this campaign. It isn’t an issue with Mr. Nixon, who now says that he also supports the Eisenhower policy. Nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign. The question is: are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative strength growing? Is, as Mr. Nixon says, our prestige at an all-time high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communists at an all-time low? I don’t believe it is. I don’t believe that our relative strength is increasing. And I say that not as the Democratic standard-bearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States. I look at Cuba, ninety miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957 I was in Havana. I talked to the American Ambassador there. He said that he was the second most powerful man in Cuba. And yet even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican Ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last six weeks, that in spite of their warnings to the American government, nothing was done. Our d- security depends upon Latin America. Can any American looking at the situation in Latin America feel contented with what’s happening today, when a candidate for the presidency of Brazil feels it necessary to call – not on Washington during the campaign – but on Castro in Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil? At the American Conference – Inter-American Conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn’t even get the Inter-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a vague statement that they finally made. Do you know today that the Com- the Russians broadcast ten times as many programs in Spanish to Latin America as we do? Do you know we don’t have a single program sponsored by our government to Cuba – to tell them our story, to tell them that we are their friends, that we want them to be free again? Africa is now the emerging area of the world. It contains twenty-five percent of all the members of the General Assembly. We didn’t even have a Bureau of African Affairs until 1957. In the Africa south of the Sahara, which is the major new section, we have less students from all of Africa in that area studying under government auspices today than from the country of Thailand. If there’s one thing Africa needs it’s technical assistance. And yet last year we gave them less than five percent of all the technical assistance funds that we distributed around the world. We relied in the Middle East on the Baghdad Pact, and yet when the Iraqi Government was changed, the Baghdad Pact broke down. We relied on the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East, which passed the Senate. There isn’t one country in the Middle East that now endorses the Eisenhower Doctrine. We look to Europe uh – to Asia because the struggle is in the underdeveloped world. Which system, Communism or freedom, will triumph in the next five or ten years? That’s what should concern us, not the history of ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ago. But are we doing enough in these areas? What are freedom’s chances in those areas? By 1965 or 1970, will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independent countries of Africa – will there be others? Will the Congo go Communist? Will other countries? Are we doing enough in that area? And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle or is China going to win it? Who will dominate Asia in the next five or ten years? Communism? The Chinese? Or will freedom? The question which we have to decide as Americans – are we doing enough today? Is our strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to follow United States leadership? I don’t think they do, enough. And that’s what concerns me. In Africa – these countries that have newly joined the United Nations. On the question of admission of Red China, only two countries in all of Africa voted with us – Liberia and the Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us. I believe that this struggle is going to go on, and it may be well decided in the next decade. I have seen Cuba go to the Communists. I have seen Communist influence and Castro influence rise in Latin America. I have seen us ignore Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations. There isn’t a single American diplomatic representative in any of those six. When Guinea became independent, the Soviet Ambassador showed up that very day. We didn’t recognize them for two months; the American Ambassador didn’t show up for nearly eight months. I believe that the world is changing fast. And I don’t think this Administration has shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better. The average income in some of those countries is twenty-five dollars a year. The Communists say, “Come with us; look what we’ve done.” And we’ve been in – on the whole, uninterested. I think we’re going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about our being the strongest country in the world. I think we are today. But we were far stronger relative to the Communists five years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in danger of moving with them. They made a breakthrough in missiles, and by nineteen sixty-one, two, and three, they will be outnumbering us in missiles. I’m not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963. He talks about economic growth as a great indicator of freedom. I agree with him. What we do in this country, the kind of society that we build, that will tell whether freedom will be sustained around the world. And yet, in the last nine months of this year, we’ve had a drop in our economic growth rather than a gain. We’ve had the lowest rate of increase of economic growth in the last nine months of any major industrialized society in the world. I look up and see the Soviet flag on the moon. The fact is that the State Department polls on our prestige and influence around the world have shown such a sharp drop that up till now the State Department has been unwilling to release them. And yet they were polled by the U.S.I.A. The point of all this is, this is a struggle in which we’re engaged. We want peace. We want freedom. We want security. We want to be stronger. We want freedom to gain. But I don’t believe in these changing and revolutionary times this Administration has known that the world is changing – has identified itself with that change. I think the Communists have been moving with vigor – Laos, Africa, Cuba – all around the world today they’re on the move. I think we have to revita1ize our society. I think we have to demonstrate to the people of the world that we’re determined in this free country of ours to be first – not first if, and not first but, and not first when – but first. And when we are strong and when we are first, then freedom gains; then the prospects for peace increase; then the prospects for our society gain.MR. HOWE: That completes the opening statements. Now the candidates will answer and comment upon questions put by these four correspondents: Frank Singiser of Mutual News, John Edwards of ABC News, Walter Cronkite of CBS News, John Chancellor of NBC News. Frank Singiser has the first question for Vice President Nixon.MR. SINGISER: Mr. Vice President, I’d like to pin down the difference between the way you would handle Castro’s regime and prevent the establishment of Communist governments in the Western Hemisphere and the way that t Senator Kennedy would proceed. Uh – Vice President Nixon, in what important respects do you feel there are differences between you, and why do you believe your policy is better for the peace and security of the United States in the Western Hemisphere?MR. NIXON: Our policies are very different. I think that Senator Kennedy’s policies and recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangers- dangerously irresponsible recommendations that he’s made during the course of this campaign. In effect, what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States government should give help to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regime – provided they are anti-Batista. Now let’s just see what this means. We have five treaties with Latin America, including the one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of any other American country – and they as well have agreed to do likewise. The charter of the United Nations – its Preamble, Article I and Article II – also provide that there shall be no intervention by one nation in the internal affairs of another. Now I don’t know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose the Castro regime, both in Cuba and without. But I do know this: that if we were to follow that recommendation, that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective. I know something else. It would be an open invitation for Mr. Khrushchev to come in, to come into Latin America and to engage us in what would be a civil war, and possibly even worse than that. This is the major recommendation that he’s made. Now, what can we do? Well, we can do what we did with Guatemala. There was a Communist dictator that we inherited from the previous Administration. We quarantined Mr. Arbenz. The result was that the Guatemalan people themselves eventually rose up and they threw him out. We are quarantining Mr. Castro today. We’re quarantining him diplomatically by bringing back our Ambassador; economically by cutting off trade, and Senator Kennedy’s suggestion that the trade that we cut off is not significant is just one hundred percent wrong. We are cutting off the significant items that the Cuban regime needs in order to survive. By cutting off trade, by cutting off our diplomatic relations as we have, we will quarantine this regime so that the people of Cuba themselves will take care of Mr. Castro. But for us to do what Senator Kennedy has suggested would bring results which I know he would not want, and certainly which the American people would not want.MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Nixon uh – shows himself i- misinformed. He surely must be aware that most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States, flowed out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains. There isn’t any doubt about that, number one. Number two, I believe that if any economic sanctions against Latin America are going to be successful they have to be multilateral. They have to include the other countries of Latin America. The very minute effect of the action which has been taken this week on Cuba’s economy – I believe Castro can replace those markets very easily through Latin America, through Europe, and through Eastern Europe. If the United States had stronger prestige and influence in Latin America it could persuade – as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940 – the countries of Latin America to join in an economic quarantine of Castro. That’s the only way you can bring real economic pressure on the Castro regime – and also the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan and the others. Number three, Castro is only the beginning of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big struggle will be to prevent the influence of Castro spreading to other countries – Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia. We’re going to have to try to provide closer ties, to associate ourselves with the great desire of these people for a better life if we’re going to prevent Castro’s influence from spreading throughout all of Latin America. His influence is strong enough today to prevent us from joi- getting the other countries of Latin America to join with us in economic quarantine. His influence is growing – mostly because this Administration has ignored Latin America. You yourself said, Mr. Vice President, a month ago, that if we had provided the kind of economic aid five years ago that we are now providing we might never have had Castro. Why didn’t we?MR. HOWE: John Edwards has his first question for Senator Kennedy.MR. EDWARDS: Senator Kennedy, one test of a new president’s leadership will be the caliber of his appointments. It’s a matter of interest here and overseas as to who will be the new secretary of state. Now, under our rules, I must ask this question of you, but I would hope that the Vice President also would answer it. Will you give us the names of three or four Americans, each of whom, if appointed, would serve with distinction in your judgment as secretary of state?MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Edwards, I don’t think it’s a wise idea for presidential candidates to appoint the members of his cabinet prospectively, or to suggest four people – indicate that one of them surely will be appointed. This is a decision that the president of the United States must make. The last candidate who indicated that he knew who his cabinet was going to be was Mr. Dewey in 1948. This is a race between the Vice President and myself for the presidency of the United States. There are a good many able men who could be secretary of state. I’ve made no judgment about who should be secretary of state. I think that judgment could be made after election, if I’m successful. The people have to make a choice between Mr. Nixon and myself, between the Republican party and the Democratic party, between our approach to the problems which now disturb us as a nation and disturb us as a world power. The president bears the constitutional responsibility, not the secretary of state, for the conduct of foreign affairs. Some presidents have been strong in foreign policy; others have relied heavily on the secretary of state. I’ve been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; I run for the presidency with full knowledge that his great responsibility, really, given to him by the Constitution and by the force of events, is in the field of foreign affairs. I’m asking the people’s support as president. We will select the best man we can get. But I’ve not made a judgment, and I have not narrowed down a list of three or four people, among whom would be the candidate.MR. HOWE: Mr. Vice President, do you have a comment?MR. NIXON: Well Mr. Edwards, as you probably know, I have consistently answered all questions with regard to who will be in the next cabinet by saying that that is the responsibility of the next president, and it would be inappropriate to make any decisions on that or to announce any prior to the time that I had the right to do so. So that is my answer to this question. If you don’t mind, I’d like to use the balance of the time to respond to one of the comments that Senator Kennedy made on the previous question. Eh- He was talking about the Castro regime and what we had been eh- doing in Latin America. I would like to point out that when we look at our programs in Latin America, we find that we have appropriated five times as much for Latin America as was appropriated by the previous Administration; we find that we have two billion dollars more for the Export-Import Bank; we have a new bank for Latin America alone of a billion dollars; we have the new program which was submitted at the Bogota Conference – this new program that President Eisenhower submitted, approved by the last Congress – for five hundred million dollars. We have moved in Latin America very effectively, and I’d also like to point this out: Senator Kennedy complains very appropriately about our inadequate ra- radio broadcasts for Latin America. Let me point out again that his Congress – the Democratic Congress – has cut eighty million dollars off of the Voice of America appropriations. Now, he has to get a better job out of his Congress if he’s going to get us the money that we need to conduct the foreign affairs of this country in Latin America or any place else.MR. HOWE: Walter Cronkite, you have your first question for Vice President Nixon.MR. CRONKITE: Thank you Quincy. Mr. Vice President, Senator Fulbright and now tonight, Senator Kennedy, maintain that the Administration is suppressing a report by the United States Information Agency that shows a decline in United States prestige overseas. Are you aware of such a report, and if you are aware of the existence of such a report, should not that report, because of the great importance this issue has been given in this campaign, be released to the public?MR. NIXON: Mr. Cronkite, I naturally am aware of it, because I, of course, pay attention to everything Senator Kennedy says, as well as Senator Fulbright. Now, in this connection I want to point out that the facts simply aren’t as stated. First of all, the report to which Senator Kennedy refers is one that was made many, many months ago and related particularly to the uh – period immediately after Sputnik. Second, as far as this report is concerned, I would have no objection to having it made public. Third, I would say this with regard to this report, with regard to Gallup Polls of prestige abroad and everything else that we’ve been hearing about “what about American prestige abroad”: America’s prestige abroad will be just as high as the spokesmen for America allow it to be. Now, when we have a presidential candidate, for example – Senator Kennedy – stating over and over again that the United States is second in space and the fact of the matter is that the space score today is twenty-eight to eight – we’ve had twenty-eight successful shots, they’ve had eight; when he states that we’re second in education, and I have seen Soviet education and I’ve seen ours, and we’re not; that we’re second in science because they may be ahead in one area or another, when overall we’re way ahead of the Soviet Union and all other countries in science; when he says as he did in January of this year that we have the worst slums, that we have the most crowded schools; when he says that seventeen million people go to bed hungry every night; when he makes statements like this, what does this do to American prestige? Well, it can only have the effect certainly of reducing it. Well let me make one thing clear. Senator Kennedy has a responsibility to criticize those things that are wrong, but he has also a responsibility to be right in his criticism. Every one of these items that I have mentioned he’s been wrong – dead wrong. And for that reason he has contributed to any lack of prestige. Finally, let me say this: as far as prestige is concerned, the first place it would show up would be in the United Nations. Now Senator Kennedy has referred to the vote on Communist China. Let’s look at the vote on Hungary. There we got more votes for condemning Hungary and looking into that situation than we got the last year. Let’s look at the reaction eh – reaction to Khrushchev and Eisenhower at the last U.N. session. Did Khrushchev gain because he took his shoe off and pounded the table and shouted and insulted? Not at all. The President gained. America gained by continuing the dignity, the decency that has characterized us and it’s that that keeps the prestige of America up, not running down America the way Senator Kennedy has been running her down.MR. HOWE: Comment, Senator Kennedy?MR. KENNEDY: I really don’t need uh – Mr. Nixon to tell me about what my responsibilities are as a citizen. I’ve served this country for fourteen years in the Congress and before that in the service. I’ve just as high a devotion, just as high an opinion. What I downgrade, Mr. Nixon, is the leadership the country is getting, not the country. Now I didn’t make most of the statements that you said I made. The s- I believe the Soviet Union is first in outer space. We have – may have made more shots but the size of their rocket thrust and all the rest – you yourself said to Khrushchev, “You may be ahead of us in rocket thrust but we’re ahead of you in color television” in your famous discussion in the kitchen. I think that color television is not as important as rocket thrust. Secondly, I didn’t say we had the worst slums in the world. I said we had too many slums. And that they are bad, and we ought to do something about them, and we ought to support housing legislation which this Administration has opposed. I didn’t say we had the worst education in the world. What I said was that ten years ago, we were producing twice as many scientists and engineers as the Soviet Union and today they’re producing twice as many as we are, and that this affects our security around the world. And fourth, I believe that the polls and other studies and votes in the United Nations and anyone reading the paper and any citizen of the United States must come to the conclusion that the United States no longer carries the same image of a vital society on the move with its brightest days ahead as it carried a decade or two decades ago. Part of that is because we’ve stood still here at home, because we haven’t met our problems in the United States, because we haven’t had a moving economy. Part of that, as the Gallup Polls show, is because the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in outer space. Mr. George Allen, head of your Information Service, has said that that made the people of the world begin to wonder whether we were first in science. We’re first in other areas of science but in space, which is the new science, we’re not first.MR. HOWE: John Chancellor, your first question for Senator Kennedy.MR. CHANCELLOR: Senator, another question uh – in connection with our relations with the Russians. There have been stories from Washington from the Atomic Energy Commission hinting that the Russians may have resumed the testing of nuclear devices. Now if – sir, if this is true, should the United States resume nuclear testing, and if the Russians do not start testing, can you foresee any circumstances in 1961 in which the United States might resume its own series of tests?MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I think the next president of the United States should make one last effort to secure an agreement on the cessation of tests, number one. I think we should go back to Geneva, who’s ever elected president, Mr. Nixon or myself, and try once again. If we fail then, if we’re unable to come to an agreement – and I hope we can come to an agreement because it does not merely involve now the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union as atomic powers. Because new breakthroughs in atomic energy technology there’s some indications that by the time the next president’s term of office has come to an end, there may be ten, fifteen, or twenty countries with an atomic capacity, perhaps that many testing bombs with all the effect that it could have on the atmosphere and with all the chances that more and more countries will have an atomic capacity, with more and more chance of war. So one more effort should be made. I don’t think that even if that effort fails that it will be necessary to carry on tests in the atmosphere which pollute the atmosphere. They can be carried out underground, they c- could be carried on in outer space. But I believe the effort should be made once more by who’s ever elected president of the United States. If we fail, it’s been a great serious failure for everyone – for the human race. I hope we can succeed. But then if we fail responsibility will be clearly on the Russians and then we’ll have to meet our responsibilities to the security of the United States, and there may have to be testing underground. I think the Atomic Energy Committee is prepared for it. There may be testing in outer space. I hope it will not be necessary for any power to resume uh – testing in the atmosphere. It’s possible to detect those kind of tests. The kind of tests which you can’t detect are underground or in – in uh – perhaps in outer space. So that I’m hopeful we can try once more. If we fail then we must meet our responsibilities to ourselves. But I’m most concerned about the whole problem of the spread of atomic weapons. China may have it by 1963, Egypt. War has been the constant companion of mankind, so to have these weapons disseminated around the world, I believe means that we’re going to move through a period of hazard in the next few years. We ought to make one last effort.MR. HOWE: Any comment, Mr. Vice President?MR. NIXON: Yes. I would say first of all that we must have in mind the fact that we have been negotiating to get tests inspected and uh – to get an agreement for many, many months. As a matter of fact, there’s been a moratorium on testing as a result of the fact that we have been negotiating. I’ve reached the conclusion that the Soviet Union is actually filibustering. I’ve reached the conclusion, too, based on the reports that have been made, that they may be cheating. I don’t think we can wait until the next president is inaugurated and then uh – select a new team and then all the months of negotiating that will take place before we reach a decision, I think that immediately after this election we should set a timetable – the next president, working with the present President, President Eisenhower – a timetable to break the Soviet filibuster. There should be no tests in the atmosphere; that rules out any fall-out. But as far as underground tests for developing peaceful uses of atomic energy, we should not allow this Soviet filibuster to continue. I think it’s time for them to fish or cut bait. I think that the next president immediately after his election should sit down with the President, work out a timetable, and – get a decision on this before January of next year.MR. HOWE: Our second round of questions begins with one from Mr. Edwards for the Vice President.MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Nixon, carrying forward this business about a timetable; as you know, the pressures are increasing for a summit conference. Now, both you and Senator Kennedy have said that there are certain conditions which must be met before you would meet with Khrushchev. Will you be more specific about these conditions?MR. NIXON: Well the conditions I laid out in one of our previous television debates, and it’s rather difficult to be much more specific than that. Uh – First of all, we have to have adequate preparation for a summit conference. This means at the secretary of state level and at the ambassadorial level. By adequate preparation I mean that at that level we must prepare an agenda, an agenda agreed upon with the approval of the heads of state involved. Now this agenda should delineate those issues on which there is a possibility of some agreement or negotiation. I don’t believe we should go to a summit conference unless we have such an agenda, unless we have some reasonable insur- assurance from Mr. Khrushchev that he intends seriously to negotiate on those points. Now this may seem like a rigid, inflexible position. But let’s look at the other side of the coin. If we build up the hopes of the world by having a summit conference that is not adequately prepared, and then, if Mr. Khrushchev finds some excuse for breaking it up – as he did this one – because he isn’t going to get his way – we’d set back the cause of peace. We do not help it. We can, in other words, negotiate many of these items of difference between us without going to the summit. I think we have to make a greater effort than we have been making at the secretary of state level, at the ambassadorial level, to work out the differences that we have. And so far as the summit conference is concerned, it should only be entered in upon, it should only be agreed upon, if the negotiations have reached the point that we have some reasonable assurance that something is going to come out of it, other than some phony spirit – a spirit of Geneva, or Camp David, or whatever it is. When I say “phony spirit,” I mean phony, not because the spirit is not good on our side, but because the Soviet Union simply doesn’t intend to carry out what they say. Now, these are the conditions that I can lay out. I cannot be more precise than that, because until we see what Mr. Khrushchev does and what he says uh – we cannot indicate what our plans will be.MR. HOWE: Any comments, Senator Kennedy?MR. KENNEDY: Well, I think the president of the United States last winter indicated that before he’d go to the summit in May he did last fall, he indicated that there should be some agenda, that there should be some prior agreement. He hoped that there would be uh – b- be an agreement in part in disarmament. He also expressed the hope that there should be some understanding of the general situation in Berlin. The Soviet Union refused to agree to that, and we went to the summit and it was disastrous. I believe we should not go to the summit until there is some reason to believe that a meeting of minds can be obtained on either Berlin, outer space, or general disarmament – including nuclear testing. In addition, I believe the next president in January and February should go to work in building the strength of the United States. The Soviet Union does understand strength. We arm to parley, Winston Churchill said ten years ago. If we are strong, particularly as we face a crisis over Berlin – which we may in the spring, or in the winter – it’s important that we maintain our determination here; that we indicate that we’re building our strength; that we are determined to protect our position; that we’re determined to protect our commitment. And then I believe we should indicate our desire to live at peace with the world. But until we’re strong here, until we’re moving here, I believe a summit could not be successful. I hope that before we do meet, there will be preliminary agreements on those four questions, or at least two of them, or even one of them, which would warrant such a meeting. I think if we had stuck by that position last winter, we would have been in a better position in May.MR. HOWE: We have time for only one or two more questions before the closing statements. Now Walter Cronkite’s question for Senator Kennedy.MR. CRONKITE: Senator, the charge has been made frequently that the United States for many years has been on the defensive around the world, that our policy has been uh – one of reaction to the Soviet Union rather than positive action on our own. What areas do you see where the United States might take the offensive in a challenge to Communism over the next four to eight years?MR. KENNEDY: One of the areas, and of course the most vulnerable area is – I have felt, has been Eastern Europe. I’ve been critical of the Administration’s failure to suggest policies which would make it possible for us to establish, for example, closer relations with Poland, particularly after the fifty-five-fifty-six period and the Hungarian revolution. We indicated at that time that we were not going to intervene militarily. But there was a period there when Poland demonstrated a national independence and even the Polish government moved some differn- di- distance away from the Soviet Union. I suggested that we amend our legislation so that we could enjoy closer economic ties. We received the support first of the Administration and then not, and we were defeated by one vote in the Senate. We passed the bill in the Senate this year but it didn’t pass the House. I would say Eastern Europe is the area of vulnerability of the uh – s- of the Soviet Union. Secondly, the relations between Russia and China. They are now engaged in a debate over whether war is the means of Communizing the world or whether they should use subversion, infiltration, economic struggles and all the rest. No one can say what that course of action will be, but I think the next president of the United States should watch it carefully. If those two powers should split, it could have great effects throughout the entire world. Thirdly, I believe that India represents a great area for affirmative action by the free world. India started from about the same place that China did. Chinese Communists have been moving ahead the last ten years. India under a free society has been making some progress. But if India does not succeed – with her four hundred and fifty million people, if she can’t make freedom work – then people around the world are going to determine – particularly in the underdeveloped world – that the only way that they can develop their resources is through the Communist system. Fourth, let me say that in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the great force on our side is the desire of people to be free. This has expressed itself in the revolts in Eastern Europe. It’s expressed itself in the desire of the people of Africa to be independent of Western Europe. They want to be free. And my judgment is that they don’t want to give their freedom up to become Communists. They want to stay free, independent perhaps of us, but certainly independent of the Communists. And I believe if we identify ourselves with that force, if we identify ourselves with it as Lincoln, as Wilson did, as Franklin Roosevelt did, if we become known as the friend of freedom, sustaining freedom, helping freedom, helping these people in the fight against poverty and ignorance and disease, helping them build their lives, I believe in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, eventually in the Eastern Europe and the Middle East, certainly in Western Europe, we can strengthen freedom. We can make it move. We can put the Communists on the defensive.MR. HOWE: Your comment, Mr. Vice President?MR. NIXON: First, with regard to Poland, when I talked to Mr. Gomulka, the present leader of Poland, for six hours in Warsaw last year, I learned something about their problems and particularly his. Right under the Soviet gun, with Soviet troops there, he is in a very difficult position in taking anything independent, a position which would be independent of the Soviet Union. And yet let’s just see what we’ve done for Poland, A half a billion dollars worth of aid has gone to Poland, primarily economic, primarily to go to the people of Poland. This should continue and it can be stepped up to give them hope and to keep alive the hope for freedom that I can testify they have so deeply within them. In addition we can have more exchange with Poland or with any other of the Iron Curtain countries which show some desire to take a different path than the path that has been taken by the ones that are complete satellites of the Soviet Union. Now as far as the balance of the world is concerned, I of course don’t have as much time as Senator Kennedy had. I would just like to s- add this one point. If we are going to have the initiative in the world, we must remember that the people of Africa and Asia and Latin America don’t want to be pawns simply in a struggle between two great powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. We have to let them know that we want to help them, not because we’re simply trying to save our own skins, not because we’re simply trying to fight Communism; but because we care for them, because we stand for freedom, because if there were no Communism in the world, we would still fight poverty and misery and disease and tyranny. If we can get that across to the people of these countries, in this decade of the sixties, the struggle for freedom will be won.MR. HOWE: John Chancellor’s question for Vice President Nixon.MR. CHANCELLOR: Sir, I’d like to ask you an- another question about Quemoy and Matsu. Both you and Senator Kennedy say you agree with the President on this subject and with our treaty obligations. But the subject remains in the campaign as an issue. Now is – sir, is this because each of you feels obliged to respond to the other when he talks about Quemoy and Matsu, and if that’s true, do you think an end should be called to this discussion, or will it stay with us as a campaign issue?MR. NIXON: I would say that the issue will stay with us as a campaign issue just as long as Senator Kennedy persists in what I think is a fundamental error. He says he supports the President’s position. He says that he voted for the resolution. Well just let me point this out; he voted for the resolution in 1955 which gave the president the power to use the forces of the United States to defend Formosa and the offshore islands. But he also voted then for an amendment – which was lost, fortunately – an amendment which would have drawn a line and left out those islands and denied the p- right to the president to defend those islands if he thought that it was an attack on Formosa. He repeated that error in 1959, in the speech that he made. He repeated it again in a television debate that we had. Now, my point is this: Senator Kennedy has got to be consistent here. Either he’s for the President and he’s against the position that those who opposed the President in fifty-five and fifty-nine – and the Senator’s position itself, stated the other day in our debate – either he is for the President and against that position or we simply have a disagreement here that must continue to be debated. Now if the Senator in his answer to this question will say “I now will depart, or retract my previous views; I think I was wrong in I 955; I think I was wrong in 1959; and I think I was wrong in our television debate to say that we should draw a line leaving out Quemoy and Matsu – draw a line in effect abandoning these islands to the Communists;” then this will be right out of the campaign because there will be no issue between us. I support the President’s position. I have always opposed drawing a line. I have opposed drawing a line because I know that the moment you draw a line, that is an encouragement for the Communists to attack – to step up their blackmail and to force you into the war that none of us want. And so I would hope that Senator Kennedy in his answer today would clear it up. It isn’t enough for him to say “I support the President’s position, that I voted for the resolution.” Of course, he voted for the resolution – it was virtually unanimous. But the point is, what about his error in voting for the amendment, which was not adopted, and then persisting in it in fifty-nine, persisting in it in the debate. It’s very simple for him to clear it up. He can say now that he no longer believes that a line should be drawn leaving these islands out of the perimeter of defense. If he says that, this issue will not be discussed in the campaign.MR. HOWE: Senator Kennedy, your comment.MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Nixon, to go back to 1955. The resolution commits the president in the United States, which I supported, to defend uh – Formosa, the Pescadores, and if it was his military judgment, these islands. Then the President sent a mission, composed of Admiral Radford and Mr. Robertson, to persuade Chiang Kai-shek in the spring of fifty-five to withdraw from the two islands, because they were exposed. The President was unsuccessful; Chiang Kai-shek would not withdraw. I refer to the fact that in 1958, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I’m very familiar with the position that the United States took in negotiating with the Chinese Communists on these two islands. General Twining, in January, fifty-nine, described the position of the United States. The position of the United States has been that this build-up, in the words of the president, has been foolish. Mr. Herter has said these islands are indefensible. Chiang Kai-shek will not withdraw. Because he will not withdraw, because he’s committed to these islands, because we’ve been unable to persuade him to withdraw, we are in a very difficult position. And therefore, the President’s judgment has been that we should defend the islands if, in his military judgment and the judgment of the commander in the field, the attack on these islands should be part of an overall attack on Formosa. I support that. In view of the difficulties we’ve had with the islands, in view of the difficulties and disputes we’ve had with Chiang Kai-shek, that’s the only position we can take. That’s not the position you took, however. The first position you took, when this matter first came up, was that we should draw the line and commit ourselves, as a matter of principle, to defend these islands. Not as part of the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores. You showed no recognition of the Administration program to try to persuade Chiang Kai-shek for the last five years to withdraw from the islands. And I challenge you tonight to deny that the Administration has sent at least several missions to persuade Chiang Kai-shek’s withdrawal from these islands.MR. HOWE: Under the agreedMR. KENNEDY: And that’s the testimony of uh – General Twining and the Assistant Secretary of State in fifty-eight.MR. HOWE: Under the agreed rules, gentlemen, we’ve exhausted the time for questions. Each candidate will now have four minutes and thirty seconds for his closing statement. Senator Kennedy will make the first final closing statement.MR. KENNEDY: I uh – said that I’ve served this country for fourteen years. I served it uh – in the war. I’m devoted to it. If I lose this election, I will continue in the Senate to try to build a stronger country. But I run because I believe this year the United States has a great opportunity to make a move forward, to make a determination here at home and around the world, that it’s going to reestablish itself as a vigorous society. My judgment is that the Republican party has stood still here in the United States, and it’s also stood still around the world. Uh – We’re using about fifty percent of our steel capacity today. We had a recession in fifty-eight. We had a recession in fifty-four. We’re not moving ahead in education the way we should. We didn’t make a judgment in fifty-seven and fifty-six and fifty-five and fifty-four that outer space would be important. If we stand still here, if we appoint people to ambassadorships and positions in Washington who have a status quo outlook, who don’t recognize that this is a revolutionary time, then the United States does not maintain its influence. And if we fail, the cause of freedom fails. I believe it incumbent upon the next president of the United States to get this country moving again, to get our economy moving ahead, to set before the American people its goals, its unfinished business. And then throughout the world appoint the best people we can get, ambassadors who can speak the language – no mere – not merely people who made a political contribution but who can speak the language. Bring students here; let them see what kind of a country we have. Mr. Nixon said that we should not regard them as pawns in the cold war; we should identify ourselves with them. If that were true, why didn’t we identify ourselves with the people of Africa? Why didn’t we bring students over here? Why did we suddenly offer Congo three hundred students last June when they had the tremendous revolt? That was more than we had offered to all of Africa before from the federal government. I believe that this party – Republican party – has stood still really for twenty-five years – its leadership has. It opposed all of the programs of President Roosevelt and others – the minimum wage and for housing and economic growth and development of our natural resources, the Tennessee Valley and all the rest. And I believe that if we can get a party which believes in movement, which believes in going ahead, then we can reestablish our position in the world – strong defense, strong in economic growth, justice for our people, co- guarantee of constitutional rights, so that people will believe that we practice what we preach, and then around the world, particularly to try to reestablish the atmosphere which existed in Latin America at the time of Franklin Roosevelt. He was a good neighbor in Latin America because he was a good neighbor in the United States; because they saw us as a society that was compassionate, that cared about people, that was moving this country ahead. I believe it my responsibility as the leader of the Democratic party in 1960 to try to warn the American people that in this crucial time we can no longer afford to stand still. We can no longer afford to be second best. I want people all over the world to look to the United States again, to feel that we’re on the move, to feel that our high noon is in the future. I want Mr. Khrushchev to know that a new generation of Americans who fought in Europe and Italy and the Pacific for freedom in World War II have now taken over in the United States, and that they’re going to put this country back to work again. I don’t believe that there is anything this country cannot do. I don’t believe there’s any burden, or any responsibility, that any American would not assume to protect his country, to protect our security, to advance the cause of freedom. And I believe it incumbent upon us now to do that. Franklin Roosevelt said in 1936 that that generation of Americans had a rendezvous with destiny. I believe in 1960 and sixty-one and two and three we have a rendezvous with destiny. And I believe it incumbent upon us to be the defenders of the United States and the defenders of freedom; and to do that, we must give this country leadership and we must get America moving again.MR. HOWE: Now, Vice President Nixon, your closing statement.MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy has said tonight again what he has said several times in the course of this – these debates and in the campaign, that American is standing still. America is not standing still. It has not been standing still. And let’s set the record straight right now by looking at the record, as Al Smith used to say. He talks about housing. We built more houses in the last seven years than in any Administration and thirty percent more than in the previous Administration. We talk about schools – three times as many classrooms built in the past Administration – and Eisenhower – than under the Truman Administration. Let’s talk about civil rights. More progress in the past eight years than in the whole eighty years before. He talks about the progress in the field of slum clearance and the like. We find four times as many projects undertaken and completed in this Administration than in the previous one. Anybody that says America has been standing still for the last seven and a half years hasn’t been traveling in America. He’s been in some other country. Let’s get that straight right away. Now the second point we have to understand is this, however. America has not been standing still. But America cannot stand pat. We can’t stand pat for the reason that we’re in a race, as I’ve indicated. We can’t stand pat because it is essential with the conflict that we have around the world that we not just hold our own, that we not keep just freedom for ourselves. It is essential that we extend freedom, extend it to all the world. And this means more than what we’ve been doing. It means keeping America even stronger militarily than she is. It means seeing that our economy moves forward even faster than it has. It means making more progress in civil rights than we have so that we can be a splendid example for all the world to see – a democracy in action at its best. Now, looking at the other parts of the world – South America – talking about our record and the previous one. We had a good neighbor policy, yes. It sounded fine. But let’s look at it. There were eleven dictators when we came into power in 1953 in Latin America. There are only three left. Let’s look at Africa. Twenty new countries in Africa during the course of this Administration. Not one of them selected a Communist government. All of them voted for freedom – a free type of government. Does this show that Communism has the bigger pull, or freedom has the bigger pull? Am I trying to indicate that we have no problems in Africa or Latin America or Asia? Of course not. What I am trying to indicate is that the tide of history’s on our side, and that we can keep it on our side, because we’re on the right side. We’re on the side of freedom. We’re on the side of justice against the forces of slavery, against the forces of injustice. But we aren’t going to move America forward and we aren’t going to be able to lead the world to win this struggle for freedom if we have a permanent inferiority complex about American achievements. Because we are first in the world in space, as I’ve indicated; we are first in science; we are first in education, and we’re going to move even further ahead with the kind of leadership that we can provide in these years ahead. One other point I would make: what could you do? Senator Kennedy and I are candidates for the presidency of the United States. And in the years to come it will be written that one or the other of us was elected and that he was or was not a great president. What will determine whether Senator Kennedy or I, if I am elected, was a great president? It will not be our ambition that will determine it, because greatness is not something that is written on a campaign poster. It will be determined to the extent that we represent the deepest ideals, the highest feelings and faith of the American people. In other words, the next president, as he leads America and the free world, can be only as great as the American people are great. And so I say in conclusion, keep America’s faith strong. See that the young people of America, particularly, have faith in the ideals of freedom and faith in God, which distinguishes us from the atheistic materialists who oppose us.MR. HOWE: Thank you gentlemen. Both candidates have asked me to express their thanks to the networks for this opportunity to appear on this discussion. May I repeat that all those concerned in tonight’s discussion have, sometimes reluctantly, followed the rules and conditions read at the outset and agreed to in advance by the candidates and the networks. The opening statements ran eight minutes each. The closing statements ran four minutes, thirty seconds. The order of speaking was reversed from their first joint appearance, when they followed the same procedure. A panel of newsmen questioned each candidate alternately. Each had two and a half minutes to reply. The other had a minute and a half to comment. But the first discussion dealt only with domestic policy. This one dealt only with foreign policy. One last word. As members of a new political generation, Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy have used new means of communication to pioneer a new type of political debate. The character and courage with which these two men have spoken sets a high standard for generations to come. Surely, they have set a new precedent. Perhaps they have established a new tradition. This is Quincy Howe. Good night from New York.",
    "id": "a2f50979-27eb-44d2-9b7a-0ba0afc703ca"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 11, 1992",
    "title": "The First Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate (First half)",
    "content": "October 11, 1992 First Half Debate TranscriptOctober 11, 1992The First Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate(First Half of Debate)This is a transcript of the first half of the first presidential debate of 1992. The debate was held October 11th in St. Louis, Missouri. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, describes the format in his opening remarks. The printed transcript is approximately 14 pages long.ÂLEHRER: Good evening, and welcome to the first of 3 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 News Hour on PBS, and I will be the moderator for this 90-minute event, which is taking place before an audience 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. 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?PEROT: I think the principal that separates me is that 5 and a half million people came together on their own and put me on the ballot. I was not put on the ballot by either of the 2 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.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, a one minute response.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 in growth. 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.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 sake isn’t enough. We saw that message in the late 70s when heard a lot about change, and what happened, that misery index went right through the roof. But my economic program is the kind of change we want. And the way we’re going to get it done is we’re going to have a brand new 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.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, how do you respond to the President on the — you have two minutes — on the question of experience? He says that is what distinguishes him from the other two of you.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 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. And 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 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. I think the American people deserve better than they’re getting. We have gone from first to thirteenth in wages in the world in the last twelve years, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four 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.LEHRER: President Bush, one minute to respond.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’s worse than it is. But this country is not coming apart at the seams, for heaven’s sakes. We’re the United States of America. In spite of the economic problems, we’re 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 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 brand new bunch of people in the Congress that are going to have to listen to the same American people I’m listening to.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, a minute response, sir.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 gridlock 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 there’s more time for gridlock and talk and finger pointing, I’m the wrong man.LEHRER: President Bush, the question goes to you. you have two minutes. And the question is this: Are there important issues of character separating you from these other two men?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 — I 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. I — well, 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 made — not admitted a 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 — 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 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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, you have one minute.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 roll 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 taxpayer’s 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, you know, 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 clean-up 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 —LEHRER: Your time is up.PEROT: The time is up. (Laughter).LEHRER: The time is up.PEROT: More later.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have one minute.CLINTON: Ross gave a good answer but I’ve got to respond directly to Mr. Bush. You have questioned my patriotism.BUSH: (Inaudible).CLINTON: You even brought some right-wing congressman into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969-70, 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 loved 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: We move now to the subject of taxes and spending. The question goes to Governor Clinton for a two minutes answer. It will be asked by Ann Compton. ANNCOMPTON: 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?CLINTON: The tax increase I have proposed triggers in at family incomes of $200,000 and above. Those are the people who in the 1980s 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 6 increases in the payroll taxes. So that is where my income limit would trigger.COMPTON: There will be no tax increases–CLINTON: Right. My plan –COMPTON: –below 200,000–CLINTON: –notwithstanding my opponent’s ad, my plan triggers in at gross incomes, family incomes of $200,000 and above. 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 ’60s 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.LEHRER: President Bush, one minute, sir.PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, let me–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. In terms of 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 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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, one minute.(APPLAUSE)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, it’s 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, 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.LEHRER: Okay. (APPLAUSE) Next question goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Sandy Vanocur.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 US forces in Europe from 150 to 100 thousand 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 to support armies in Europe when the Europeans have plenty of money to do it for themselves?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 had gone for the nuclear freeze crowd; we never would have got there if we had listened to those that wanted to cut defense spending. I think it is important that the US 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 Dept. I will accept and have accepted the recommendations of 2 proven leaders, General Colin Powell and 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 starting blaming foreigners. We are the sole remaining superpower, and we should be that. And 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 a war, 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 peace- keeping organization ever made. Today you’ve got problems in Europe, still bubbling along even though Europe’s gone 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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, one minute, sir.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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute, sir.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 US. But 2 former defense secretaries recently issued a report 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.LEHRER: All right. We go now to Mr. Perot for a 2-minute question, and it will be asked by John Mashek.MASHEK: Mr Perot, you talked about fairness just a minute ago and 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?PEROT: It’s 10 cents a year cumulative. It finally gets to 50 cents at the end of the 5th year. I think “punish” is the wrong word. Again, 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 to 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 are 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’ve got to collect the taxes to do it. If there’s a fairer way, I’m all ears (laughter) –aah. (Laughter and applause) But–but–see, let me make it very clear. If people don’t have the stomach to fix these problems, I think it’s a good time to face it, 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.LEHRER: All right, Governor Clinton, you have a minute, sir.CLINTON: I think Mr. Perot has confronted this deficit issue, but I think it’s important to point out that we really have 2 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, 2- 3rds of our people–a $1600 drop in average income in just the last 2 years. The problem I have with the Perot prescription is that almost all economists who’ve 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 % 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 and grow. 9 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.LEHRER: President Bush, one minute, sir.BUSH: Your 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 this spending down and the 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’m 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.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.MASHEK: Mr. President, last month you came to St. Louis to announce a very lucrative contract for McDonnell Douglas to build F-15s 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. She 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.BUSH: 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–took a little heat for it, but I think it was the correct decision to do. And we 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 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, that 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 awhile to educate. But it is a good program. So her best help 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 US, we 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’m much more optimistic about this country than some.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot, you have one minute, sir.PEROT: 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 made potato chips or computer chips. Well, anybody that thinks about it cares a great deal. Number one, you make more making computer chips than potato chips; and, number 2, 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 whole 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 phase-over. Now, 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. In the rest of the world, the countries and the businesses would be working together to make this transition in an intelligent way.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have one minute, sir.CLINTON: We must have a transition plan to 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 very dollar by which we reduce defense and reinvest it in technologies for the 21st century–in new transportation, in communication, in environmental clean-up 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.LEHRER: All right. The next question goes to Mr. Perot for a 2-minute answer. It will be asked by Ann. Ann?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?PEROT: Step one, the American people send me up there, the day after election, I’ll get with congressional–we won’t even wait till inauguration, and 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, we 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 3rd 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. 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’ve been in meetings when I would sit there and say, “Is this the 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 credit, and many of them need mentors or coaches. And we can create more jobs there in a hurry than any other place.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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 job growth has been enormous. We’ve done it in Arkansas. Give me a chance to create these kind of jobs in America. We can do it. I know we can.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.BUSH: We’ve got the plan announced for what we can do for small business. I’ve already put forward things that’ll get this country working fast, some of which have been echoed here tonight–investment tax allowance, capital gains reduction, more on research and development, tax credit for first-time home buyers. 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 kind of the 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’ll work because, as Ross said, we got the plans. The plans are all over Washington. And I’ve 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.LEHRER: All right. The next question goes to Governor Clinton for 2 minutes. It will be asked by Sandy.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?CLINTON: Well, let me say that I think that we might ought to review the terms, 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–another across-the- board tax cut and most of it going to the wealthy, with no real guarantee of investment. But I think the important thing–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 ready 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 tax 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 in the near term about the Federal Reserve. Their policies so far, it seems to me, are pretty sound.LEHRER: President Bush you have one minute.BUSH: I don’t think the Fed ought to be put under the Executive Branch. There is a 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 interest rates, but Governor Clinton, he talks about the reaction to the markets. There was a momentary fear that he might win and that the markets went phwee, down like that. So I don’t think we can judge on, the stock market has been strong. It’s been very strong since I’ve been president. And they recognize we 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’re 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 to veto until we get this new Congress, and then we’re going to move forward on our plan. I’ve got to protect them.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, one minute.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 four trillion dollar debt, and only in America would you finance seventy percent of it five years or less. So seventy percent of our debt is five years or less. It’s very interest sensitive. We have a four percent gap between what we pay for treasuries, and what Germany pays for one to five 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 one percent, that adds 28 billion dollars to the deficit or to the debt. Whichever place you put it. We are sitting on a ticking time 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.LEHRER: We’re going to move to foreign affairs. The first question goes to Mr. Perot for a two minute answer, and Sandy will ask it.VANOCUR: Mr Perot, in the postwar coldwar 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 the national interest?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 number 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. 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 can’t ship them overseas anymore. I hope we can 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 big intercontinental ballistic missiles, the ones that can hit us from Russia. And we’ve focused on the tactical. We’ve made real progress there. We’ve got some agreement 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 this thing 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 K.G.B. and the military that liked it better the way it used to be.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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 a 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 the 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’s at an all time low against some foreign currencies. We’re weak in the world. We must rebuild America’s strength at home. And 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.LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.BUSH: Well, 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, despite 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 with 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 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 made dramatic progress. And so, we’ve got a good military. the question, to sort of get a new military, get the best in the world, we got it, and they’re keeping the peace, and they’re respected around the world. And we’re more respected because of the way we have conducted ourselves. We didn’t listen to the nuclear freeze crowd. We said, “Peace through strength,” and it worked and the cold war is over. And America understands that. But we’re so, turned so inward we don’t understand the global picture. And we are helping democracy, Ross. The Freedom Support Act is something 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. And we’re going to keep on doing that.LEHRER: Next question is for Governor Clinton, and John will ask it.MASHEK: Governor Clinton, you accused the President of coddling tyrants, including those in Beijing. As President, how would you exert U.S. power to influence affairs in China.CLINTON: I think our relationships with China are important and I don’t 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. 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 the voices in the Congress and throughout the country have insisted that we do something about China, look at 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. And recently the Chinese have announced they are going to lower some barriers to our products, which they ought to do since they have a 15 billion dollar trade surplus with the United States under Mr. Bush. The second biggest surplus next to Japan. So I would be firm. I would say if you want to continue as 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 economics, we ought to be able to preserve the democratic interests of the people of China. And over the long run they will be more reliable partners.LEHRER: President you have one minute.BUSH: Well, the Administration was the first major country to stand up to the abuse in Tiananmen Square. We are the one that worked out the prison labor deal. We are the ones that lowered the barrier to products with Carla Hill’s negotiation. I am the one that said let’s keep the M.F.N. because you see China moving towards a free market economy. To do what the Congress and Governor Clinton is suggesting, you’d 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, 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 M.F.N. and kind of humiliating them is not the way you make the kind of progress we are getting. And I’ve stood up with these people, and I understand what you have to do to be strong in this situation, and 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. And I’m not going to do it. And I’ve had to fight a lot of people that were saying human rights, and we’re the ones that put the sanctions on and stood for it. And he can insult General Scowcroft if he wants to. They didn’t go over to coddle. He went over to say we must make the very changes they’re making now.LEHRER: One minute, Mr. Perot.PEROT: All right, it’s huge. China, is 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, tight-wire 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. Till they’re destroyed, some crazy person can either sell them or use them.LEHRER: All right. The next question goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer, and Ann will ask it.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?BUSH: Ann, both of them are very complicated situations. And I vowed something because I learned something from Vietnam. I am not going to commit US forces until I know what the mission is, till the military tell me that it can be completed, and till 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 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’s dissolved or getting dissolved, and it isn’t going to be solved by sending in the 82nd 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 US to get satisfaction in terms of prison camps, and we’re making some progress there, and in terms of getting humanitarian relief in there. And right now, as you know, the US took the lead in a no-fly operation up there in– 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. Use–work internationally to do it. I am very concerned about it. I am concerned about ethnic cleansing. I am concerned about a tax 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. And I think I’m on the right track.COMPTON: Are you designing a mission,LEHRER: Ms.–Ann, sorry, sorry. Time is up. We have to go to Mr. Perot for a one-minute response.PEROT: I think if we learned anything in Vietnam is 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 who send their sons and daughters to war, with a few exceptions. It’s 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.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.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, 2 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 US 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, and 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.END Part 1, 1992 Debate 1END Part 1, 1992 Debate 1",
    "id": "69a5fe59-8b7e-4fc6-ab7f-d881c7012dd2"
  },
  {
    "year": 1976,
    "date": "October 22, 1976",
    "title": "The Third Carter-Ford Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 22, 1976 Debate TranscriptOctober 22, 1976The Third Carter-Ford Presidential DebateMS. WALTERS: Good evening, I’m Barbara Walters, moderator of the last of the debates of 1976 between Gerald R. Ford, Republican candidate for president, and Jimmy Carter, Democratic candidate for president. Welcome, President Ford. Welcome, Governor Carter. And thank you for joining us this evening. This debate takes place before an audience in Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall on the campus of the College of William and Mary in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. It is particularly appropriate that in this Bicentennial year we meet on these grounds to hear this debate. Two hundred years ago, five William and Mary students met at nearby Raleigh Tavern to form Phi Beta Kappa, a fraternity designed, they wrote, to search out and dispel the clouds of falsehood by debating without reserve the issues of the day. In that spirit of debate, without reserve, to dispel the clouds of falsehood, gentlemen, let us proceed. The subject matter of this debate is open, covering all issues and topics. Our questioners tonight are Joseph Kraft, syndicated columnist; Robert Maynard, editorial writer for the Washington Post; and Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. The ground rules tonight are as follows: Questioners will alternate questions between the candidates. The candidate has up to two and one-half minutes to answer the question. The other candidate has up to two minutes to respond. If necessary, a questioner may ask a follow-up question for further clarification, and in that case the candidate has up to two minutes to respond. As was initially agreed to by both candidates, the answers should be responsive to the particular questions. Finally, each candidate has up to three minutes for a closing statement. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have prepared notes or comments with them this evening, but they may make notes and refer to them during the debate. It has been determined that President Ford would take the first question in this last debate, and Mr. Kraft, you have that first question for President Ford.MR. KRAFT: Mr. President, uh – I assume that the Americans all know that these are difficult times and that there’s no “pie in the sky” and that they don’t expect something for nothing. Uh – so, I’d like to ask you as a first question as you look ahead in the next four years, what sacrifices are you going to call on the American people to make, what price are you going to ask them to pay uh – to realize your objectives? Uh – let me add, uh – Governor Carter, that if – if you felt uh – that it was appropriate to answer that question in – in your comments uh – as to what price it would be appropriate for the American pay – people to pay uh – for a Carter administration, I think that would be proper too. Mr. President?MR. FORD: Mr. Kraft, I believe that the American people, in the next four years under a Ford administration, will be called upon to make those necessary sacrifices to preserve the peace which we have. Which means, of course, that uh – we will have to maintain an adequate military capability – which means, of course, that we will have to add a uh – I think uh – a few billion dollars to our defense appropriations to make certain that we have adequate uh -strategic forces – adequate conventional forces. I think the American people will be called upon to uh – uh – be in the forefront in giving leadership to the solution of those problems that must be solved in the Middle East, in southern Africa, and any problems that might arise in the Pacific. The American people will be called upon to tighten their belts a bit in meeting some of the problems that we face domestically. I don’t think that uh – America can go on a big spending spree with a whole lot of new programs uh – that would add significantly to the federal budget. I believe that the American people, if given the leadership that I would expect to give, would be willing to give this thrust to preserve the peace and the necessary restraint at home to hold the lid on spending so that we could, I think, have a long overdue and totally justified tax decrease for the middle-income people. And then, with the economy that would be generated from a restraint on spending, and a tax uh reduction primarily for the middle-income people, then I think the American people would be willing to make those sacrifices for peace and prosperity in the next uh – four years.MR. KRAFT: Could I be a little bit more specific, Mr. President?MR. FORD: Surely, surely, overlapping. Doesn’t your policy really imply that we’re going to have a fairly high rate of unemployment over a fairly long time, that growth is gonna be fairly slow, and that we’re not gonna be able to do much – very much in the next four or five years to meet the basic agenda of our national needs in the cities, in health, uh in transit and a whole lot of things like that.MR. FORD: Not at all. overlapping, aren’t those the real costs?MR. FORD: No, Mr. Kraft, we’re spending very significant amounts of money now, some $200 billion a year, almost 50 percent of our total federal expenditure uh – by the federal government at the present time for human needs. Now we will probably need to increase that to same extent. But we don’t have to have – growth in spending that will blow the lid off and add to the problems of inflation. I believe we can meet the problems within the cities of this country and still uh – give a tax reduction. I proposed, as you know, a reduction to increase the personal exemption from seven hundred and fifty to a thousand dollars. With the fiscal program that I have, and if you look at the projections, it shows that we will reduce unemployment, that we will continue to win the battle against inflation, and at the same time give the kind of quality of life that I believe is possible in America. Uh – a job, a home for all those that’ll work and save for it, uh – safety in the streets, uh – health that is a – health care that is affordable. These things can be done if we have the right vision and the right restraint and the right leadership.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Governor Carter, your response please.MR. CARTER: Well I might say first of all that I think in case of the Carter administration the sacrifices would be much less. Mr. Ford’s own uh – environmental agency has projected a 10 percent unemployment rate by 1978 if he’s uh – president. The American people are ready to make sacrifices if they are part of the process. If they know that they will be helping to make decisions and won’t be excluded from being an involved party to the national purpose. The major effort we must put forward is to put our people back to work. And I think that this uh – is one example where uh – a lot of people have selfish, grasping ideas now. I remember 1973 in the depth of the uh – energy crisis when President Nixon called on the American people to make a sacrifice, to cut down on the waste of uh – gasoline, to cut down on the uh – speed of automobiles. It was a – a tremendous surge of patriotism, that “I want to make a sacrifice for my country.” I think we uh – could call together, with strong leadership in the White House, business, industry and labor, and say let’s have voluntary price restraints. Let’s lay down some guidelines so we don’t have continuing inflation. We can also have a- an end to the extremes. We now have one extreme for instance, of some welfare recipients, who by taking advantage of the welfare laws, the housing laws, the uh – Medicaid uh – laws, and the uh – food stamp laws, make over $10 thousand a year and uh – they don’t have to pay any taxes on it. At the other extreme, uh – just 1 percent of the richest people in our country derive 25 percent of all the tax benefits. So both those extremes grasp for advantage and the person who has to pay that expense is the middle-income family who’s still working for a living and they have to pay for the rich who have privilege, and for the poor who are not working. But I think uh – uh – a balanced approach, with everybody being part of it and a striving for unselfishness, could help as it did in 1973 to let people sacrifice for their own country. I know I’m ready for it. I think the American people are too.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Mr. Maynard, your question for Governor Carter.MR. MAYNARD: Governor, by all indications, the voters are so turned off by this election campaign so far that only half intend to vote. One major reason for this apathetic electorate appears to be the low level at which this campaign has been conducted. It has digressed frequently from important issues into allegations of blunder and brainwashing and fixations on lust and Playboy. What responsibility do you accept for the low level of this campaign for the nation’s highest office?MR. CARTER: I think the major reason for a decrease in participation that we have experienced ever since 1960 has been the deep discouragement of the American people about the performance of public officials. When you’ve got seven and a half, eight million people out of work, and you’ve got three times as much inflation as you had during the last eight-year Democratic administration, when you have the highest deficits in history; when you have it uh – becoming increasingly difficult far a family to put a child through college or to own a home, there’s a natural inclination to be turned off. Also, in the aftermath of Vietnam and Cambodia and uh – Watergate and uh – the CIA revelations, people have feel – have felt that they’ve uh been betrayed by public officials, I have to admit that in the uh – heat of the campaign – I’ve been in thirty primaries during the springtime, I’ve been campaigning for twenty-two months – I’ve made some mistakes. And I think this is uh – uh – part of uh – of just being a human being. I – I have to say that my campaign has been an open one. And uh – the Playboy thing has been of great – very great concern to me. I don’t know how to deal with it exactly. Uh – I uh – agreed to give the interview uh – to Playboy Other people have done it who are notable – uh – Governor Jerry Brown, uh – Walter Cronkite, uh – Albert Schweitzer, Mr. Ford’s own secretary of the treasury, Mr. Simon, uh – William Buckley – many other people. But they weren’t running for president, and in retrospect, from hindsight, I would not have given that uh – interview had I do it – had it – I to do it over again. If I should ever decide in the future to discuss my – my deep Christian beliefs and uh – condemnation and sinfulness, I’ll use another forum besides Playboy. But I can say this, uh – I’m doing the best I can to get away from that, and during the next ten days, the American people will not see the Carter campaign running uh – television advertisements and newspaper advertisements based on a personal attack on President Ford’s character. I believe that the opposite is true with President Ford’s campaign, and uh – I hope that we can leave those issues in this next ten days about personalities and mistakes of the past – we’ve both made some mistakes – and talk about unemployment, inflation, housing, education, taxation, government organization, stripping away of secrecy, and the things that are crucial to the American people. I regret the things in my own long campaign that have been mistaken, but I’m trying to do away with those the last ten days.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Governor Carter. President Ford, your response.MR. FORD: I believe that the uh – American people have been turned off in this election, uh – Mr. Maynard, for a variety of reasons. We have seen on Capitol Hill, in the Congress, uh – a great many uh – allegations of wrong-doing, of uh – alleged immorality, uh – those are very disturbing to the American people. They wonder how an elected representative uh – can serve them and participate in such activities uh – serving in the Congress of the United States. Yes, and I’m certain many, many Americans were turned off by the revelations of Watergate, a very, very uh – bad period of time in American political history. Yes, and thousands, maybe millions of Americans were turned off because of the uh – problems that came out of our involvement in Vietnam. But on the other hand, I found on July fourth of this year, a new spirit born in America. We were celebrating our Bicentennial; and I find that uh – there is a – a movement as I travel around the country of greater interest in this campaign. Now, like uh – any hardworking uh – person seeking public office uh – in the campaign, inevitably sometimes you will use uh – rather graphic language and I’m guilty of that just like I think most others in the political arena. But I do make a pledge that in the next ten days when we’re asking the American people to make one of the most important decisions in their lifetime, because I think this election is one of the mast vital in the history of America, that uh – we do together what we can to stimulate voter participation.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, President Ford. Mr. Nelson, your question to President Ford.MR. NELSON: Uh – Mr. President, you mentioned Watergate, and you became president because of Watergate, so don’t you owe the American people a special obligation to explain in detail your role of limiting one of the original investigations of Watergate, that was the one by the House Banking Committee? And, I know you’ve answered questions on this before, but there are questions that still remain and I think people want to know what your role was. Will you name the persons you talked to in connection with that investigation, and since you say you have no recollection of talking to anyone from the White House, would you be willing to open for examination the White House tapes of conversations uh – during that period?MR. FORD: Well, Mr. uh – Nelson, uh – I testified before two committees, House and Senate, on precisely the questions that you have asked. And the testimony under oath was to the effect that I did not talk to Mr. Nixon, to Mr. Haldeman, to Mr. Ehrlichman, or to any of the people at the White House. I said I had no recollection whatsoever of talking with any of the White House legislative liaison people. I indicated under oath that the initiative that I took was at the request of the ranking members of the House Banking and Currency Committee on the Republican side, which was a legitimate request and a proper response by me. Now that was gone into by two congressional committees, and following that investigation, both committees overwhelmingly approved me, and the House and the Senate did likewise. Now, in the meantime, the special prosecutor, within the last few days, after an investigation himself, said there was no reason for him to get involved because he found nothing that would justify it. And then just a day or two ago, the attorney general of the United States made a further investigation and came to precisely the same conclusion. Now, after all of those investigations by objective, responsible people, I think the matter is closed once and for all. But to add one other feature, I don’t control any of the tapes. Those tapes are in the jurisdiction of the courts and I have no right to say “yes” or “no.” But all the committees, the attorney general, the special prosecutor, all of them have given me a clean bill of health. I think the matter is settled once and for all.MR. NELSON: Well, Mr. President, if I do say so though, the question is that I think that you still have not gone into details about what your role in it was. And I don’t think there is any question about whether or not uh – there was criminal prosecution, but whether – whether you have told the American people your entire involvement in it. And whether you would be willing, even if you don’t control the tapes, whether you would be willing to ask that the tapes be released for examination.MR. FORD: That’s for the uh – proper authorities who have control over those tapes to make that decision. I have given every bit of evidence, answered every question that’s as- been asked me by any senator or any member of the House. Plus the fact, that the special prosecutor, on his own initiation, and the attorney general on his initiation, the highest law enforcement official in this country, all of them have given me a clean bill of health. And I’ve told everything I know about it. I think the matter is settled once and for all.MS. WALTERS: Governor Carter, your response.MR. CARTER: I don’t have a response.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Then we’ll have the next question from Mr. Kraft to Governor Carter.MR. KRAFT: Uh – Governor Carter, the next big crisis spot in the world may be Yugoslavia. Uh – President Tito is old and sick and there are divisions in his country. Uh – it’s pretty certain that the Russians are gonna do everything they possibly can after Tito dies to force Yugoslavia back into the Soviet camp. But last Saturday you said, and this is a quote, “I would not go to war in Yugoslavia, even if the Soviet Union sent in troops.” Doesn’t that statement practically invite the Russians to intervene in Yugoslavia? Ah – doesn’t it discourage Yugoslavs who might be tempted to resist? And wouldn’t it have been wiser on your part uh – to say nothing and to keep the Russians in the dark as President Ford did, and as I think every president has done since – since President Truman?MR. CARTER: In the last uh – two weeks, I’ve had a chance to talk to uh – two men who have visited uh – the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and China. One is Governor Avell- Averell Harriman, who visited the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the other is James Schlesinger, whom I think you accompanied to uh – China. I got a- a complete report back from those countries from these two distinguished – uh – gentlemen. Mr. Harriman talked to the leaders in Yugoslavia, and I think it’s accurate to say that there is no uh – prospect in their opinion, of the Soviet Union invading uh – Yugoslavia should uh – Mr. Tito pass away. The present leadership uh – there is uh – is fairly uniform in – in their purpose, and I think it’s a close-knit group, uh – and uh – I think it would be unwise for us to say that we will go to war uh – in Yugoslavia uh – if the Soviets should invade, which I think would be an extremely unlikely thing. I have maintained from the very beginning of my campaign, and this was a standard answer that I made in response to the Yugoslavian question, that I would never uh – go to war or become militarily involved, in the internal affairs of another country unless our own security was direc- rectly threatened. And uh – I don’t believe that our security would be directly threatened if the Soviet Union went uh – into Yugoslavia. I don’t believe it will happen. I certainly hope it won’t. I would take eh – the strongest possible measures short of uh – actual military uh – action there by our own troops, but I doubt that that would be an eventuality.MR. KRAFT: One quick follow-up question. (GOVERNOR CARTER: Yes.) Did you clear the response you made with Secretary Schlesinger and Governor Harriman?MR. CARTER: No, I did not.MS. WALTERS: President Ford, your response.MR. FORD: I firmly believe, uh – Mr. Kraft, that it’s unwise for a president to signal in advance what uh – options he might exercise if any uhh – international problem arose. I think we all recall with some sadness that at uh – the period of the nin- late nineteen forties, early nineteen fifties, there were some indications that the United States would not include uh – South Korea in an area of defense. There are some who allege, I can’t prove it true or untrue, that uh – such a statement uh – in effect invited the North Koreans to invade South Korea. It’s a fact they did. But no president of the United States, in my opinion, should signal in advance to a prospective enemy, what his uhh – decision might be or what option he might exercise. It’s far better for a person sitting in the White House uh – who has a number of options to make certain that the uh – other side, so to speak, doesn’t know precisely what you’re going to do. And therefore, that was the reason that I would not uh – identify any particular course of action uh – when I responded to a question a week or so ago.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. Maynard, your question to President Ford, please.MR. MAYNARD: Sir, this question concerns your administrative performance as president. The other day, General George Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered his views on several sensitive subjects, among them Great Britain, one of this country’s oldest allies. He said, and I quote him now, “Great Britain, it’s a pathetic thing. It just makes you cry. They’re no longer a world power. All they have are generals, admirals, and bands,” end quote. Since General Brown’s comments have caused this country embarrassment in the past, why is he still this nation’s leading military officer?MR. FORD: I have indicated to General Brown that uh – the words that he used in that interview, in that particular case and in several others, were very ill advised. And General Brown has indicated uh – his apology, his regrets, and I think that will, uh – in this situation, settle the matter. It is tragic that uh – the full transcript of that interview was not released and that there were excerpts, some of the excerpts, taken out of context. Not this one, however, that you bring up. General Brown has an exemply [sic] record of military performance. He served this nation with great, great skill and courage and bravery for thirty-five years. And I think it’s the consensus of the people who are knowledgeable in the military field, that he is probably the outstanding military leader and strategist that we have in America today. Now he did use uh – ill-advised words, but I think in the fact that he apologized, that he was reprimanded, uh – does permit him to stay on and continue that kind of leadership that’s we so badly need as we enter into uh – negotiations uh – under the SALT II agreement, or if we have operations that might be developing uh in the Middle East or southern Africa, in the Pacific, uh – we need a man with that experience, that knowledge, that know-how, and I think, in light of the fact that he has uh – apologized, uh – would not have justified my asking for his resignation.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Governor Carter, your response.MR. CARTER: Well, just briefly, I – I think this is uh – the second time that General Brown has made a statement that – for which he did have to apologize. And I know that everybody uh – makes mistakes. I think the first one was related to uh – the unwarranted influence of American Jews on the media and uh – in the Congress. This one concerned uh – Great Britain. I think he said that Israel was a – a military burden on us and that Iran hoped to reestablish the Persian Empire. Ah – I’m not uh – sure that I remembered earlier that President Ford had – had expressed uh – his concern about the statement or apologized for it. This is uh – something, though, that I think uh – is indicative of the need among the American people to know how its commander-in-chief, the president, feels and – and – and I think the only criticism that I would have uh – on – of Mr. Ford is that uh – immediately when the statement was re – re – revealed, uh – perhaps a – a statement from the president would have been a clarifying and a very beneficial thing.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Nelson, your question now to Governor Carter.MR. NELSON: Governor, despite the fact that uh – you’ve been running for president a long time now, uh – many Americans uh – still seem to be uneasy about you. Uh – they don’t feel that uh – they know you or the people around you. And one problem seems to be that you haven’t reached out to bring people of broad background or national experience into your campaign or your presidential plans. Most of the people around you on a day-to-day basis are the people you’ve kno- known in Georgia. Many of them are young and relatively inexperienced in national affairs. And uh – doesn’t this raise a serious question as to uh – whether you would bring into a Carter administration uh people with the necessary background to run the federal government?MR. CARTER: I don’t believe it does. Uh – I began campaigning uh – twenty-two months ago. At that time, nobody thought I had a chance to win. Uh – very few people knew who I was. I came from a tiny town, as you know, Plains, and didn’t hold public office, didn’t have very much money. And my first organization was just four or five people plus my wife and my children, my three sons and their wives. And we won the nomination by going out into the streets – barbershops, beauty parlors, restaurants, stores, in factory shift lines also in farmers’ markets and livestock sale barns – and we talked a lot and we listened a lot and we learned from the American people. And we built up uh – an awareness among the uh – voters of this country, particularly those in whose primaries I entered – thirty of them, nobody’s ever done that before – about who I was and what I stood for. Now we have a very, very wide-ranging group of advisers who help me prepare for these debates and who teach me about international economics, and foreign affairs, defense matters, health, education, welfare, government reorganization. I’d say, several hundred of them. And they’re very fine and very highly qualified. The one major decision that I have made since acquiring the nomination, and I share this with President Ford, is the choice of a vice president. I think this should be indicative of the kind of leaders I would choose to help me if I am elected. I chose Senator Walter Mondale. And the only criterion I ever put forward in my own mind was who among the several million people in this country would be the best person qualified to be president, if something should happen to me and to join me in being vice president if I should serve out my term. And I’m convinced now, more than I was when I got the nomination, that Walter Mondale was the right choice, And I believe this is a good indication of the kind of people I would choose in the future. Mr. Ford has had that same choice to make. I don’t want to say anything critical of Senator Dole, but I’ve never heard Mr. Ford say that that was his prim- primary consideration – Who is the best person I could choose in this country to be president of the United States? I feel completely at ease knowing that someday Senator Mondale might very well be president. In the last five pres- vice presidential uh – nominees, uh – incumbents, three of them have become president. But I think this is indicative of what I would do.MS. WALTERS: President Ford, your response, please.MR. FORD: The Governor may not have heard my uh – established criteria for the selection of a vice president, but uh – it was a well-established criteria that the person I selected would be fully qualified to be president of the United States. And Senator Bob Dole is so qualified: sixteen years in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, uhh – very high responsibilities on important committees. I don’t mean to be critical of uh – Senator Mondale, but uh – I was uh – very, very surprised when I read that uh – Senator Mondale made a very derogatory, very personal comment about General Brown uh – after the news story that uh – broke about General Brown. If my recollection is correct he indicated that uh – General Brown was not qualified to be a sewer commissioner. I don’t think that’s a proper way to describe aayuh- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has fought for his country for thirty-five years, and I’m sure the governor would agree with me on that. Uh – I think Senator Dole would show more good judgment and discretion than to so describe uh – a heroic and brave and very outstanding leader of the military. So I think our selection uh – of Bob Dole as vice president uh – is based on merit. And if he should ever become uh – the president of the United States, with his vast experience as member the House and a member of the Senate, as well as a vice president, I think he would do an outstanding job as president of the United States.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Kraft, your question to President Ford.MR. KRAFT: Uh – Mr. President, uh – uh – let me assure you then maybe some of the uh viewing audience that being on this panel hasn’t been as it may seem, all torture and agony. Uh – one of the heartening things is that uh – I and my colleagues have received uh – literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of suggested questions from ordinary citizens all across the country who want answers.MR. FORD: That’s a tribute to their interest in this election.MR. KRAFT: I’ll give you that. Ahh – but, uh – let me go on, because one main subject on the minds of all of them has been the environment. Uh – they’re particularly curious about your record. People – people really wanna know why you vetoed the strip-mining bill. They wanna know why you worked against strong controls on auto emissions. They wanna know why you aren’t doing anything about pollution uh – of the Atlantic Ocean. Uh – they wanna know a-a bipartisan organization such as the National League of Conservation Voters says that when it comes to environmental issues, you are – and I’m quoting – “hopeless.”MR. FORD: Well, first, uh – let me set the record straight. I vetoed the strip-mining bill, Mr. Kraft, because it was the overwhelming consensus of knowledgeable people that that strip-mining bill would have meant the loss of literally uh – thousands of jobs, something around a hundred and forty thousand jabs. Number two, that strip-mining bill would’ve severely set back our need for more coal, and Governor Carter has said repeatedly that coal is the resource that we need to use more in the effort to become independent of the uh – Arab oil supply. So, I vetoed it because of a loss of jobs and because it would’ve interfered with our energy independence program. The auto emissions – uh – it was agreed by Leonard Woodcock, the head of the UAW, and by the uh – heads of all of the automobile industry, we had labor and management together saying that those auto emission standards had to be modified. But let’s talk about what the Ford administration has done in the field of environment. I have increased, as president, by over 60 percent the funding for water treatment plants in the United States, the federal contribution. I have fully funded the land and water conservation program; in fact, have recommended and the Congress approved a substantially increased land and water conservation program. Uh – I have uh – added in the current year budget the funds for the National Park Service. For example, we uh – proposed about $12 million to add between four and five hundred more employees for the National Park Service. And a month or so ago I did uh – likewise say over the next ten years we should expand – double – this national parks, the wild wilderness areas, the scenic river areas. And then, of course, the – the final thing is that I have signed and approved of more scenic rivers, more wilderness areas, since I’ve been president than any other president in the history of the United States.MS. WALTERS: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, I might say that I think the League of Conservation Voters is absolutely right. This uh – administration’s record on environment is very bad. Uh – I think it’s accurate to say that the uh – strip-mining law which was passed twice by the Congress – uh – and was only like two votes I believe of being overridden – would have been good for the country. The claim that it would have put hundred and forty thousand miners out of work is uh – hard to believe, when at the time Mr. Ford vetoed it, the United Mine Workers was uh – supporting the bill. And I don’t think they would have supported the uh – bill had they known that they would lose a hundred and forty thousand jobs. There’s been a consistent policy on the part of this administration to lower or delay enforcement of air pollution standards and water pollution standards. And under both President Nixon and Ford, monies have been impounded that would’ve gone to uh – cities and others to control uh – water pollution. We have no energy policy. We, I think, are the only developed nation in the world that has no comprehensive energy policy, to permit us to plan in an orderly way how to shift from increasing the scarce uh – energy uh – forms: oil, and have research and development concentrated on the increased use of coal, which I strongly favor. The research and development to be used primary to make the coal burning uh – be clean. We need a heritage trust program, similar to the one we had in Georgia, to set aside additional lands that have uh – geological and archeological importance, uh natural areas for enjoyment. Uh – the lands that Mr. Ford uh – brags about having approved are in Alaska and they are enormous in uh – in size. But as far as the accessibility of them by the American people, it’s very uh – far in the future. We’ve taken no strong position in the uh – control of pollution of our oceans, and I would say the worst uh – threat to the environment of all is nuclear proliferation. And this administration, having been in office now for two years or more, has still not taken strong and bold action to stop the proliferation of nuclear waste around the world, particularly plutonium. Those are some brief remarks about the failures of this administration. I would do the opposite in every respect.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Maynard, to Governor Carter.MR. MAYNARD: Governor, federal policy in this country since World War II has tended to favor the development of suburbs at the great expense of central cities. Does not the federal government now have an affirmative obligation to revitalize the American city? We have heard little in this campaign suggesting that you have an urban reconstruction program. Could you please outline your urban intentions for us tonight?MR. CARTER: Yes, I’d be glad to. In the first place, uh – as is the case with the environmental policy and the energy policy that I just described, and the policy for nonproliferation of uh – of nuclear waste, this administration has no urban policy. It’s impossible for mayors or governors to cooperate with the resident, because they can’t anticipate what’s gonna happen next. A mayor of a city like New York, for instance, needs to know uh – eighteen months or two years ahead of time what responsibility the city will have in administration and in financing – in things like housing, uh – pollution control, uh – crime control, education, welfare and health. This has not been done, unfortunately. I remember the headline in the Daily News that said, “Ford to New York: Drop Dead.” I think it’s very important that our cities know that they have a partner in the federal government. Quite often Congress has passed laws in the past designed to help people with uh – the ownership of homes and with the control of crime and with adequate health care and education programs and so forth. Uh – those uh programs were designed to help those who need it most. And quite often this has been in the very poor people and neighborhoods in the downtown urban centers. Because of the uh – great -ly- greatly uh – advantaged uh – tho- per – persons who live in the suburbs, better education, better organization, more articulate, more aware of what the laws are, quite often this money has been channeled out of the downtown centers where it’s needed. Also I favor all revenue sharing money being used for local governments, and also to remove prohibitions in the use of revenue sharing money so that it can be used to improve education, and health care. We have now uh – for instance only 7 percent of the total education cost being financed by the federal government. When uh – the Nixon-Ford Administration started, this was 10 percent. That’s a 30 percent reduction in the portion that the federal government contributes to education in just eight years. And as you know, the education cost has gone up uh – tremendously. The last point is that the major – uh thrust has gotta be to put people back to work. We’ve got an extraordinarily high unemployment rate among downtown urban ghetto areas, uh – particularly among the very poor and particularly among minority groups, sometimes 50 or 60 percent. And the concentration of employment opportunities in those areas would help greatly not only to reestablish the tax base, but also to help reduce the extraordinary welfare cost. One of the major responsibilities on the shoulders of uh – New York City is to – is to finance welfare. And I favor a shifting of the welfare cost away from the local governments altogether. And over a longer period of time, let the federal government begin to absorb part of it that’s now paid by the state governments. Those things would help a great deal with the cities, but we still have a – a very serious problem there.MS. WALTERS: President Ford.MR. FORD: Let me uh – speak out very strongly. The Ford administration does have a very comprehensive program to help uh – our major metropolitan areas. I fought for, and the Congress finally went along with a general revenue sharing program, whereby cities and uh – states, uh – the cities two-thirds and the states one-third, get over six billion dollars a year in cash through which they can uh – provide many, many services, whatever they really want. In addition we uh – in the federal government make available to uh – cities about uh – three billion three hundred million dollars in what we call community development. In adesh- in addition, uh – uh – as a result of my pressure an the Congress, we got a major mass transit program uh – over a four-year period, eleven billion eight-hundred million dollars. We have a good housing program, uh – that uh – will result in cutting uh – the down payments by 50 percent and uh – having mortgage payments uh lower at the beginning of any mortgage period. We’re expanding our homestead uh – housing program. The net result is uh – we think under Carla Hills, who’s the chairman of my uh – urban development and uh – neighborhood revitalization program, we will really do a first-class job in helping uh – the communities throughout the country. As a matter of fact, that committee under Secretary Hills released about a seventy-five-page report with specific recommendations so we can do a better job uh – the weeks ahead. And in addition, the tax program of the Ford administration, which provides an incentive for industry to move into our major uh – metropolitan areas, into the inner cities, will bring jobs where people are, and help to revitalize those cities as they can be.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Nelson, your question next to President Ford.MR. NELSON: Uh – Mr. President, your campaign has uh – run ads in black newspapers saying that quote, “for black Americans, President Ford is quietly getting the job done.” Yet, study after study has shown little progress in desegregation and in fact actual increases in segregated schools and housing in the Northeast. Now, civil rights groups have complained repeatedly that there’s been lack of progress and commitment to an integrated society uh – during your administration. So how are you getting the job done for blacks and other minorities and what programs do you have in mind for the next four years.MR. FORD: Let me say at the outset, uh – I’m very proud of the record of this administration. In the cabinet I have one of the outstanding, I think, administrators as the secretary of transportation, Bill Coleman. You’re familiar, I’m sure, with the recognition given in the Air Force to uh – General James, and there was just uh – approved a three-star admiral, the first in the history of the United States Navy, so uh – we are giving full recognition to individuals of quality in the Ford administration in positions of great responsibility. In addition, uh – the Department of Justice is fully enforcing, and enforcing effectively, the Voting Rights Act, the legislation that involves jobs, housing for minorities, not only blacks but all others. Uh – the Department of uh – uh – HUD is enforcing the new legislation that uhh – outlaws, that takes care of redlining. Uh – what we’re doing is saying that there are opportunities, business opportunities, educational opportunities, responsibilities uh – where people with talent, black or any other minority, can fully qualify. The Office of Minority Business in the Department of Commerce has made available more money in trying to help uh – black businessmen or other minority businessmen than any other administration since the office was established. The Office of Small Business, under Mr. Kobelinski, has a very massive program trying to help the black community. The individual who wants to start a business or expand his business as a black businessman is able to borrow, either directly or with guaranteed loans. I believe on the record that this administration has been more responsive and we have carried out the law to the letter, and I’m proud of the record.MS. WALTERS: Governor Carter, your response, please.MR. CARTER: The uh – description just made of this administration’s record is hard to uh – recognize. I think it’s accurate to say that Mr. Ford voted against the uh – Voting Rights Acts and the uh – Civil Rights Acts in their uh – debative stage I think once it was assured they were going to pass he finally voted for it. This country uh – changed drastically in 1969 when the uh – terms of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were over and Richard Nixon and – and Gerald Ford became the presidents. There was a time when there was hope for those who uh – were poor and downtrodden and who were – uh elderly or who were – uh ill or who were in minority groups, but that time has been gone. I think the greatest thing that ever happened to the South was the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opening up of opportunities – uh to black people – the chance to vote, to hold a job, to buy a house, to go to school, and to participate in public affairs. It not only liberated – uh black people but it also liberated the whites. We’ve seen uh – in many instances in recent years a minority affairs uh – section of uh Small Loan Administration, uh – Small Business Administration lend uh – a black entrepreneur just enough money to get started, and then to go bankrupt. The bankruptcies have gone up – uh in an extraordinary degree. Uh – FHA, which used to be a very responsible agency, uh – that everyone looked to to help own a home, lost six million dollars last year. There’ve been over thirteen hundred indictments in HUD, over eight hundred convictions relating just to home loans. And now the federal government has become the world’s greatest slum landlord. We’ve got a 30 percent or 40 percent unemployment rate among minority uh – young people. And there’s been no concerted effort given to the needs of those who are both poor and black, or poor and who speak a foreign language. And that’s where there’s been a great uh generation of despair, and ill health, and the lack of education, lack of purposefulness, and the lack of hope for the future. But it doesn’t take just a quiet uh – dormant uh minimum enforcement of the law. It requires an aggressive searching out and reaching out to help people who especially need it. And that’s been lacking in the last eight years.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Kraft, to Governor Carter.MR. KRAFT: Ah – Governor Carter, ah – in the nearly two-hundred-year history of the Constitution, there’ve been only uh – I think it’s twenty-five amendments, most of them on issues of the very broadest principle. Uh – now we have proposed amendments in many highly specialized causes, like gun control, school busing, balanced budgets, school prayer, abortion, things like that. Do you think it’s appropriate to the dignity of the Constitution to tack on amendments in wholesale fashion? And which of the ones that I listed – that is, uh – balanced budgets, school busing, school prayer, abortion, gun con- control – which of those would you really work hard to support if you were president?MR. CARTER: I would not work hard to support any of those. Uh – we’ve always had, I think, a lot of constitutional amendments proposed, but the passage of them has been uh – fairly slow, and uh – few and far between. In the two-hundred-year history there’s been a very uh – cautious approach to this. We – quite often we have a transient problem. I – I’m strongly against a- abortion. I think abortion’s wrong. I don’t think the government oughta do anything to encourage abortion. But I don’t favor a constitutional amendment on the subject. But short of the constitutional amendment, and within the confines of the Supreme Court rulings, I’ll do everything I can to minimize the need for abortions with better sex education, family planning, with better adoptive procedures. I personally don’t believe that the federal government oughta finance abortions, but I – I draw the line and don’t support a constitutional amendment. However, I honor the right of people who seek the constitutional amendments on school busing, on uh – prayer in the schools and an abortion. But among those you named, I won’t actively work for the passage of any of them.MS. WALTERS: President Ford, your response, please.MR.FORD: support the uh – Republican uh – platform, which calls for the constitutional amendment that would uh – outlaw abortions. I favor the particular constitutional amendment that would turn over to the states the uh – individual right to the voters in those states uh – the chance to make a decision by public referendum. Uh I call that the people amendment. I think if you really believe that the people of a state ought to make a decision on a matter of this kind that uh – we ought to have a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the fifty states to make the choice. Uh – I think this is a responsible and a proper way to proceed. Uhh – I believe also that uh – there is some merit to a – an amendment that uh – uh – Senator Everett Dirksen uh – proposed very frequently, an amendment that would uh – change the court decision as far as voluntary prayer in public schools. Uh – it seems to me that there should have – be an opportunity, uh – as long as it’s voluntary, as long as there is no uh – compulsion whatsoever, that uh – an individual ought to have that right. So in those two cases I think uh – such uh – a constitutional amendment would be proper, and I really don’t think in either case they’re trivial matters. I think they’re matters of very deep conviction, as far as many, many people in this country believe. And therefore, they shouldn’t be treated lightly. But they’re matters that are ah – important. And in those two cases, I would favor them.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Maynard to President Ford.MR. MAYNARD: Mr. President, twice you have been the intended victim of would-be assassins using handguns. Yet, you remain a steadfast opponent of substantive handgun control. There are now some forty million handguns in this country, going up at the rate of two point five million a year. And tragically, those handguns are frequently purchased for self-protection and wind up being used against a relative or a friend. In light of that, why do you remain so adamant in your opposition to substantive gun control in this country?MR. FORD: Uh – Mr. Maynard, uh – the record of gun control, whether it’s one city or another or in some states, does not show that the registration of a gun, handgun, or the registration of the gun owner, has in any way whatsoever decreased the crime rate or the use of that gun in the committing of a crime. The record just doesn’t prove that such legislation or action by a local city council is effective. What we have to do, and this is the crux of the matter, is to make it very, very uh – difficult for a person who uses a gun in the commission of a crime to stay out of jail. If we make the use of a gun in the commission. of a crime a serious criminal offense, and that person is prosecuted, then, in my opinion, we are going after the person who uses the gun for the wrong reason. I don’t believe in the registration of handguns or the registration of the handgun owner. That has not proven to be effective, and therefore, I think the better way is to go after the criminal, the individual who commits a crime in the possession of a gun and uses that gun for a part of his criminal activity. Those are the people who ought to be in jail. And the only way to do it is to pass strong legislation so that once apprehended, indicted, convicted, they’ll be in jail and off the streets and not using guns in the commission of a crime.MR. MAYNARD: But Mr. President, don’t you think that the proliferation of the availability of handguns contributes to the possibility of those crimes being committed. And, there’s a second part to my follow-up, very quickly. There are, as you know and as you’ve said, jurisdictions around the country with strong gun-control laws. The police officials in those cities contend that if there were a national law, to prevent other jurisdictions from providing the weapons that then came into places like New York, that they might have a better handle on the problem. Have you considered that in your analysis of the gu- the handgun proliferation problem?MR. FORD: Yes, I have. And uh – the individuals that uh – with whom I’ve consulted have not uh – convinced me that uh – a national registration of handguns or handgun owners will solve the problem you’re talking about. The person who wants to use a gun for an illegal purpose can get it whether it’s registered or outlawed. They will be obtained. And they are the people who ought to go behind bars. You should not in the process penalize the legitimate handgun owner. And when you go through the process of registration, you in effect, are penalizing that individual who uses his gun for a very legitimate purpose.MS. WALTERS: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: I – I think it’s accurate to say that Mr. Ford’s position on gun control has changed. Uh – earlier, uh – Mr. Levi, his uh – attorney general, put forward a gun control proposal, which Mr. Ford later, I believe, espoused, that called for the prohibition against the uh sale aw- of the uh – so-called Saturday Night Specials. And it would’ve put uh – very strict uh – uh – control over who owned a handgun. I have been a hunter all my life and happen to own both shotguns, rifles, and a handgun. And uh – the only purpose that I would see in registering uh – handguns and not long guns of any kind would be to prohibit the uh – ownership of those guns by those who’ve used them in the commission of a crime, or who uh – have been proven to be mentally incompetent to own a gun. I believe that limited approach to the – to the question would be uh – advisable, and – and I think, adequate. But that’s as far as I would go with it.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Nelson to Governor Carter.MR. NELSON: Uh Governor, you’ve said the uh – Supreme Court of today is, uh – as you put it, moving back in a proper direction uh – in rulings that have limited the rights of criminal defendants. And you’ve compared the present Supreme Court under Chief Justice Burger very favorably with the more liberal court that we had under Chief Justice Warren. So exactly what are you getting at, and can you elaborate on the kind of court you think this country should have? And can you tell us the kind of qualifications and philosophy you would look for as president in making Supreme Court appointments?MR. CARTER: While I was governor of Georgia, although I’m not a lawyer, we had complete reform of the Georgia court system. We uh – streamlined the structure of the court, put in administrative officers, put a unified court system in, required that all uh – severe sentences be reviewed far uniformity. And, in addition to that put forward a proposal that was adopted and used throughout my own term of office of selection of – for all judges and district attorneys or prosecuting attorneys, on the basis of merit. Every time I had a vacancy on the Georgia Supreme Court – and I filled five of those vacancies out of seven total and about half the court of appeals judges, about 35 percent of the trial judges – I was given from an objective panel the five most highly qualified persons in Georgia. And from those five, I always chose the first one or second one. So merit selection of judges is the most important single criterion. And I would institute the same kind of procedure as president, not only in judicial appointments, but also in diplomatic appointments. Secondly, I think that the Burger Court has fairly well confirmed the major and – and most far-reaching and most controversial decisions of the Warren Court. Civil rights – uh has been confirmed by the Burger Court, hasn’t been uh – reversed, and I don’t think there’s any inclination to reverse those basic decisions. The one-man, one-vote rule, which is a very important one that uh – s- struck down the unwarranted influence in the legislature of parsley – uh populated areas of – of the states. The uh – right of indigent or very poor accused persons to uh – legal counsel. Uh – I think the Burger Court has confirmed that basic and very controversial decision of the Warren Court. Also the – the protection of an arrested person against unwarranted persecution in trying to get a false uh – confession. But now I think there have been a couple of instances where the Burger Court has made technical rulings where an obviously guilty person was later found to be guilty. And I think that in that case uh – some of the more liberal uh – members of the uh – so-called Warren Court agreed with those decisions. But the only uh – thing I uh – have pointed out was, what I’ve just said, and that there was a need to clarify the technicalities so that you couldn’t be forced to release a person who was obviously guilty just because of a – of a small technicality in the law. And – and that’s a reversal of position uh by the Burger Court with which I do agree.MR. NELSON: Governor, I don’t believe you ans- you answered my question though about the kinds of uh people you would be looking for the court, the type of philosophy uh – you would be looking for if you were making appointments to the Supreme Court as president.MR. CARTER: Okay, I thought I answered it by saying that it would be on the basis of merit. Once the uh – search and analysis procedure had been completed, and once I’m given a list of the five or seven or ten uh – best qualified persons in the country, I would make a selection from among those uh – persons. If the uh – list was, uh – in my opinion, fairly uniform, if there was no outstanding person, then I would undoubtedly choose someone who would most accurately reflect my own basic politi- political philosophy as best I could determine it. Which would be uh – to continue the progress that has been made under the last two uh – courts – the Warren Court and the Burger Court. I would also like to uh – completely revise our criminal justice system – to do some of the things at the federal level in court reform that I’ve just described, as has been done in Georgia and other states. And then I would like to appoint people who would be interested in helping with that. I know that uh Chief Justice Burger is. He hasn’t had help from the administration, from the Congress, to carry this out. The uh – emphasis, I think, of the – of the court system uh – should be to interpret the uh – the Constitution and the laws uh – equally between property protection and personal protection. But when there’s uh – a very narrow decision – which quite often there’s one that reaches the Supreme Court – I think the choice should be with human rights. And uh – that would be another factor that I would follow.MS. WALTERS: President Ford.MR. FORD: Well, I think the answer uh – as to the kind of person that I would select uh – is obvious. I had one opportunity to nominate uh – an individual to the Supreme Court and I selected the Circuit Court of Appeals judge from Illinois, uh – John Paul Stevens. I selected him because of his outstanding record as a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, and I was very pleased that uh – an overwhelming Democratic United States Senate, after going into his background, came to the conclusion that he was uh – fit and should serve, and the vote in his behalf was overwhelming. So, I would say somebody in the format of uh – Justice Stevens would be the kind of an individual that I would uh – select in the future, as I did him in the past. I uh – believe, however, a comment ought to be made about the direction of the uh – Burger Court, vis-a-vis the uh – court uh – that preceded it. It seems to me that the Miranda case was a case that really made it very, very difficult for the – uh police, the law enforcement people in this country to uh – do what they could to make certain that the victim of a crime was protected and that those that commit crimes uh – were properly handled and uh – sent to jail. The Miranda case, uh – the Burger Court uh – is gradually changing, and I’m pleased to see that there are some steps being made by the uh – Burger Court to modify the so-called Miranda decision. Uh – I might make a correction uh – of what uh – Governor Carter said, uh speaking of uh – uh – gun control, uh – yes, it is true, I believe that the sale of uh – Saturday Night S- Specials should be cut out, but he wants the registration of handguns.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Kraft.MR. KRAFT: Uh – Mr. President, uh – the country is now uh – in uh – in something that your uh – advisors call an economic pause. I think to most Americans that sounds like a – a antiseptic term for uh – low growth, uh – unemployment standstill at a high, high level, uhh – decline in take-home pay, uh – lower factory earnings, more layoffs. Uh, isn’t that a really rotten record and doesn’t your administration bear most of the blame for it?MR. FORD: Well, Mr. Kraft, uh – I violently disagree with your assessment. And I don’t think the record justifies the conclusion that you come to. Uh – let me uh – talk about uh – the economic announcements that were made just this past week. Yes, it was announced that the uh – GNP real growth in the third quarter was at 4 percent. But do you realize that over the last ten years that’s a higher figure than the average growth during that ten-year period? Now it’s lower than the nine-point-point-two percent growth in the first quarter, and it’s lower than the uh 5 percent growth in the second quarter. But every economist – liberal, conservative that I’m familiar with – recognizes that in the fourth quarter of this year and in the fifth quar- uh – the first quarter of next year that we’ll have an increase in real GNP. But now let’s talk about the pluses that came out this week. We had an 18 percent increase in housing starts. We had a substantial increase in new permits for housing. As a matter of fact, based on the announcement this week, there will be at an annual rate of a million, eight hundred and some thousand new houses built, which is a tremendous increase over last year and a substantial increase over the earlier part of this year. Now in addition, we had a very – some very good news in the reduction in the rate of inflation. And inflation hits everybody: those who are working and those who are on welfare. The rate of inflation, as announced just the other day, is under 5 percent; and the uh – 4.4 percent that was indicated at the time of the 4 percent GNP was less than the 5.4 percent. It means that the American buyer is getting a better bargain today because inflation is less.MR. KRAFT: Mr. President, let me ask you this. Uh – there has been an increase in layoffs and that’s something that bothers everybody because even people that have a job are afraid that they’re going to be fired. Did you predict that layoff, uh – that increase in layoffs? Didn’t that take you by surprise? Hasn’t the gov- hasn’t your administration been surprised by this pause? Uh – in fact, haven’t you not – haven’t you been so obsessed with saving money uh – that you didn’t even push the government to spend funds that were allocated?MR. FORD; Uh Mr. Kraft, uh – I think the record can be put in this uh – in this way, which uh – is the way that I think satisfies most Americans. Since the depths of the recession, we have added four million jobs. Im- most importantly, consumer confidence as surveyed by the reputable organization at the University of Michigan is at the highest since 1972. In other words, there is a growing public confidence in the strength of this economy. And that means that there will be more industrial activity. It means that there will be a reduction in the uhh – unemployment. It means that there will be increased hires. It means that there will be increased employment. Now we’ve had this pause, but most economists, regardless of their political philosophy, uh – indicate that this pause for a month or two was healthy, because we could not have honestly sustained a 9.2 percent rate of growth which we had in the first quarter of this year. Now, uh – I’d like to point out as well that the United States’ economic recovery from the recession of a year ago is well ahead of the economic recovery of any major free industrial nation in the world today. We’re ahead of all of the Western European country. We’re ahead of Japan. The United States is leading the free world out of the recession that was serious a year, year and a half ago. We’re going to see unemployment going down, more jobs available, and the rate of inflation going down. And I think this is a record that uh – the American people understand and will appreciate.MS. WALTERS: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: With all due respect to President Ford, I think he ought to be ashamed of mentioning that statement, because we have the highest unemployment rate now than we had at any time between the Great Depression caused by Herbert Hoover and the time President Ford took office. We’ve got seven and a half million people out of jobs. Since he’s been in office, two and a half million more American people have lost their jobs. In the last four months alone, five hundred thousand Americans have gone on the unemployment roll. In the last month, we’ve had a net loss of one hundred and sixty-three thousand jobs. Anybody who says that the inflation rate is in good shape now ought to talk to the housewives. One of the overwhelming results that I’ve seen in the polls is that people feel that you can’t plan anymore. There’s no way to make a prediction that my family might be able to own a home or to put my kid through college. Savings accounts are losing money instead of gaining money. Inflation is robbing us. Under the present administration – Nixon’s and Ford’s – we’ve had three times the inflation rate that we experienced under President Johnson and President Kennedy. The economic growth is less than half today what it was at the beginning of this year. And housing starts – he compares the housing starts with last year. I don’t blame him, because in 1975 we had fewer housing starts in this country, fewer homes built, than any year since 1940. That’s thirty-five years. And we’ve got a 35 percent unemployment rate in many areas of this country among construction workers. And Mr. Ford hasn’t done anything about it. And I think this shows a callous indifference to the families that have suffered so much. He has vetoed bills passed by Congress within the congressional budget guidelines job opportunities for two million Americans. We’ll never have a balanced budget, we’ll never meet the needs of our people, we’ll never control the inflationary spiral, as long as we have seven and a half or eight million people out of work, who are looking for jobs. And we’ve probably got two and a half more million people who are not looking for jobs any more, because they’ve given up hope. That is a very serious indictment of this administration. It’s probably the worst one of all.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Maynard.MR. MAYNARD: Governor Carter, you entered this race against President Ford with a twenty-point lead or better in the polls. And now it appears that this campaign is headed for a photo finish. You’ve said how difficult it is to run against a sitting president. But Mr. Ford was just as much an incumbent in July when you were twenty points ahead as he is now. Can you tell us what caused the evaporation of that lead in your opinion?MR. CARTER: Well, that’s not exactly an accurate description of what happened. When I was that far ahead, it was immediately following the Democratic Convention, and before the Republican Convention. At that time, uh – 25 or 30 percent of the Reagan supporters said that they would not support President Ford. But as occurred at the end of the con- Democratic Convention, the Republican Party unified itself. And I think immediately following the Republican Convention, there was about a ten-point spread. I believe that to be accurate, I had 49 percent; President Ford, 39 percent. Uh – the polls uh – are good indications of fluctuations, but they vary widely one from another. And the only poll I’ve ever followed is the one that uh – you know, is taken on election day. I was in uh – thirty primaries in the spring, and uh – at first it was obvious that I didn’t have any standing in the poll. As a matter of fact, I think when Gallup ran their first poll in December of 1975 they didn’t put my name on the list. They had thirty-five people on the list. My name wasn’t even there. And at the beginning of the year I had about 2 percent. So the polls to me are interesting, but they don’t determine, you know, my hopes or – or my despair. I campaign among people. I’ve never depended on powerful political figures to put me in office. I have a direct relationship with hundreds of people around – hundreds of thousands around the country who actively campaign for me. In Georgia alone, for instance, I got 84 percent of the vote, and I think there were fourteen people uh – in addition to myself on the ballot, and Governor Wallace had been very strong in Georgia. That’s an overwhelming support from my own people who know me best. And today, we have about five hundred Georgians at their own expense – just working people who believe in me – spread around the country uh – involved in the political campaign. So, the polls are interesting, but uh – I don’t know how to explain the fluctuation. I think a lot of it uh – depends on current events – uh – sometimes foreign affairs, sometimes domestic affairs. But I think our hold uh – of support among those who uh – are crucial to the election has been fairly steady. And my success in the primary season was, I think, notable for a newcomer, from someone who’s from outside Washington, who – who never has been a part of the Washington establishment. And I think that we’ll have good results uh – on November the second for myself and I hope for the country.MS. WALTERS: President Ford, your response.MR. FORD: I think uh – the uh – increase and the uh – prospects as far as I’m concerned and the I – less favorable prospects for Governor Carter, reflect that Governor Carter uh – is inconsistent in many of the positions that he takes. He tends to distort on a number of occasions. Uh – just a moment ago, for example, uh – he uh – was indicating that uh – uh – in the 1950s, for example, uh – unemployment was very low. He fails to point out that uh – in the 1950s we were engaged in the war in Vietnam. We – I mean in Korea – we had uh – three million five hundred thousand young men uh – in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. That’s not the way to end unemployment or to reduce unemployment. At the present time we’re at peace. We have reduced the number of people in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from three million, one hundred – three million, five hundred thousand to two mil- lion one hundred thousand. We are not at war. We have reduced the military manpower by a million four hundred thousand. If we had that many more people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Marines, our unemployment figure would be considerably less. But this administration doesn’t believe the way to reduce unemployment is to go to war, or to increase the number of people in the military. So you cannot compare unemployment, as you sought to, uh – with the present time with the 1950s, because the then administration had people in the military – they were at war, they were fighting overseas, and this administration has reduced the size of the military by a million four hundred thousand. They’re in the civilian labor market and they’re not fighting anywhere around the world today.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, gentlemen. This will complete our questioning for this debate. We don’t have uh – time for more questions and uh – full answers. So now each candidate will be allowed up to four minutes for a closing statement. And at the original coin toss in Philadelphia a month ago it was determined that President Ford would make the first closing statement tonight. President Ford.MR. FORD: For twenty-five years I served in the Congress under five presidents. I saw them work, I saw them make very hard decisions. I didn’t always agree with their decisions, whether they were Democratic or Republican presidents. For the last two years, I’ve been the president, and I have found from experience that it’s much more difficult to make those decisions than it is to second-guess them. I became president at the time that the United States was in a very troubled time. We had inflation of over 12 percent, we were on the brink of the worst recession in the last forty years, we were still deeply involved in the problems of Vietnam. The American people had lost faith and trust and confidence in the presidency itself. That uh – situation called for me to first put the United States on a steady course and to keep our keel well balanced, because we had to face the difficult problems that had all of a sudden hit America. I think most people know that I did not seek the presidency. But I am asking for your help and assistance to be president for the next four years. During this campaign we’ve seen a lot of television shows, a lot of bumper stickers, and a great many uh – slogans of one kind or another. But those are not the things that count. What counts is, that the United States celebrated its 200th birthday on July fourth. As a result of that wonderful experience all over the United States, there is a new spirit in America. The American people are healed, are working together. The American people are moving again, and moving in the right direction. We have cut inflation by better than half. We have came out of the recession and we’re well on the road to real prosperity in this country again. There has been a restoration of faith and confidence and trust in the presidency because I’ve been open, candid and forthright. I have never promised more than I could produce and I have produced everything that I promised. We are at peace. Not a single young American is fighting or dying on any foreign soil tonight. We have peace with freedom. I’ve been proud to be president of the United States during these very troubled times. I love America just as all of you love America. It would be the highest honor for me to have your support on November second and for you to say, “Jerry Ford, you’ve done a good job, keep on doing it.” Thank you, and good night.MS. WALTERS: Thank you President Ford. Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Thank you Barbara (barely audible). The major purpose of an election for president is to choose a leader. Someone who can analyze the depths of feeling in our country to set a standard for our people to follow, to inspire our people to reach for greatness, to correct our defects, to answer difficult questions, to bind ourselves together in a spirit of unity. I don’t believe the present administration has done that. We have been discouraged and we’ve been alienated. Sometimes we’ve been embarrassed and sometimes we’ve been ashamed. Our people are out of work, and there’s a sense of withdrawal. But our country is innately very strong. Mr. Ford is a good and decent man, but he’s in – been in office now more than eight hundred days approaching almost as long as John Kennedy was in office. I’d like to ask the American people what, what’s been accomplished. A lot remains to be done. My own background is different from his. I was a school board member, and a library board member. I served an a hospital authority. And I was in the state senate and I was governor and I’m an engineer, a Naval officer, a farmer, a businessman. And I believe we require someone who can work harmoniously with the Congress, who can work closely with the people of this country, and who can bring a new image and a new spirit to Washington. Our tax structure is a disgrace, it needs to be reformed. I was Governor of Georgia for four years. We never increased sales taxes or income tax or property tax. As a matter of fact, the year before I went out of office we gave a $50 million refund to the property taxpayers of Georgia. We spend six hundred dollars per person in this country – every man, woman and child – for health care. We still rank fifteenth among all the nations of the world in infant mortality. And our cancer rate is uh – higher than any country in the world. We don’t have good health care. We could have it. Employment ought to be restored to our people. We’ve become almost a welfare state. We spend now 700 percent more on unemployment compensation than we did eight years ago when the Republicans took over the White House. Our people wanna go back to work. Our education system can be improved. Secrecy ought to be stripped away from government and a maximum of personal privacy ought to be maintained. Our housing programs have uh – gone bad. It used to be that the average – uh family could own a house. But now less than a third of our people can afford to buy their own homes. The budget was more grossly out of balance last year than ever before in the history of our country – $65 billion – primarily because our people are not at work. Inflation is robbing us, as we’ve already discussed, and the government bureaucracy is uh – just a horrible mess. This doesn’t have to be. Now I don’t know all the answers. Nobody could. But I do know that if the president of the United States and the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States said, “I believe our nation is greater than what we are now.” I believe that if we are inspired, if we can achieve a degree of unity, if we can set our goals high enough and work toward recognized goals with industry and labor and agriculture along with government at all levels, then we can achieve great things. We might have to do it slowly. There are no magic answers to do it. But I believe together we can make great progress. We can correct our difficult mistakes and answer those very tough questions. I believe in the greatness of our country, and I believe the American people are ready for a change in Washington. We’ve been drifting too long. We’ve been dormant too long. We’ve been discouraged too long. And we have not set an example for our own people. But I believe that we can now establish in the White House a good relationship with Congress, a good relationship with our people, set very high goals for our country. And with inspiration and hard work we can achieve great things. And let the world know – that’s very important. But more importantly, let the people in our own country realize that we still live in the greatest nation on earth. Thank you very much.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Governor Carter, and thank you, President Ford. I also would like to thank the audience and my three colleagues – Mr. Kraft, Mr. Maynard and Mr. Nelson – who have been our questioners. This debate has, of course, been seen by millions of Americans and, in addition, tonight is being broadcast to one hundred and thirteen nations throughout the world. This concludes the 1976 presidential debates, a truly remarkable exercise in democracy, for this is the first time in sixteen years that the presidential candidates have debated. It is the first time ever that an incumbent president has debated his challenger. And the debate included the first between the two vice presidential candidates. President Ford and Governor Carter, we not only want to thank you, but we commend you for agreeing to come together to discuss the issues before the American people. And our special thanks to the League of Women Voters for making these events possible. In sponsoring these events, the League of Women Voters Education Fund has tried to provide you with the information that you will need to choose wisely. The election is now only eleven days off. The candidates have participated in presenting their views in three ninety-minute debates, and now it’s up to the voters, now it is up to you, to participate. The League urges all registered voters to vote on November second for the candidate of your choice. And now, from Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall an the campus of the College of William and Mary, this is Barbara Walters wishing you all a good evening.",
    "id": "c8bc90ed-4ac8-4f6a-b883-ac9816abec9a"
  },
  {
    "year": 1976,
    "date": "September 23, 1976",
    "title": "The First Carter-Ford Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 23, 1976 Debate TranscriptSeptember 23, 1976The First Carter-Ford Presidential DebateEDWIN NEWMAN, MODERATOR: Good evening. I’m Edwin Newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for president, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for president. We thank you, President Ford and we thank you, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight. There are to be three debates between the presidential candidates and one between the vice-presidential candidates. All are being arranged by the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Tonight’s debate, the first between presidential candidates in sixteen years and the first ever in which an incumbent president has participated, is taking place before an audience in the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia, just three blocks from Independence Hall. The television audience may reach a hundred million in the United States and many millions overseas. Tonight’s debate focuses on domestic issues and economic policy. Questions will be put by Frank Reynolds of ABC News, James Gannon of the Wall Street Journal, and Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker magazine. Under the agreed rules the first question will go to Governor Carter. That was decided by the toss of a coin. He will have up to three minutes to answer. One follow-up question will be permitted with up to two minutes to reply. President Ford will then have two minutes to respond. The next question will go to President Ford with the same time arrangements, and questions will continue to be alternated between the candidates. Each man will make a three-minute statement at the end, Governor Carter to go first. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening. Mr. Reynolds, your question for Governor Carter.MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, Governor Carter. Governor, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, you said you believed these debates would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have about you. Well, one of those concerns, not an uncommon one about uh – candidates in any year, is that many voters say they don’t really know where you stand. Now, you have made jobs your number one priority and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction in unemployment. Can you say now, Governor, in specific terms, what your first step would be next January, if you are elected, to achieve that.MR. CARTER: Yes. First of all is to recognize a tremendous economic strength in this country and to set the putting to – back to work of our people as a top priority. This is uh – an effort that ought to be done primarily by strong leadership in the White House, the inspiration of our people, the tapping of uh – business, agriculture, industry, labor and government at all levels to work on this uh project. We’ll never have uh – an end to the inflationary spiral, and we’ll never have a balanced budget until we get our people back to work. There are several things that can be done specifically that are not now being done. First of all, to channel research and development funds into areas that will provide uh large numbers of jobs. Secondly, we need to have a commitment in the uh private sector uh – to cooperate with government in matters like housing. Here a very small investment of taxpayer’s money – in the housing field can bring large numbers of extra jobs, and the guarantee of mortgage loans, and the uh – putting forward of uh – two-0-two programs for housing for older people and so forth to cut down the roughly 20 percent unemployment that now exists in the – in the construction industry. Another thing is to deal with our – uh needs in the central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely high: sometimes among minority groups, or those who don’t speak English, or who’re black, or young people, or – 40 percent of the employment. Here a CCC type program would be appropriate to channel money into the ah – cha- in – in into the sharing with the private sector and also local and state governments to employ young people who are now out of work. Another very important – uh aspect of our – uh economy would be to increase production in every way possible, uh to hold down – uh taxes on individuals, and to uh shift the tax burdens onto those who have avoided paying taxes in the past. These uh – kinds of specific things, uh none of which are being done now, would be a great help in – in reducing uh unemployment. There is uh – uh an additional factor that needs to be done and covered very – very succinctly, and that is, to make sure that we have a good relationship between management – business on the one hand, and labor, on the other. In a > Transfer interrupted! ery high, we might channel specific uh targeted job – job – uh opportunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed people – uh and also sharing with uh – local governments the uh – payment of salaries which would uh – let us cut down the unemployment rate much lower, before we hit the inflationary level. But I believe that by the end of the first four years of uh – of the next term we could have the unemployment down to 3 percent adult unemployment, which is about uh – 4 to 4 and a half percent overall uh controlled inflation rate and have a uh balance of growth of about – uh 4 to 6 percent, around 5 percent which would give us a balanced budget.MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, uh – in the event you are successful and you do achieve a drastic dropMR. CARTER: Yes, in unemployment that is likely to create additional pressure on prices, how willing are you to consider an incomes policy, in other words, wage and price controls?MR. CARTER: Well – we now have such uh – a low utilization of uh – our productive capacity – uh about 73 percent; I think it’s about the lowest since the Great Depression years – and such a high unemployment rate now – uh 7.9 percent – that – uh we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. And I think this would uh – this would be uh easy to accomplish, to get jobs down, without having strong in- inflationary pressures that – that would be necessary. I would not favor the uh – payment of uh – of a given fixed income to people unless they are not able to work. But with tax incentives for the low-income groups we could build up their uh – income levels uh – above the poverty level and not uh make welfare more uh – profitable than – than work.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your response.MR. FORD: I don’t believe that uh that Mr. Carter’s been any more specific in this case than he has been on many other instances. I notice particularly that he didn’t endorse the Humphrey-Hawkins bill which he has on occasions and which is included as a part of the Democratic platform. That legislation uh allegedly would help our unemployment, but uh – we all know that it would’ve controlled our economy, it would’ve added uh – ten to thirty billion dollars each year in additional expenditures by the Federal Government. It would’ve called for export controls on agricultural products In my judgment the best way to get jobs is to uh – expand the private sector, where five out of six jobs today exist in our economy. We can do that by reducing Federal taxes as I proposed uh – about a year ago when I called for a tax reduction of $28 billion – three-quarters of it to go to private uh taxpayers and uh one-quarter to the business sector. We could add to jobs in the major metropolitan areas by a proposal that I recommended that would give tax incentives to business to move into the inner city and to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a plant, or expand a plant where people are, and people are currently unemployed. We could uh – also uh – help our youths with some of the proposals that uh – would give to young people an opportunity to work and learn at the same time just like we give money to young people who are going to college. Those are the kind of specifics that I think we have to discuss on these uh – debates, and these are the kind of programs that I’ll talk about on my time.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Gannon, your question to President Ford.MR. GANNON: Mr. President, I would like to continue for a moment on this uh question of taxes which you have just raised. You have said that you favor more tax cuts for middle-income Americans – even those earning up to $30 thousand a year. That presumably would cost the Treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue. In view of the very large budget deficits that you have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your goal of balancing the budget?MR. FORD: At the time, Mr. Gannon, that I made the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut – three-quarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25 percent to American business. I said at the time that we had to hold the lid an federal spending, that for every dollar of a tax reduction we had to have an equal reduction in federal expenditures – a one-for-one proposition. And I recommended that to the Congress with a budget ceiling of three hundred and ninety-five billion dollars, and that would have permitted us to have a $25 billion tax reduction. In my tax reduction program for middle-income taxpayers, I recommended that the Congress increase personal exemptions from seven hundred and fifty dollars per person to one thousand dollars per person. That would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have a thousand dollars more personal exemption – money that they could spend for their own purposes, money that the government wouldn’t have to spend. But if we keep the lid on federal spending, which I think we can – with the help of the Congress, we can justify fully a $28 billion tax reduction. In the budget that I submitted to the Congress in January this year, I re- recommended a 50 percent cutback in the rate of growth of federal spending. For the last ten years the budget of the United States has grown from uh – about 11 percent per year. We can’t afford that kind of growth in federal spending. And in the budget that I recommended we cut it in half – a growth rate of 5 to 5 and one-half percent. With that kind of limitation, on federal spending, we can fully justify the tax reductions that I have proposed. And it seems to me with the stimulant of more money in the hands of the taxpayers, and with more money in the hands of business to expand, to modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy stimulated so that we’ll get more revenue and we’ll have a more prosperous economy.MR. GANNON: Mr. President, to follow up a moment, uh – the Congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now, which did not meet exactly the uh – sort of outline that you requested. What is your intention on that bill, uh – since it doesn’t meet your – your requirements? Do you plan to sign that bill?MR. FORD: That tax bill does not entirely meet the criteria that I established. I think the Congress should have uh – added another $10 billion reduction in personal income taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions from seven hundred and fifty to a thousand dollars. And Congress could have done that if the budget committees of the Congress, and the Congress as a whole, had not increased the spending that I recommended in the budget. I’m sure that you know that in the resolutions passed by the Congress, that have added about $17 billion in more spending, by the Congress over the budget that I recommended. So I would prefer in that tax bill to have an additional tax cut and a further limitation on federal spending. Now this tax bill – that hasn’t reached the White House yet, but is expected in a day or two – it’s about fifteen hundred pages. It has some good provisions in it. It has – uh left out some that I have recommended, unfortunately. On the other hand, uh when you have a bill of that magnitude, with – tho- those many provisions, a president has to sit and decide if there’s more good than bad. And from the a- analysis that I’ve made so far, it seems to me that that tax bill does uh – justify my signature and my approval.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter, your response.MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford is – is uh changing uh considerably his previous philosophy. The present tax structure is a disgrace to this country; it’s just a welfare program for the rich. As a matter of fact, uh – 25 percent of the total tax deductions, go for only 1 percent of the richest people in this country, and over 50 percent of the tax uh credits go for the 14 percent of the richest people in this country. When Mr. Ford first became president in – in August of 1974, the first thing he did in – in October was to ask for a $4.7 billion increase in taxes on our people in the midst of the heaviest recession, since uh – since the great depression of nineteen uh – of the 1940s. In uh – January of 1975 he asked for a tax change: a $5.6 billion increase on low-and-middle-income private individuals, a six and a half billion dollar decrease on the corporations and the special interests. In uh – December of uh – 1975 he vetoed the roughly 18 to 20 billion dollar uh tax-reduction bill that had been passed by the Congress, and then he came back later on in January of this year and he did advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would be offset by a $6 billion increase this coming January in deductions for Social Security payments and for unemployment compensation. The whole philosophy of the Republican party, including uh – my opponent, has been to pile on taxes on low-income people to take ’em off on the corporations. As a matter fact, in – sin- since the late sixties when Mr. Nixon took office, we’ve had a reduction in uh – in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30 percent down to about 20 percent. We’ve had an increase in taxes paid by individuals, payroll taxes, from14 Percent up to 20 percent. And this is what the Republicans have done to us. And this is why a tax reform is so important.MR. NEWMAN: Mrs. Drew, your question to Governor Carter.MS. DREW: Uh Governor Carter, you proposed a number of new or enlarged programs, including jobs, health, welfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to cities, changes in social security and housing subsidies. You’ve also said that you wanna balance the budget by the end of your first term. Now you haven’t put a price tag on those programs, but even if we price them conservatively and we count for full employment by the end of your first term, and we count for the economic growth that would occur during that period, there still isn’t enough money to pay for those programs and balance the budget by any – any estimates that I’ve been able to see. So, in that case what would give?MR. CARTER: Well, as a matter of fact there is. If we assume the ah – uh – a rate of growth of our economy, equivalent to what it was during President Johnson, President Kennedy, even before the – the – the – uh wa uh – Vietnese- namese War, and if we assume that at the end of the four-year period we can cut our unemployment rate down to 4 to 4 and a half percent – under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase in the ad- in the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing as the inflation rate does – my economic projections, I think confirmed by the House uh – and the Senate committees, have been with the $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year ’81 which will be the last year of this next term. Within that sixty-billion dollars increase there would be fit the programs that I promised the American people. I might say too, that – that if we see that these goals cannot be reached – and I believe they’re reasonable goals – then I would cut back on the rate of implement- implementation of new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget by fiscal year ’81 which is the last year of the next term. I believe that we ought to have a balanced budget during normal economic circumstances. And uh – these projections have been very carefully made. I stand behind them. And if they should be in error slightly on the down side, then I’ll phase in the programs that we’ve uh – advocated, more slowly.MS. DREW: Governor, uh – according to the budget committees of the Congress tha- tha- tha- that you referred to, if we get to full employment – what they project at a 4 percent unemployment – and, as you say, even allowing for the inflation in the programs, there would not be anything more than a surplus of $5 billion by the end of ninet- by 1981. And conservative estimates of your programs would be that they’d be about 85 to a hundred billion dollars. So how – how do you say that you’re going to be able to do these things and balance the budget?MR. CARTER: Well, the uh – the assumption that – that you uh – have described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy.MS. DREW: No, they took that into account in those figures.MR. CARTER: I believe that it’s accurate to say that – that the – that the committees to whom you refer with the – the employment that you uh – state, and with the 5 to 5 and a half percent growth rate in our economy, that the uh – projections would be a uh – a $60 billion increase in the amount of money that we’d have to spend in l981 compared to now. And uh – with that uh – in that framework would befit the – any improvements in the programs. Now this does not include uh – any uh – uh extra control over uh unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete or obsolescent programs. Uh – we’ll have uh – a safety version built in with complete reorganization of the executive branch of government which I am pledged to do. The present bureaucratic structure of the – of the Federal Government is a mess. And if I’m elected president that’s gonna be a top priority of mine to completely revise the structure of the federal government, to make it economical, efficient, purposeful and manageable for a change. And also, I’m going to institute zero-based budgeting which I used four years in Georgia, which uh – assesses every program every year, and eliminates those programs that are obsolete or obsolescent. But with these projections, we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981, if I’m elected president. Keep my promises to the American people. And it’s just predicated on very modest, but I think accurate, projections of employment increases and uh – a growth in our national economy equal to what was experienced under Kennedy, Johnson, before the Vietnam War.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford.MR. FORD: If it is uh true that there will be a $60 billion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather than spend that money for all the new programs that Governor Carter recommends and endorses, and which are included in the Democratic platform, I think the American taxpayer ought to get an additional tax break – a tax reduction of that magnitude. I feel that the taxpayers are the ones that need the relief: I don’t think we should add additional programs of the magnitude that Governor Carter talks about. It seems to me that our tax structure today has rates that are too high. But I am uh – very glad to point out that since 1969, during a Republican administrations, we have had ten million people taken off of the tax rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area. And at the same time, assuming that I sign the tax bill that was mentioned by Mr. Gannon, we will in the last two tax bills have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy taxpayers. And I believe that by eliminating ten million taxpayers in the last uh eight years, and by putting a heavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets, plus the other actions that’ve been taken uh – we can give taxpayers adequate tax relief. Now it seems to me that uh – as we look at the recommendations of the budget committees and our own projections, there isn’t going to be any $60 billion dividend. I’ve heard of those dividends in the past; it always happens. We expected one at the time of the Vietnam War, but it was used up before we ever ended the war and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they deserved.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Reynolds.MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, when you came into office you spoke very eloquently of the need for a time for healing, and very early in your administration you went out to Chicago and you announced, you proposed a program of uh case-by-case pardons for draft resisters to restore them to full citizenship. Some fourteen thousand young men took advantage of your offer, but another ninety thousand did not. In granting the pardon to former President Nixon, sir, part of your rationale was to put Watergate behind us to – if I may quote you again – truly end our long national nightmare. Why does not the same rationale apply now, today, in our Bicentennial year, to the young men who resisted in Vietnam, and many of them still in exile abroad?MR. FORD: The amnesty program that I recommended in Chicago in September of 1974 would give to all draft evaders and – uh military deserters the opportunity to earn their uh – good record back. About fourteen to fifteen thousand did take advantage of that program. We gave them ample time. I am against- an across-the-board pardon of draft evaders or military deserters. Now in the case of Mr. Nixon, the reason the – the pardon was given, was that, when I took office this country was in a very, very divided condition. There was hatred, there was divisiveness – uh people had lost faith in their government in many, many respects. Mr. Nixon resigned, and I became president. It seemed to me that if I was to uh adequately and effectively handle the problems of high inflation, a growing recession, the uh – involvement of the United States still in Vietnam that I had to give a hundred percent of my time to those two major problems. Mr. Nixon resigned. That is disgrace. The first President out of thirty-eight that ever resigned from public office under pressure. So when you look at the penalty that he paid, and when you analyze the requirements that I had – to spend all of my time working on the economy, which was in trouble, that I inherited; working on our problems in Southeast Asia – which were still plaguing us – it seemed to me that Mr. Nixon had been penalized enough by his resignation in disgrace and the need, and necessity for me to concentrate on the problems of the country fully justified the action that I took.MR. REYNOLDS: I take it then, sir, that you do not believe that uh – it is – that you are going to reconsider and uh – think about those ninety thousand who are still abroad. Uh – have they not been penalized enough – many of ’em been there for years?MR. FORD: Well, Mr. Carter has uh indicated that uh – he would give a blanket pardon to all uh – draft evaders. I do not agree with that point of view. I gave, in September of 1974, an opportunity for all draft evaders, all deserters, to come in voluntarily, clear their records by earning an opportunity to restore their good citizenship. I think we gave them a good opportunity – we’re – I don’t think we should go any further.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well I think it’s uh… very difficult for President Ford to uh – explain the difference between the pardon of President Nixon and – and uh – his attitude toward those who violated the draft laws. As a matter of fact – now- I don’t advocate amnesty; I advocate pardon. There’s a difference in my opinion – uh and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court and accordance with the definition in the dictionary. Amnesty means that – that you uh – that what you did was right. Pardon means that what you did, whether it’s right or wrong, you’re forgiven for it. And I do advocate a pardon for – for draft evaders. I think it’s accurate to say that in uh – two years ago when Mr. Nixon – Mr. Ford put in this uh amnesty that three times as many deserters were uh – excused as were – as were the uh – the ones who evaded the draft. But I think that now is the time to heal our country after the Vietnam War and I think that what the people are concerned about is not the – uh pardon or the amnesty of uh – those who evaded the draft, but – but whether or not our crime system is – is fair. We’ve got a – a sharp distinction drawn between white collar crime – the – the – the big shots who are rich, who are influential uh very seldom go to jail; those who are poor and – and who have uh no influence – uh quite often are the ones who are punished. And – and the whole uh subject of crime is one that concerns our people very much, and I believe that the fairness of it is – is what – uh – is a – is a major problem that addresses our – our leader and this is something that hasn’t been addressed adequately by – by this administration. But I – I hope to have a complete uh responsibility on my shoulders to help bring about a – a fair uh – criminal justice system and also to – to bring about uh – an end to the – to the divise- divisiveness that has occurred in our country uh as a result of the Vietnam War.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Gannon.MR. GANNON: Governor Carter, you have promised a sweeping overhaul of the federal government, including a reduction in the number of government agencies – you say it would go down about two hundred from some nineteen hundred. That sounds, indeed, like a very deep cut in the federal government. But isn’t it a fact that you’re not really talking about fewer federal employees or less government spending, but rather that you are talking about reshaping the federal government, not making it smaller?MR. CARTER: Well, I’ve been through this before, Mr. Gannon, as the governor of Georgia. When I took aver we had uh a bureaucratic mess, like we have in Washington now, and we had three hundred agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions – uh some uh – fully budgeted, some not, but all having responsibility to carry out that was in conflict. And we cut those three hundred – uh agencies and so forth down substantially. We eliminated two hundred and seventy-eight of them. We set up a simple structure of government that could be administrated fairly and it was a – a tremendous success. It hasn’t been undone since I was there. It resulted also in an ability to reshape our court system, our prison system, our education system, our mental health programs and – and a clear assignment of responsibility and – and authority and also to have uh our people once again understanding control our government. I intend to do the same thing if I’m elected president. When I get to Washington, coming in as an outsider, one of the major responsibilities that – that I will have on my shoulder is a complete reorganization of the – of the executive branch of government. We now have uh – a greatly expanded White House staff. When Mr. Nixon went in office, for instance, we had three and a half million dollars spent on – on the White House and its staff. That has escalated now to sixteen and a half million dollars, in the last uh Republican administration. This needs to be changed. We need to put the responsibilities back on the cabinet members. We also need to have a great reduction in agencies and programs. For instance, we now have uh – in the health area three hundred and two different programs administered by eleven major departments and agencies, sixty other advisory commissions responsible for this. Medicaid’s in one agency; Medicare is in a different one. The – the check on the quality of health care is in a different one. None of them uh are responsible for health care itself. This makes it almost impossible for us to have a good health program. We have uh – just advocated uh – this past week a consolidation of the responsibilities for energy. Our country now has no comprehensive energy program or policy. We have twenty different agencies in the federal government responsible for the production, the regulation, the uh – information about energy, the conservation of energy, spread all over government. This is a – a gross waste of money, so tough, competent management of government, giving us a simple efficient purposeful and manageable government would be a great step forward and if I’m elected – and I intend to be – then it’s gonna be done.MR. GANNON: Well, I’d like to – to press my question on the number of federal employees – whether you would really plan to reduce the overall – uh number, or – or merely put them in different departments and relabel them. Uh – in your energy plan, you consolidate a number of a – agencies into one, or you would, but uh does that really change the overall?MR. CARTER: I can’t say for sure that we would have fewer federal employees when I go out of office than when I come in. It took me about three years to completely reorganize the Georgia government. The last year I was in office uh – our budget was – was actually less than it was a year before, uh which showed a great uh improvement. Also, we had a – a 2 percent increase in the number of employees the last year. But it was a tremendous shift from administrative jobs into the delivery of services. For instance, we uh – completely revised our prison system. We established eighty-four new mental health treatment centers. And we shifted people out of administrative jobs into the field to deliver better services. The same thing will be done uh – at the federal government level. I – I accomplished this with s – substantial reductions in employees in some departments. For instance, in the Transportation Department uh we had uh – we cut back about 25 percent of the total number of employees. In giving our people better mental health care, we increased the number of employees. But the efficiency of it, the simplicity of it, the uh ability of people to understand their own government and control it was a – was a uh – substantial benefit derived from complete reorganization. We uh – have got to do that at the federal government level. If we don’t, the bureaucratic mess is going to continue. There’s no way for our people now to understand what their government is. There’s no way to get the answer to a question. When you come to Washington to try to – as a governor – to try to begin a new program for your people, like uh the treatment of drug addicts, I found there were thirteen different federal agencies that I had to go to, to manage the uh drug treatment program. In the Georgia government we only had one agency responsible for drug treatment. This is the kind of change that would be made. And uh – it would be of – of tremendous benefit in long-range planning, in tight budgeting, uh saving the taxpayers’ money, making the government more efficient, cutting down on bureaucratic waste, having a clear delineation of authority and responsibility of employees, and giving our people a better chance to understand and control their government.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford.MR. FORD: I think the record should show, Mr. Newman, that uh – the Bureau of Census – we checked it just yesterday – indicates that uh – in the four years that uh – Governor Carter was governor of the state of Georgia, uh – expenditures by the government went up over 50 percent Uh – employees of the government in Georgia during his term of office went up over 25 percent; and the figures also show that the uh, uh – bonded indebtedness of the state of Georgia during his governorship went up over 20 percent. And there was some very interesting testimony given by Governor Carter’s successor, Governor Busby, before a Senate committee a few uh – months ago on how he found the Medicaid program when he came into office following Governor Carter. He testified, and these are his words – the present governor of Georgia – he says he found the Medicaid program in Georgia in shambles. Now let me talk about what we’ve done in the White House as far as federal employees are concerned The first order that I issued after I became president was to cut or eliminate the prospective forty-thousand increase in federal employees that had been scheduled by my predecessor. And in the term that I’ve been president – some two years – we have reduced federal employment by eleven thousand. In the White House staff itself, when I became president, we had roughly five hundred and forty employees. We now have about four hundred and eighty-five employees, so we’ve made a rather significant reduction in the number of employees on the White House staff working for the president. So I think our record of cutting back employees, plus the failure on the part of the Governor’s programs to actually save employment in Georgia, shows which is the better plan.MR. NEWMAN: Mrs. Drew.MS. DREW: Mr. President, at Vail, after the Republican convention, you announced that you would now emphasize five new areas; among those were jobs and housing and health and improved recreational facilities for Americans. And you also added crime. You also mentioned education. For two years you’ve been telling us that we couldn’t do very much in these areas because we couldn’t afford it; and in fact we do have a $50 billion deficit now. In rebuttal to Governor Carter a little bit earlier, you said that if there were to be any surplus in the next few years you thought it should be turned back to the people in the form of tax relief. So how are you going to pay for any new initiatives in these areas you announced at Vail you were going to now stress?MR. FORD: Well, in the uh – last two years, as I indicated before, we had a very tough time. We were faced with uh – heavy inflation, over 12 percent; we were faced with substantial unemployment. But in the last uh – twenty-four months we’ve turned the economy around and we’ve brought inflation down to under 6 percent, and we have reduced the uh – well, we have added employment of about four million in the last seventeen months to the point where we have eighty-eight million people working in America today – the most in the history of the country. The net result is we are going to have some improvement in our receipts. And I think we’ll have some decrease in our disbursements. We expect to have a lower deficit in fiscal year 1978. We feel that with this improvement in the economy; we feel with more receipts and fewer disbursements we can in a moderate way increase, as I recommended, over the next ten years a new parks program that would cast a billion and a half dollars, doubling our national park system. We have recommended that in the h- housing program we can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments. But that doesn’t cost any more as far as the federal treasury is concerned. We believe that we can uh do a better job in the area of crime, but that requires a tougher sentencing, mandatory certain prison sentences for those who violate our criminal laws. We – uh believe that uh you can revise the federal criminal code, which has not been revised in a good many years. That doesn’t cost any more money. We believe that you can uhh – do something more effectively with a moderate increase in money in the drug abuse program. We feel that uh – in education we can have a slight increase – not a major increase. It’s my understanding that Governor Carter has indicated that uh – he approves of a $30 billion uh – expenditure by the federal government as far as education is concerned. At the present time we’re spending roughly three billion five hundred million dollars. I don’t know where that money would come from. But as we look at the quality-of-life programs – jobs, health, education, crime, recreation – we feel that as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can absorb the small necessary cost that will be required.MS. DREW: Sir, in the next few years would you try to reduce the deficit, would you spend more money far these programs that you have just outlined, or would you, as you said earlier, return whatever surplus you got to the people in the form of tax relief?MR. FORD: We feel that uh – with the programs that I have recommended, the additional $10 billion tax cut, with the moderate increases in the quality-of-life area, we can still have a balanced budget which I will submit to the Congress in January of 1978. We won’t wait one year or two years longer, as Governor Carter uh – indicates. As the economy improves, and it is improving, our gross national product this year will average about 6 percent increase over last year. We will have the lower rate of inflation for the uh – calendar year this year – something slightly under 6 percent. Employment will be up, revenues will be up. We’ll keep the lid on some of these programs that we can hold down as we have a little extra money to spend for those quality-of-life programs which I think are needed and necessary. Now I cannot, and would not, endorse the kind of program that uh – Governor Carter recommends. He endorses the Democratic uh – platform which, as I read it, calls for approximately sixty additional programs. We estimate that those programs would add a hundred billion dollars minimum and probably two hundred billion dollars – uhh maximum each year to the federal budget. Those programs you cannot afford and give tax relief. We feel that you can hold the line and restrain federal spending, give a tax reduction and still have a balanced budget by 1978.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford takes the uh – same attitude that the Republicans always take. In the last three months before an election, they’re always for the programs that they always fight the other three-and-one-half years. Uh – I remember when uh – Herbert Hoover was against uh – jobs for people. I remember when Alf Landon was against Social Security and uh – later President Nixon, sixteen years ago, was telling the public that John Kennedy’s proposals would bankrupt the country and would double the cost. The best thing to do is to look at the record uh – of Mr. Ford’s Administration and Mr. Nixon’s before his. Uh – we had last year a $65 billion deficit – the largest deficit in the history of our country – more of a deficit spending than we had in the entire eight-year period under President Johnson and President Kennedy. We’ve got five hundred thousand more Americans out of jobs today than were out of work three months ago and since Mr. Ford’s been in office two years, we’ve had a 50 percent increase in unemployment from five million people out of work to two and a half million more people out of work and a total of seven and a half million. We’ve also got uh – a comparison between himself and Mr. Nixon. He’s got four times the size of the deficits that Mr. Nixon even had himself. This uh – talking about more people at work – uh is distorted because with a 14 percent increase in the cost of living in the last uh – two years, it means that – that women and young people have had to go to work when they didn’t want to because their fathers didn’t make enough to pay the increased cost of uh – food and uh housing and clothing. We have uh – in this last uh two years alone a hundred and twenty billion dollars total deficits under President Ford and uh – at the same time we’ve had, in the last eight years, a doubling in the number of bankruptcies for small business: we’ve had a negative growth in our – in our national economy measured in real dollars. The take-home pay of a worker in this country is actually less now than it was in 1968 – measured in real dollars. This is the kind of record that’s there and talk about the future and a drastic change or conversion on the part of Mr. Ford as of last minute is one that just doesn’t go.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Reynolds.MR. REYNOLDS: Governor Carter, I’d like to turn uh – to what we used to call the energy crisis. Yesterday a British uh – government commission on air pollution, but one headed by a nuclear physicist, recommended that any further expansion of nuclear energy be delayed in Britain as long as possible. Now this is a subject that is quite controversial among our own people and there seems to be a clear difference between you and the President on the use of nuclear power plants, which you say you would use as a last priority. Why, sir, are they unsafe?MR. CARTER: Well among my other experiences in the past, I’ve – I’ve been a nuclear engineer, and did graduate work in this field. I think I know the – the uh capabilities and limitations of atomic power. But the energy – uh policy of our nation is one that uh has not yet been established under this administration. I think almost every other developed nation in the world has an energy policy except us. We have seen uh – the Federal Energy Agency established, for instance. Uh – in the crisis of 1973 it was supposed to be a temporary agency, uh now it’s permanent, it’s enormous, it’s growing every day. I think the Wall Street Journal uh reported not too long ago they have a hundred and twelve public relations experts working for the Federal Energy Agency to try to justify to the American people its own existence. We’ve got to have a – a firm way to handle the energy question. The reorganization proposal that I have put forward is one uh first step. In addition to that, we need to have – uh a realization that we’ve got uh about thirty-five years worth of oil left in the whole world. We’re gonna run out of oil. When Mr. Nixon made his famous uh speech on Operation Independence we were importing about 35 percent of our oil. Now we’ve increased that amount 25 percent. We now import about 44 percent of our oil. We need to shift from oil to coal. We need to concentrate our research and development effort on uh coal burning and extraction, with safer mines, but also it’s clean burning. We need to shift very strongly toward solar energy and have strict conservation measures. And then as a last resort only, continue to use atomic power. I would certainly uh – not cut out atomic power altogether. We can’t afford to give up that opportunity until later. But to the extent that we continue to use atomic power, I would be responsible as president to make sure that the safety precautions were initiated and maintained. For instance, some that have been forgotten; we need to have the reactor core – below ground level, the entire power plant that uses atomic uh – power tightly sealed and a heavy – heavy vacuum maintained. There ought to be a standardized design. There ought to be a full-time uh – atomic energy specialist, independent of the power company in the control room, full time, twenty-four hours a day, to shut down a plant if an abnormality develops. These kinds of uh – procedures, along with evacuation procedures, adequate insurance, ought to be initiated. So, shift from oil to coal, emphasize research and development on coal use and also on solar power, strict conservation measures, not yield every time that the special interest groups uh – put pressure on the president like uh this administration has done, and use atomic energy only as a last resort with the strictest possible safety precautions. That’s the best overall energy policy in the brief time we have to discuss it.MR. REYNOLDS: Well Governor, on that same subject, would you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to conserve fuel?MR. CARTER: Yes, I would. Some of the things that can be done about this is a change in the rate structure of electric power companies. We uh – now encourage people to waste electricity, and uh – by giving uh – the lowest rates to the biggest users. We don’t do anything to cut down on peak load requirements. We don’t have an adequate requirement for the insulation of homes, for the efficiency of automobiles. And whenever the uh – automobile manufacturers come forward and say they can’t meet the uh – amendments that the Congress has put forward, this Republican administration has delayed the implementation dates. In addition to that, we ought to have a – a shift toward the use of coal, particularly in the Appalachian regions where the coal is located. A lot of uh – very high quality, low-carbon coal, uh – low-sulfur coal is there, it’s where our employment is needed. Uh – this would – would help a great deal. So mandatory conservation measures – yes. Encouragement by the president for people to uh voluntarily conserve – yes. And also the private sector ought to be encouraged to – to bring forward to the public the benefits from efficiency. One bank in uh – Washington, fo- for instance, gives lower interest loans for people who adequately insulate their homes or who buy efficient automobiles. And some major uh – uh – manufacturing companies, like Dow Chemical, have through uh – very effective efficiency mechanism cut down the use of energy by uh – as much as 40 percent with the same out-product. These kinds of things uh – ought to be done, uh they ought to be encouraged and supported, and even required uh by the government, yes.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford.MR. FORD: Governor Carter skims over a very serious and a very broad subject. In January of uh – 1975 I submitted to the Congress and to the American people the first comprehensive energy program recommended by any president. It called for an increase in the production of energy in the United States. It called for uh – conservation measures so that we would save the energy that we have. If you’re going to increase domestic oil and gas production – and we have to – you have to give those producers an opportunity to uh – develop their land or their wells. I recommended to the Congress that we should increase production in this country from six hundred million tons a year to twel- a- a billion two hundred million tons by 1985. In order to do that we have to improve our extraction of coal from the ground; we have to improve our utilization of coal – make it more efficient, make it cleaner. In addition we uh – have to expand our research and development. In my program for energy independence we have increased, for example, solar energy research from about $84 million a year to about a hundred and twenty million dollars a year. We’re going as fast as the experts say we should. In nuclear power we have increased the research and development, uh – under the Energy Research and Development Agency uh – very substantially, to insure that our ener- uh – nuclear power plants are safer, that they are more efficient, and that we have adequate safeguards. I think you have to have greater oil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear production, and in addition you have to have energy conservation.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Gannon.MR. GANNON: Mr. President, I’d like to return for a moment to this problem of unemployment. You have vetoed or threatened to veto number of job bills passed or uh – in development in the Democratic Congress – Democratic-controlled Congress. Yet at the same time the government is paying out, uh – I think it is $17 billion, perhaps $20 billion a year in unemployment compensation caused by the high unemployment. Why do you think it is better to pay out unemployment compensation to idle people than to put them to work in public service jobs?MR. FORD: The bills that I vetoed, the one for an additional $6 billion, was not a bill that would have solved our unemployment problems. Even the proponents of it admitted that no more than four hundred thousand jobs would be uh – made available. Our analysis indicates that something in the magnitude of about one hundred fifty to two hundred thousand jobs would uh – be made available. Each one of those jobs would’ve cost the taxpayers $25 thousand. In addition, the jobs would not be available right now. They would not have materialized for about nine to eighteen months. The immediate problem we have is to stimulate our economy now so that we can get rid of unemployment. What we have done is to hold the lid on spending in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation. And we have proven, I think very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate of inflation and increase jobs. For example, as I have said, we have added some four million jobs in the last seventeen months. We have now employed eighty-eight million people in America, the largest number in the history of the United States. We’ve added five hundred thousand jobs in the last two months. Inflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs. And by holding the lid on federal spending we have been able to do an- a good job, an affirmative job in inflation and as a result have added to the jobs in this country. I think it’s uh – also appropriate to point out that through our tax policies we have stimulated uhh – added employment throughout the country, the investment tax credit, the tax incentives for expansion and modernization of our industrial capacity. It’s my – my opinion that the private sector, where five out of six jobs are, where you have permanent jobs, with the opportunity for advancement, is a better place than make-work jobs under the program recommended by the Congress.MR. GANNON: Just to follow up, Mr. President: the – the Congress has just passed a three point seven billion dollar appropriation bill which would provide money for the public works jobs program that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the authorization legislation. In light of the fact that uh – unemployment again is rising – or has in the past three months – I wonder if you have rethought that question at all; whether you would consider uh – allowing this program to be funded, or will you veto that money bill?MR. FORD: Well, that bill has not yet come down to the Oval Office, so I am not in a position to make any judgment on it tonight. But that is an extra $4 billion that would uh – add to the deficit which would add to the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy jobs in the private sector – not make jobs, where the jobs really are. These make-work, temporary jobs – dead end as they are – are not the kind of jobs that we want for our people. I think it’s interesting to point out that uh – in the uh – two years that I’ve been president I’ve vetoed fifty-six bills. Congress has sustained forty-two vetoes. As a result, we have saved over $9 billion in federal expenditures. And the Congress by overriding the bills that I did veto, the Congress has added some $13 billion to the federal expenditures and to the federal deficit. Now Governor Carter complains about the deficits that uh – uh – this administration has had. And yet he condemns the vetoes that I have made that has – that have saved the taxpayer $9 billion and could have saved an additional $13 billion. Now he can’t have it both ways. And therefore, it seems to me that we should hold the lid, as we have, to the best of our ability so we can stimulate the private economy and get the jobs where the jobs are – five out of six in this economy.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford doesn’t seem to put into perspective the fact that when – when uh five hundred thousand more people are out of work than there were three months ago, while we have two and a half million more people out of work than were when he took office, that this touches human beings. I was in uh – a city in uh – Pennsylvania not too long ago, near here, and uh – there were about four or five thousand people in the audience – it was on a – on a train trip. And I said, “How many uh – adults here are out of work?” About a thousand raised their hands. Mr. Ford uh – actually has fewer people now in the private sector in non-farm jobs than when he took office. And still he talks about – uh success. Seven point nine percent unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country. He says he’s learned how to match unemployment with inflation. That’s right. We’ve got the highest inflation we’ve had in twenty-five years right now, except under this administration, and that was fifty years ago. And we’ve got uh – the highest unemployment we’ve had uh – under Mr. Ford’s administration, since the Great Depression. This affects human beings, and – and his insensitivity in providing those people a chance to work has made this a welfare administration, and not a work administration. He hasn’t saved $9 billion with his vetoes. There’s only been uh – a net savings of $4 billion. And the cost in unemployment compensation, welfare compensation, and lost revenues has increased $23 billion in the last two years. This is a – a typical attitude that really causes havoc in people’s lives, and then it’s covered over by saying that our country has naturally got a 6 percent unemployment rate, or 7 percent unemployment rate and a 6 percent inflation. It’s a travesty. It shows a lack of leadership. And we’ve never had a president since the War between the States that vetoed more bills. Mr. Ford has vetoed four times as many bills as Mr. Nixon – per year. And eleven of ’em have been overridden. One of his bills that was overridden – he only got one vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, from Republicans.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter. So this shows a breakdown in leadership.MR. NEWMAN: Under the rules, I must stop you there. And Mrs. Drew.MS. DREW: Governor Carter, I’d like to come back to the subject of taxes. You have said that you want to cut taxes for the middle and lower income groups.MR. CARTER: Right.MS. DREW: But unless you’re willing to do such things as reduce the itemized deductions for charitable contributions or home mortgage payments, or interest, or taxes, or capital gains, you can’t really raise sufficient revenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size. So how are you gonna provide that tax relief that you’re talking about?MR. CARTER: Now we have uh such a grossly unbalanced tax system – as I said earlier, that it is a disgrace – ah of all the tax – benefits now, 25 percent of ’em go to the 1 percent of the richest people in this country. Over 50 percent – 53 to be exact – percent of the tax benefits go to the 14 percent richest people in this country, and we’ve had a 50 percent increase in payroll deductions since Mr. Nixon went in office eight years ago. Mr. Ford has – has advocated since he’s been in office over $5 billion in reductions for corporations, special interest groups, and the very, very wealthy who derive their income – not from labor – but from investments. That’s got to be changed. A few things that can be done: we have now a deferral system so that the multinational corporations who invest overseas – if they make a million dollars in profits overseas – they don’t have to pay any of their taxes unless they bring their money back into this country. When they don’t pay their taxes, the average American pays the taxes for them. Not only that, but it robs this country of jobs, because instead of coming back with that million dollars and creating a shoe factory, say in New Hampshire or Vermont, if the company takes the money down to Italy and – and builds a shoe factory, they don’t have to pay any taxes on the money. Another thing is a system called DISC which was originally designed, proposed by Mr. Nixon, to encourage exports. This permits a company to create uh – a dummy corporation, to export their products, and then not to pay the full amount of taxes on them. This costs our uh – government about uh – $1.4 billion a year. And when those rich corporations don’t pay that tax, the average American taxpayer pays it for ’em. Another one that’s uh – that’s very important is the uh – is the business deductions, uh – jet airplanes, uh – first class travel, the fifty-dollar martini lunch. The average working person can’t – uh – can’t take advantage of that, but the – the wealthier people – uh can. Uh – another system is where uhh – a dentist can invest money in say, raising cattle and uh – can put in a hundred thousand dollars of his own money, borrow nine hundred thousand dollars – nine hundred mi- thousand dollars – that makes a million – and mark off a great amount of uh – of loss uh – through that procedure. Uh – there was one example, for instance, where uh – somebody uh – produced pornographic movies. They put in $30 thousand of their own money and got a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in tax savings. Well, these special kinds of programs have – have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefited those who are powerful, and who can employ lobbyists, and who can have their CPAs and their lawyers to help them benefit from the roughly uh – eight thousand pages of the tax code. The average uh American person can’t do it. You can’t hire a lobbyist uh out of unemployment compensation checks.MS. DREW: Ah – Governor, to follow up on your answer. Uh – in order for any kind of tax relief to really be felt by the middle and lower-income peopleMR. CARTER: Yes. You need about, according to Congressional committees on this, you need about $10 billion. Now you listed some things – the uh – deferral on foreign income as estimated: that would save about $500 million. DISC, you said, was about 1.4 billion. uh – The estimate of the outside, if you eliminated all tax shelters, is 5 billion. So where else would you raise the revenue to provide this tax relief – would you, in fact, do away with all business deductions, and what other kinds of preferences would you do away with?MR. CARTER: No, I wouldn’t do away with all – uh business deductions. I think that would be a – a very serious mistake. But uh – if – if you could just do away with the ones that are unfair, you could lower taxes for everyone. I would never do anything that would increase the taxes for those who work for a living, or who are presently required to list all their income. What I wanna do is not to raise taxes, but to eliminate loopholes. And this is uh – the point of my first statistics that I gave you – that – that the present tax benefits that have been carved out over a long period of years – fifty years – by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists have benefited just the rich. These programs that I described to you earlier – the tax deferrals for overseas, the DISC, and the tax shelters, uh – they only apply to people in the $50 thousand-a-year bracket or up, and I think this is the very best way to approach it. It’s to make sure that everybody pays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure that you take whatever savings there is from the higher income levels and give it to the lower- and middle-income families.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford.MR. FORD: Governor Carter’s answer tonight does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an interview to the Associated Press a week or so ago. In that interview uh – Governor Carter indicated that uh – he would raise the taxes on those in the medium or middle-income brackets or higher. Now if you uh – take the medium or middle-income taxpayer – that’s about $14 thousand per person – uh – Governor Carter has indicated, publicly, in an interview that he would increase the taxes on about 50 percent of the working people of this country. I think uh – the way to get tax equity in this country is to give tax relief to the middle-income people who have an income from roughly $8 thousand up to twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars. They have been short-changed as we have taken ten million taxpayers off the tax rolls in the last eight years, and as we have uh – added to the minimum tax uh – provision to make all people pay more taxes. I believe in tax equity for the middle-income taxpayer, increasing the personal exemption. Mr. Carter wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the taxpayers of this country. Now, the Governor has also played a little fast and loose with the facts about vetoes. The records show that President Roosevelt vetoed an average of fifty-five bills a year. President Truman vetoed on the average, while he was president, about thirty-eight bills a year. I understand that Governor Carter, when he was Governor of Georgia, vetoed between thirty-five and forty bills a year. My average in two years is twenty-six. But in the process of that we have saved uhh – $9 billion. And one final comment, uh – Governor Carter talks about the tax bills and all of the inequities that exist in the present law. I must remind him the Democrats have controlled the Congress for the last twenty-two years and they wrote all the tax bills.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Reynolds.MR. REYNOLDS: I suspect that uhh – we could continue on this tax argument for some time. But I’d like to move on to another area. Mr. President, uh everybody seems to be running against Washington this year. And I’d like to raise two coincidental events and ask you whether you think perhaps this may have a bearing on the attitude throughout the country. The House Ethics Committee has just now ended its investigation of Daniel Schorr, after several months and many thousands of dollars, trying to find out how he obtained and caused to be published a report of the Congress that probably is the property of the American people. At the same time. the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct has voted not really to begin an investigation of a United States senator because of allegations against him that he may have been receiving corporate funds illegally over a period of years. Do you suppose, sir, that events like this contribute to the feeling in the country that maybe there’s something wrong in Washington, and I don’t mean just in the executive branch but throughout the whole government?MR. FORD: There is a considerable anti-Washington feeling throughout the country. But I think the feeling is misplaced. In the last two years, we have restored integrity in the White House, and we’ve set high standards in the executive branch of the government. The anti-Washington feeling, in my opinion, ought to be focused on the Congress of the United States. For example, this Congress, very shortly, will spend a billion dollars a year for its housekeeping, its salaries, its expenses and the like. It – the next Congress will probably be the first billion-dollar Congress in the history of the United States. I don’t think the American people are getting their money’s worth from the majority party that run this Congress. We, in addition, see that uh – in the last uh – four years the number of employees hired by the Congress has gone up substantial- uh much more than uh – the gross national product, much more than any other increase throughout our society. Congress is hiring people by the droves, and the cast as a result has gone up. And I don’t see any improvement in the performance of the Congress under the present leadership. So it seems to me instead of the anti-Washington feeling being aimed at everybody in Washington, it seems to me that the focus should be where the problem is, which is the Congress of the United States, and particularly the majority in the Congress. They spend too much money on themselves. They have too many employees. There’s some question about their morality. It seems to me that in this election, the focus should not be on the executive branch but the corrections should come as the voters vote for their members of the House of Representatives or for their United States senator. That’s where the problem is and I hope there’ll be some corrective action taken so we can get some new leadership in the Congress of the United States.MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, if I may follow up. Uh – I think you’ve made it plain that you take a dim view of the uh – majority in the Congress. Isn’t it quite likely, sir, that you will have a Democratic Congress in the next session, if you are elected president? And hasn’t the country uh – a right to ask whether you can get along with that Congress, or whether we’ll have continued confrontation?MR. FORD: Well, It seems to me that uh – we have a chance – the Republicans – to get a majority in the House of Representatives. We will make some gains in the United States Senate. So there will be different ratios in the House, as well as in the Senate, and as president I will be able to uh – work with that Congress. But let me take the other side of the coin, if I might. Supposing we had – had a Democratic Congress for the last two years and we’d had uh – Governor Carter as President. He has, in effect, said that he would agree with all of – he would disapprove of the vetoes that I have made, and would have added significantly to expenditures and the deficit in the federal government. I think it would be contrary to one of the basic concepts in our system of government – a system of checks and balances. We have a Democratic Congress today, and fortunately we’ve had a Republican president to check their excesses with my vetoes. If we have a Democratic Congress next year, and a president who wants to spend an additional one hundred billion dollars a year, or maybe two hundred billion dollars a year, with more programs, we will have in my judgment, greater deficits with more spending, more dangers of inflation. I think the American people want a Republican president to check on any excesses that come out of the next Congress, if it is a Democratic Congress.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, it’s not a matter of uh – Republican and Democrat. It’s a matter of leadership or no leadership. President Eisenhower worked with a Democratic Congress very well. Even President Nixon, because he was a strong leader at least, worked with a Democratic Congress very well. Uh – Mr. Ford has vetoed, as I said earlier, four times as many bills per year as Mr. Nixon. Mr. Ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public relations stunt, and never tries to put it through the Congress by working with the Congress. I think under presidents For- uh – Nixon and Eisenhower they passed about 60 to 75 percent of their legislation. This year Mr. Ford will not pass more than 26 percent of all the legislative proposals he puts forward. This is government by stalemate, and we’ve seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper relationship between the president, who represents this country, and the Congress, who collectively also represent this country. We’ve had uh – Republican presidents before who’ve tried to run against a Democratic – uh Congress. And I don’t think it’s uh – the Congress is Mr. Ford’s opponent; but if uh – if – if he insists that uh – that I be responsible for the Democratic Congress, of which I’m – have not been a part, then I think it’s only fair that he be responsible for the Nixon administration in its entirety, of which he was a part. That, I think, is a good balance. But the point is, that – that a president ought to lead this country. Mr. Ford, so far as I know, except for avoiding another Watergate, has not accomplished one single major program for this country. And there’s been a constant squabbling between the president and the Congress, and that’s not the way this country ought to be run. I might go back to one other thing. Mr. Ford has uh – misquoted an AP uh – news story that was in error to begin with. That story reported several times that I would lower taxes for low and middle-income families and uh – that correction was delivered to the White House and I am sure that the president knows about this uh – correction, but he still insists uh – on repeating an erroneous statement.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford, Governor Carter, we no longer have enough time for two complete sequences of questions. We have only about six minutes left for questions and answers. For that reason we will drop the follow-up questions at this point but each candidate will still be able to respond to the other’s answers. Uh – to the extent that you can, gentlemen, please keep your remarks brief. Mr. Gannon.MR. GANNON: Governor Carter, one uh – important uh – part of the Government’s economic policy uh – apparatus we haven’t talked about is the Federal Reserve Board. I’d like to ask you something about what you’ve said and that is that uh – you believe that a president ought to have a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board whose views are compatible with his own. Based on the record of the last few years, would you say that your views are compatible with those of Chairman Arthur Burns? And if not, would you seek his resignation if you are elected?MR. CARTER: What I have said is that the president ought to have a chance to appoint a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board to have a coterminous uh term; in other words, both of ’em serve the same four – four years. The Congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income uh tax laws. The president can modify the uh – economic structure of a country by public statements and general attitudes in the budget that he proposes. The Federal Reserve has uh – an independent status that ought to be preserved; I think that Mr. uh – Burns did take a typical, erroneous Republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so high. They assumed that the uh – inflation rate was because of excessive demand and uh – therefore put into effect tight constraint on the economy, very high interest rates, which is typical also of the Republican administration, uh – tried to increase the uh – the tax uh – payments by individuals, and cut the tax payments by corporations. I would have uh – done it opposite. I think the uh – problem should’ve been addressed by increasing productivity, by having uh – put – put people back to work so they could purchase more goods, lower income taxes on individuals, perhaps raise them, if necessary, on corporations in comparison. But uh – Mr. Burns uh – in that respect made a very serious mistake. I would not wanna destroy the – the independence of the uh Federal Reserve – uh Board. But I do think we ought to have a cohesive economic policy with at – at least the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the president’s terms being uh – the same and letting the Congress, of course, be the third uh – entity with uh – with independence subject only to the president’s veto.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford, your response.MR. FORD: The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should be independent. Fortunately, he has been during Democratic as well as Republican administrations. As the result in the last uh – two years uh – we have had a responsible monetary policy. Uh the Federal Reserve Board indicated that the supply of money would be held between four to four and a half and seven and seven and a half. They have done a good job in integrating the money supply with the uh – fiscal policy of the uh – executive and legislative branches of the government. It would be catastrophic if the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board became the tool of the political uh – party that was in power. It’s important for our future uhh – economic security that that job be nonpolitical and uh – separate from the executive and the Legislative branches.MR. NEWMAN: Mrs. Drew.MS. DREW: Uh Mr. President, the real problem with the FBI and, in fact, all of the intelligence agencies is there are no real laws governing them. Such laws as there are tend to be vague and open-ended. Now, you have issued some executive orders, but we’ve learned that leaving these agencies to executive discretion and direction can get them and, in fact, the country in a great deal of trouble. One president may be a decent man, the next one might not be. So, what do you think about trying to write in some more protection by getting some laws governing these agencies?MR. FORD: You are familiar, of course, with the fact that I am the first president in thirty years who has reorganized the intelligence agencies in the federal government: the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the others. We’ve done that by executive order. Uhh – and I think uh – we’ve tightened it up; we’ve uh – straightened out their problems that developed over the last few years. It doesn’t seem to me that it’s needed or necessary to have legislation in this particular regard. Uhh – I have recommended to the Congress, however – I’m sure you’re familiar with this – legislation that would uhh – make it uhh – very uhh – proper in – in the right way, that the attorney general could go in and get the right for wiretapping under security cases. This was an effort that was made by the attorney general and myself, working with the Congress. But even in this area, where I think new legislation would be justified, uh the Congress has not responded. So, I feel in that case, as well as in the reorganization of the intelligence agencies, as I’ve done, we have to do it by executive order. And I’m glad that we have a good director in George Bush. We have good executive orders, and the CIA and the DIA and NASA uh – uh – NSA are now doing a good job under proper supervision.MR. NEWMAN: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, one of the very serious things that’s happened in our government in recent years, and has continued up until now, is a breakdown in the trust among our people in the [twenty-seven-minute delay]MR. NEWMAN: failure in the broadcasting of the debate, it occurred twenty-seven minutes ago. Uh the fault has been dealt with and uh – we want to thank President Ford and Governor Carter for being so patient and understanding while this uh delay went on. Uh we very much regret the technical failure that lost the sound as it – as it was leaving this theater. It occurred during uh Governor Carter’s response to what would have been and what was the last question put to the candidates. That question went to President Ford. It dealt with the control of government intelligence agencies. Uh Governor Carter was making that response and had very nearly finished it. Uh – he wil1 conclude his response now after which uh – President Ford and Governor Carter will make their closing statements. Governor.MR. CARTER: There has been too much government secrecy and not uh – not enough respect for the personal privacy of American citizens.MR. NEWMAN: It is now time for the closing statements, which are to be up to four minutes long. Governor Carter, by the same toss of the coin that directed the first question to you, you are to go first now.MR. CARTER: Well, tonight we’ve had a chance to talk a lot about the past. But I think it’s time to talk about the future. Our nation in the last eight years has been divided as never before. It’s a time for unity. It’s a time to draw ourselves together: to have a president and a Congress that can work together with mutual respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the open for a change, so the people can understand their own government. It’s time for government, industry, labor, manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in our society to cooperate. And it’s a time for government to understand and to cooperate with our people. For a long time our American citizens have been excluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to. This is uh – not compatible with the purpose of our nation. I believe in our country. It needs to be competent. The government needs to be well-managed, efficient, economical, We need to have a government that’s sensitive to our people’s needs – to those who are poor, who don’t have adequate health care, who have been cheated too long with our tax programs, who’ve been out of jobs, whose families have been torn apart. We need to restore the faith and the trust of the American people in their own government. In addition to that, we’ve suffered because we haven’t had leadership in this administration. We’ve got a government of stalemate. We’ve lost the vision of what our country can and ought to be. This is not the America that we’ve known in the past. It’s not the America that we have to have in the future. I don’t claim to know all the answers. But I’ve got confidence in my country. Our economic strength is still there. Our system of government – in spite of Vietnam, Cambodia, CIA, Watergate – is still the best system of government on earth. And the greatest resource of all are the two hundred and fifteen million Americans who have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, the patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood on which we can rely in the future to restore the greatness to our country We ought not to be excluded from our government anymore. We need a president who can go in – who derives his strength from the people. I owe the special interests nothing. I owe everything to you, the people of this country. And I believe that we can bind our wounds. I believe that we can work together. And I believe that if we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country, that we can once again have a government as good as our people, and let the world know what we still know and hope for – that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on earth.MR. NEWMAN: President Ford.MR. FORD: On November second all of you will make a very, very important decision. One of the major issues in this campaign is trust. A president should never promise more than he can deliver and a president should always deliver everything that he’s promised. A president can’t be all things to all people. A president should be the same thing to all people. Another issue in this campaign, Governor Carter has endorsed the Democratic platform, which calls for more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation or mare taxes. Governor Carter has embraced the record of the present Congress, dominated by his political party. It calls for more of the same. Governor Carter in his acceptance speech called for more and more programs, which means more and more government. I think the real issue in this campaign, and that which you must decide on November second, is whether you should vote for his promise or my performance in two years in the White House. On the fourth of July we had a wonderful two hundredth birthday – for our great country. It was a superb occasion. It was a glorious day. In the first century of our nation’s history our forefathers gave us the finest form of government in the history of mankind. In the second century of our nation’s history, our forefathers developed the most productive industrial nation in the history of the globe. Our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our two hundred and fifteen million Americans today and all that join us. In the last few years government has gotten bigger and bigger; industry has gotten larger and larger; labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger; and our children have been the victims of mass education. We must make this next century the century of the individual. We should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. The individual worker in the plants throughout the United States should not be a small cog in a big machine. The member of a labor union must have his rights strengthened and broadened and our children in their education should have an opportunity to improve themselves based on their talents and their abilities. My mother and father, during the Depression, worked very hard to give me an opportunity to do better in our great country. Your mothers and fathers did the same thing for you and others. Betty and I have worked very hard to give our children a brighter future in the United States, our beloved country. You and others in this great country have worked hard and done a great deal to give your children and your grandchildren the blessings of a better America. I believe we can all work together to make the individuals in the future have more and all of us working together can build a better America.MR. NEWMAN: Thank you President Ford. Thank you Governor Carter. Our thanks also to the questioners and to the audience in this theater. Ahh – we much regret the technical failure that caused a twenty-eight-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. We believe, however, that everyone will agree that it did not detract from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness. The next presidential debate is to take place on Wednesday, October sixth, in San Francisco at nine-thirty P. M., Eastern Daylight Time. The topics are to be foreign and defense issues. As with all three debates between the presidential candidates and the one between the vice-presidential candidates, it is being arranged by the League of Women Voters Education Fund in the hope of promoting a wider and better informed participation by the American people in the election in November. Now, from the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia, good night.",
    "id": "32cbd031-c867-460a-83df-bc990f585ca4"
  },
  {
    "year": 1980,
    "date": "September 21, 1980",
    "title": "The Anderson-Reagan Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 21, 1980 Debate TranscriptSeptember 21, 1980The Anderson-Reagan Presidential DebateRUTH J. HINERFELD, CHAIR, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: Good evening. I’m Ruth Hinerfeld of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. We’re pleased to be in Baltimore for the first of our 1980 Presidential Debates. The League is a non-partisan organization. We’re presenting these debates to provide citizens an opportunity to see and hear the candidates state their positions on important issues of concern to us all. Our moderator is Bill Moyers.MR. MOYERS, HOST AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “BILL MOYERS’ JOURNAL,” PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM: Thank you, Mrs. Hinerfeld. My colleagues and I agreed to participate tonight, although the questioners are limited by the constraints of the format, because we thought with the League of Women Voters, that it is desirable to seek a comparison of views on a few issues in a joint appearance by the men who would be the next President of the United States.Former Governor Ronald Reagan, a Republican Party candidate, and Congressman John Anderson, who is running as an Independent, accepted the League of Women Voters’ invitation to be here. President Carter declined. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Anderson will respond with their views on certain issues posed by questions from my colleagues: Carol Loomis of Fortune Magazine; Daniel Greenberg, a syndicated columnist; Charles Corddry of the Baltimore Sun; Lee May of The Los Angeles Times; James Bryant Quinn. Jane Bryant Quinn of Newsweek; and Soma Golden of The New York Times. None of the questions has been submitted in advance to either the League of Women Voters, or to the candidates, or to their representatives.Gentlemen, thank you both for coming. The ground rules you agreed upon with the League are brief. Each panelist will ask a single question. You will have two and a half minutes in which to respond. After you’ve stated your positions in those two and a half minutes, each of you will have one minute and 15 seconds for response. At the close of the debate, each of you will have three minutes for closing remarks.We ask the Convention Center audience to abide by one simple ground rule: Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. You may do that on November 4.Having won the toss of the coin, Mr. Anderson will respond to the first question from Carol Loomis.CAROL LOOMIS, BOARD OF EDITORS, FORTUNE MAGAZINE: Mr. Anderson, opinion polls show that the American public sees inflation as the country’s number one economic problem, yet, as individuals, they oppose cures that hurt them personally. Elected officials have played along by promising to cure inflation while backing away from tough programs that might hurt one special interest group or another, and by actually adding inflationary elements to the system, such as indexing. They have gone for what is politically popular, rather than for what might work and amount to leadership.My question, and please be specific, is what politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with, that might provide real progress in reducing inflation?REP. JOHN B. ANDERSON: Miss Loomis, I think it’s very appropriate that the first question in this first debate of Campaign ’80 should relate to the economy of the country, because it seems to me that the people who are watching us tonight – 221 million Americans – are truly concerned about the poor rate of performance of the American economy over the last four years. Governor Reagan is not responsible for what has happened over the last four years, nor am I. The man who should be here tonight to respond to those charges chose not to attend. But I want to answer as specifically as I can the question that you have just put to me. Let me tell you that I, first of all, oppose an election year tax cut, whether it is the 10% across-the-board tax cut promised to the taxpayers by my opponent in this debate tonight, or whether it is the $27.5 billion tax cut promised on the 20th of August by President Carter. I simply think that when we are confronting a budget deficit this year – and this fiscal year will end in about 10 days, and we are confronted with the possibility of a deficit of $60 billion, perhaps as much as $63 billion – that that simply would be irresponsible. That, once again, the printing presses will start to roll; once again we will see the monetization of that debt result in a higher rate of inflation. Even though we’ve seen some hopeful signs, perhaps, in the flash report on the third quarter, that perhaps the economy is coming out of the recession, we’ve also seen the rise in the rate of the prime; we have seen mortgage rates back up again, a sure sign of inflation in the housing industry. What I would propose, and I proposed it way back in March when I was a candidate in my own state of Illinois, I proposed $11.3 billion, specifically, in cuts in the Federal budget. I think we’ve got to have fiscal restraint. And I said at that time that one of the things that we could do, that perhaps would save as much as $5 billion to $7 billion, according, to one of the leading members of the House Budget Committee, was to recalculate the index that is used to determine the cost of living benefits that are paid to civil service retirees, to military retirees. That we ought to … in addition to that, we ought to pay those retirement benefits on the basis of once a year, rather than twice a year, and save $750 billion. In other words….MOYERS: Mr. Anderson.ANDERSON: fiscal restraint, I think is necessary.MOYERS: your time is up. Ms. Loomis?LOOMIS: Governor Reagan, repeating the question, and I would ask you, again, to engage in as many specifics as you possibly can. What politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation?GOV. RONALD REAGAN: I believe that the only unpopular measures, actually, that could be, or would be applied, would be unpopular with the government, and with those. perhaps, some special interest groups who are tied closely to government. I believe that inflation today is caused by government simply spending more than government takes in, at the same time that government has imposed upon business and industry, from the shopkeeper on the corner to the biggest industrial plant in America, countless harassing regulations and punitive taxes that have reduced productivity at the same time they have increased the cost of production. And when you are reducing productivity at the same time that you are turning out printing-press money in excessive amounts, you’re causing inflation. And it isn’t really higher prices, it’s just, you are reducing the value of the money. You are robbing the American people of their savings. And so, the plan that I have proposed – and contrary to what John says, my plan is for a phased-in tax cut over a three-year period, tax increase and depreciation allowances for business and industry to give them the capital to refurbish plant and equipment, research and development, improved technology – all of which we see our foreign competitors having, and we have the greatest percentage of outmoded industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations – produce more, have stable money supply, and give the people of this country a greater share of their own savings.Now, I know that this has been called inflationary by my opponent and by the man who isn’t here tonight. But I don’t see where it is inflationary to have people keep more of their earnings and spend it, and it isn’t inflationary for government to take that money away from them and spend it on the things it wants to spend it on. I believe we need incentive for the individual, and for business and industry, and I believe the plan that I have submitted, with detailed backing, and which has been approved by a number of our leading economists in the country, is based on projections. conservative projections out for the next five years, that indicates that this plan would, by 1983, result in a balanced budget. We have to remember, when we talk a tax cut, we’re only talking about reducing a tax increase, because this Administration has left us with a built-in tax increase that will amount to $86 billion next year.MOYERS: Your time is up.REAGAN: …and $500 billion over the next five.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson?ANDERSON: Mr. Movers, in addition to saying that this is no time for a tax cut, in view of the incipient signs of renewed inflation, in addition to calling for restraint in Federal spending, 15 months ago, I also suggested we ought to have an emergency excise tax on gasoline. I say that because I think, this year, we will send $90 billion out of this country to pay for imported oil, even though that. those imports have been reduced. And since I first made that proposal 15 months ago, the price of gasoline, which was then $.80, has gone up to about $1.30. In other words, we’ve had a huge increase of about $.50 a gallon since that time, and all of that increase has gone out of this country – or much of it – into the pockets of OPEC oil producers. Whereas I have proposed we ought to take. put that tax on here at home, reduce our consumption of that imported oil. Recycle those proceeds, then, back into the pockets of the American workers by reducing their tax payments. their Social Security tax payments by 50%. That, I think, in addition, would be an anti-inflationary measure that would strengthen the economy of this country.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan.REAGAN: Well, I cannot see where a $.50 a gallon tax applied to gasoline would have changed the price of gasoline. It would still have gone up as much as it has, and the $.50 would be added on top of that. And it would be a tax paid by the consumers, and then we’re asked to believe that some way, they would get this back to the consumers. But why? Why take it in the first place if you’re going to give it back? Why not leave it with them? And John spoke about 15 years ago, on the position that he. or 15 months ago, on what he believed in. Fifteen months ago, he was a cosigner and advocating the very tax cut that I am proposing, and said that that would be a forward step in fighting inflation, and that it would be beneficial to the working people of this country.MOYERS: The next question goes to Mr. Reagan from Daniel Greenberg.GREENBERG, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, gentlemen, what I’d like to say first is, I think the panel and the audience would appreciate responsiveness to the questions, rather than repetitions of your campaign addresses. My question for the Governor is: Every serious examination of the future supply of energy and other essential resources – including air, land and water – finds that we face shortages and skyrocketing prices, and that, in many ways, we’re pushing the environment to dangerous limits. I’d like to know, specifically, what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and general consumption, to meet problems that aren’t going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production?REAGAN: Well, I believe that conservation, at course, is worthy in and of itself. Anything that would preserve, or help us use less energy, that would be fine, and I’m for it. But I do not believe that conservation alone is the answer to the present energy problem, because all you’re doing then is staving off, by a short time, the day when you would come to the end of the energy supply. To say that we are limited, and at a dangerous point in this country with regard to energy, I think, is to ignore the fact. The fact is, that in today’s oil wells, there is more oil still there than we have so far taken out and used. But it would require what is known as secondary or tertiary efforts to bring it out of the ground. And this is known oil reserves, known supplies. There are hundreds of millions of acres of land that have been taken out of circulation by the Government for whatever reason they have, that is believed by the most knowledgeable oil geologists to contain probably more oil and natural gas than we have used so far since we drilled that first well 121 years ago. We have a coal supply that is equal to 50% of the world’s coal supply, good for centuries, in this country. I grant you that prices may go up, because as you go further and have to go deeper, you are adding to the cost of production. We have nuclear power, which, I believe, with the safest. the most stringent of safety requirements, could meet our energy needs for the next couple of decades while we go forward exploring the areas of solar power and other forms of energy that might be renewable and that would not be exhaustible. All of these things can be done. When you stop and think that we are only drilling on 2%. have leased only 2% of the possible. possibility for oil of the continental shelf around the United States; when you stop to think that the government has taken over 100 million acres of land out of circulation in Alaska, alone, that is believed by geologists to contain much in the line of minerals and energy sources, then I think it is the Government, and the Government with its own restrictions and regulations, that is creating the energy crisis. That we are, indeed, an energy-rich nation.MOYERS: I would like to say at this point that the candidates requested the same questions to be repeated, for the sake of precision, on the part of the interrogator. So, Mr. Greenberg, you may address Mr. Anderson.GREENBERG: Mr. Anderson, I’d like to know specifically, what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and consumption, to meet problems that aren’t going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production?ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Greenberg, I simply cannot allow to go unpassed the statements that have just been made by Mr. Reagan, who once again, has demonstrated, I think, a total misunderstanding of the energy crisis that confronts, not only this country, but the world, when he suggests that we have 27 years’ supply of natural gas, 47 years’ supply of oil, and all the rest, and that we really. all we have to do is to get the Government off the back of the oil industry, and that’s going to be enough.I agree with what I think is the major premise of your question, sir, that we are going to have to create a new conservation ethic in the minds of the American people. and that’s simply why I proposed, 15 months ago, the emergency excise tax on gasoline that I did. I did it as a security measure to be sure, because I would rather see us reduce the consumption of imported oil than have to send American boys to fight in the Persian Gulf. But at the same time, I think it’s going to take a dramatic measure of that kind to convince the American people that we will have to reduce the use of the private automobile. We simply cannot have people sitting one behind the wheel of a car in these long traffic jams going in and out of our great cities. We are going to have to resort to van pooling, to car pooling. We’re going to have to develop better community transportation systems, so that with buses and light rail, we can replace the private automobile in those places where it clearly is not energy-efficient. I think that, with respect to housing, when we are consuming, even though our per capita income today is about the same as that of the Federal Republic of Germany, we are consuming about, by a factor of two, the amount of energy that they consume in that country. Surely, there are things that we can do in the retrofitting, ;n the redesign of our homes, not only of our houses, but of our commercial structures, as well, that will make it possible for us to achieve. According to one study that was published a short time ago – the Harvard Business School study – indicated that just in the commercial sector alone of the economy, we could save between 30% and 40% of the energy that we consume in this country today. So I think, yes, we will have to change in a very appreciable way, some of the lifestyles that we now enjoy.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan.REAGAN: Well, as I’ve said, I am not an enemy of conservation. I wouldn’t be called a conservative if I were. But, when my figures are challenged, as the President himself challenged them after I made them, I think it should be called to the attention of John and the others here that my figures are the figures of the Department of Energy, which has not been overly optimistic in recent years as to how much supply we have left. That is the same Government that, in 1920, told us we only had enough oil left for 13 years, and 19 years later, told us we only had enough left for another 15 years. As for saving energy and conserving, the American people haven’t been doing badly at that. Because in industry today, we’re producing more, over the last several years, and at 12% less use of energy than we were back in about 1973. And motorists are using 8% less than they were back at that time of the oil embargo. So, I think we are proving that we can go forward with conservation and benefit from that. But also, I think it is safe to say that we do have sources of energy that have not yet been used or found.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson.ANDERSON: Mr. Greenberg, I think my opponent in this debate tonight is overlooking one other very important fact. And that is, that we cannot look at this as simply a national problem. Even though it’s true that, perhaps, between now and the end of the decade, our total consumption of oil may not increase by more than, perhaps, a million or 2 million barrels of oil a day. The rest of the Western world, we are told, may see its consumption increase from 51 million barrels to about 66 million. And that additional 15 million barrels is going to cause scarcity. It is going to cause scarcity in world markets because there are at least five reputable studies, one even by the American Petroleum Institute itself, that, I think, clearly indicate that somewhere along around the end of the present decade, total world demand for oil is simply going to exceed total available supplies. I think that conservation – I think that a change in lifestyles – is necessary, and we had better begin to plan for that now rather than later.MOYERS: This question goes to you, Mr. Anderson, from Charles Corddry.CHARLES CORDDRY, MILITARY CORRESPONDENT, THE SUN, BALTIMORE: Mr. Anderson, you and Mr. Reagan both speak for better defense. for stronger defense and for programs that would mean spending more money. You do not, either of you, however, come to grips with the fundamental problem of manning the forces, of who shall serve, and how the burden will be distributed. This will surely be a critical issue in the next Presidential term. You both oppose the draft. The questions are, how would you fill the under-strength combat forces with numbers and quality, without reviving conscription? And will you commit yourself, here, tonight, should you become the Commander in Chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not working?ANDERSON: Mr. Corddry, I am well aware of the present deficiencies in the Armed Forces of this country. When you have a report, as we did recently, that six out of 10 CONUS Divisions in this country – Continental United States Army Divisions – simply could not pass a readiness test: that two out of three divisions that were to be allocated to the so-called Rapid Deployment Force could not meet a readiness test. And in most cases, that failure to meet the test was because of a lack of manning requirements, an inability to fill many of the slots in those divisions. Yes, I have seen figures that indicate that perhaps as of September, 1980 – this very month – that there is a shortage of about 104,000 in the ranks between E-4 and E-9. And there were reports. public reports not long ago about ships that could not leave American ports because of a lack of crews. I talked to one of the leading former chiefs of Naval operations in my office a few weeks ago, who told me about 25,000 Chief Petty Officers being short. But, I think that that is clearly related to the fact that, going back to the time when the all-volunteer Army was created in 1973 – and I worked hard for it and supported it – we simply have failed to keep pace with the cost of living. And today, on the average, the average serviceman is at least 15% – and I happen to think that’s a very modest estimate – 15% below what has happened to the cost of living over that period of time. And as a result, the families of some of our young servicemen are on food stamps today. And I think that’s shocking; it’s shameful. So, yes, I told the American Legion National! Convention, the VFW National Convention – when I spoke to each of those bodies – I outlined a very specific program of increasing pay and allowances, reenlistment bonuses. That only makes sense. But I would leave you with this thought, sir, to be quite specific in my answer to your question: that, of course, to protect the vital interests of this country, if that became impossible; if I could not, despite the very best efforts that I asked the Congress to put forward, to raise those pay and incentives and allowances, of course, I would not leave this country go undefended.MOYERS: Mr. Corddry?CORDDRY: Mr. Reagan, I will just repeat the two questions: How would you fill the under-strength combat forces with numbers and with quality, without reviving conscription? And will you commit yourself; here, tonight, should you become the Commander in Chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not solving our manpower problems?REAGAN: Mr. Corddry, it’s a shame now that there are only two of us here debating, because the two that are here are in more agreement than disagreement on this particular issue, and the only one who would be disagreeing with us is the President, if he were present. I. too, believe in the voluntary military. As a matter of fact, today the shortages of non-commissioned officers that John mentioned are such that if we tried to have a draft today, we wouldn’t have the non-commissioned officers to train the draftees. I believe the answer lies in just recognizing human nature and how we make everything else work in this country, when we want it to work. Recognize that we have a voluntary military. We are asking for men and women to join the military as a career, and we’re asking them to deal with the most sophisticated of equipment. And a young man is out there on a $1 billion carrier in charge of the maintenance of a $20 million aircraft, working 100 hours a week at times, and he’s earning less for himself and his family, while he’s away from his family, than he could earn if he were in one of the most menial jobs, working 40 hours a week here at home. As an aid to enlistment. we had an aid – 46% of the people who enlisted in the voluntary military up until 1977 said they did so for one particular reason, the G.I. Bill of Rights – the fact that, by serving in the military, they could provide for a future college education. In 1977, we took that away from the military. That meant immediately 46% of your people that were signing up had no reason for signing up. So I think it is a case of pay scale, of recognizing that if we’re going to have young men and women responsible for our security, dealing with this sophisticated equipment, then for heaven’s sakes, let’s go out and have a pay scale that is commensurate with the sacrifice that we’re asking of them. Along with this, I think we need something else that has been allowed to deteriorate. We need a million-man active reserve that could be called up on an instant’s notice, and that would be also trained, ready to use that type of equipment. Both of these, I think, would respond to the proper kind of incentives that we could offer these people. The other day, I just – I’ll hasten – I just saw one example. Down in Texas. I saw a high school that is military.MOYERS: Your time is up, Mr. Reagan.REAGAN: Fine.MOYERS: I’m sorry.REAGAN: I’ll catch up with it later.MOYERS: You can finish it after it’s over. Mr. Anderson?ANDERSON: Mr. Moyers. I must say that I think I have better opportunity, however, of finding the necessary funds to pay what, admittedly, will be very, very substantial sums of money. We signed one bill. or we passed one bill, just a couple of weeks ago in the House of Representatives for $500 million – a half a billion dollars. That is just a downpayment, in my opinion. But, unlike Governor Reagan, I do not support a boondoggle like the MX missile. I’ve just gotten a report from the Air Force that indicates that the 30-year lifecycle cost of that system is going to be $100 billion. The initial cost is about $54 billion, and then when you add in the additional costs – not only the construction of the system, the missiles and the personnel, and so on – when you add in the additional costs over the lifecycle of that system, over $100 billion. I would propose to save the taxpayers of this country from that kind of costly boondoggle.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan?REAGAN: Well, let me just say that, with regard to that same missile system, I happen to support and believe in the missile, itself. But that’s not the $54 billion cost that John is talking about. He’s talking about that fantastic plan of the Administration to take thousands and thousands of square miles out in the Western states. And first, he was going to dig a racetrack and have it going around in the racetrack so it would meet the requirements of SALT II treaty, and now he’s decided it’ll have a straight up and down thing, so it can he both verifiable and yet hideable from the Soviet Union. We need the missile, I think, because we are so out of balance strategically that we lack a deterrent to a possible first assault. But I am not in favor of the plan that is so costly. And therefore, if I only had another second left, I’d say that that high school class in a military training – 40 of its 80 graduates last year entered the United States service academies; West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and to see those young men made me very proud to realize that there are young people in this country that are prepared to go into that kind of a career in service of their country.MOYERS: This question comes to you, Mr. Reagan, from my colleague, Lee May.LEE MAY, STAFF WRITER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES – WASHINGTON BUREAU: Mr. Reagan, the military is not the only area in crisis. American cities are physically wearing out, as housing, streets, sewers and budgets all fall apart. And all of this is piled upon the emotional strain that comes from refugees and racial confrontations. Now, I’m wondering what specific plans do you have for Federal involvement in saving our cities from these physical and emotional! crises, and how would you carry out those plans in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint?REAGAN: I don’t think I’d have to go against that pledge. I think one of the problems today with the cities is Federal aid. The mayors that I’ve talked to in some of our leading cities tell! me that the Federal grants that come with. for a specific cause or a specific objective, come with such red tape, such priorities established by a bureaucracy in Washington, that the local government’s hands are tied with regard to using that money as they feel could best be used, and for what they think might be the top priority. If they had that money without those government restrictions, every one of them has told me they could make great savings and make far greater use of the money. What I have been advocating is, why don’t we start with the Federal Government turning back tax sources to states and local governments, as well as the responsibilities for those programs? Seventy-five percent of the people live in the cities. I don’t know of a city in America that doesn’t have the kind of problems you’re talking about. But, where are we getting the money that the Federal Government is putting out to help them? New York is being taxed for money that will then go to Detroit. But Detroit is being taxed for money that, let’s say, will go to Chicago, while Chicago is being taxed to help with the problems in Philadelphia. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense if the government let them keep their own money there in the first place? But there are other things that we can do with the inner cities, and I’ve believed. I have talked of having zones in those cities that are run down, where there is a high percentage of people on welfare, and offer tax incentives. The government isn’t getting a tax now from businesses there because they aren’t there, or from individuals who are on welfare rather than working. And why don’t we offer incentives for business and industry to start up in those zones? Give them a tax moratorium for a period if they build and develop there. The individuals that would then get jobs – give them a break that encourages them to leave the social welfare programs and go to work. We could have an urban homestead act. We’ve got thousands and thousands of homes owned by government boarded up, being vandalized, that have been taken in mortgage foreclosures. What if we had a homestead act, and said to the people, for $1 we sell you this house. All have to do is agree to refurbish it, make it habitable, and live in it – just as 100 or more years ago, we did with the open land in this country – urban . or country homesteading.MOYERS: Mr. May?MAY: Mr. Anderson, let me ask you, what specific plans do you have for Federal involvement in saving cities from the physical and emotional crises that confront them, and how would you carry out those plans, in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint?ANDERSON: Mr. May, I recently saw a Princeton University study that indicated that the cities of America – the large cities of this country – are in worse shape today than they were in 1960. It seems to totally belie the claim that I heard President Carter make a few days ago, that he was the first President that had come forth with a real urban strategy to meet the problems of urban America. Incidentally, just this past week, the crown jewel in that program that he had devised was stolen, I guess, because a conference committee turned down the ambitious plan that he had to increase the amount of money that would be available to the Economic Development Administration for loan guarantees and direct loans and credits. I’m happy to say that, in contrast to that, the Anderson-Lucey platform for America, program for the 80s, has devoted considerable time, and in very specific detail, we have talked about two things that ought to be done to aid urban America. We call, first of all, for the creation of a $4 billion urban reinvestment trust fund to do exactly what you spoke about in your question – to rebuild the streets, to rebuild the cities, the leaking water mains. I was in North Pittsburgh – I think it was a few weeks ago, on my campaign – the water mains in that city had begun to leak, and literally, there wasn’t money available to fix them. And until we can begin to recreate the basic infrastructure of the great cities of America, particularly in the upper Midwest and in the Northeast, they simply are not going to provide the kind of economic climate that will enable them to retain industry, enable them to retain the kind of solid industrial base that they need, so that they can provide jobs. We have also provided in our program for a $4 billion Community Trust Fund, and we’ve told you where the money is coming from. It’s going to come from the dedication, by 1984, of the excise revenues that today are being collected by the Federal Government on alcohol and tobacco. That money, I think, ought to be put into rebuilding the base of our cities. In addition to that, jobs programs to re-employ the youth in our cities would be very high on my priority list, both the Youth Opportunities Act of 1980 and a billion-dollar program that I would recommend to put youth to work in energy projects, in conservation projects, in projects that would carry out some of the great national goals of our country.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan, your response.REAGAN: Yes. Government claims. John claims that he is making plain where the money will come from. It will come from the pockets of the people. It will come from the pockets of the people who are living in those very areas. And the problem is, with Governments – Federal, State and Local – taking $.44 out of every dollar earned, that the Federal Government has pre-empted too many of the tax sources, and that the cities. if Pittsburgh does not have the money to fix the leaking water mains, it’s because the Federal Government has pre-empted. Now, the Federal Government is going to turn around and say, well you have this problem; we will now hand you the money to do it. But the Federal Government doesn’t make money. It just takes – from the people. And in my view, this is not the answer to the problem. Stand in the South Bronx as I did, in the spot where Jimmy Carter made his promise that he was going to, with multi-billion dollar programs, refurbish that area that looks like bombed-out London in World War II. I stood there, and I met the people. And I heard them ask just for something that would give them hope. And I believe that, while all of the promises have been broken, they’ve never been carried out. But I believe that my plan might offer an opportunity for that, if we would move into those areas and let, encourage – with the tax incentive – the private sector, to develop and to create the jobs for the people.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson.ANDERSON: Well, of course, where has the private sector been, Governor Reagan, during the years that our cities have been deteriorating? It seems to me that to deny the responsibility of the Federal Government to do something about our crumbling cities is to deny the opportunity for one thing: To 55% of the black population of our country that is locked within the inner cities of the metropolitan areas of our country. We simply cannot ignore the fact that, in those cities today, we have 55% youth unemployment among black and Hispanic youth. And why is that? It’s because they have lost their industry. And why have they lost their industry? It’s because they no longer present the kind of viable economic climate that makes it possible for industry to remain there, or to locate there. I think Government has a responsibility to find jobs for the youth of this country, and that the place to start is to assist in the very important and necessary task of helping cities rebuild.MOYERS: Jane Bryant Quinn has the next question, for you, Mr. Anderson.JANE BRYANT QUINN, CBS NEWS/NEWSWEEK/WASHINGTON POST: Mr. Anderson, many voters are very worried that tax cuts, nice as they are, will actually add to inflation. And many eminent conservatives have testified that even business tax cuts, as you have proposed, can be inflationary as long as we have a budget deficit. Now, Mr. Reagan has mentioned that he put out a five-year economic forecast, which indeed he did, but it contained no inflation number. You have published a detailed program, but it too does not have any hard numbers on it about how these things work with inflation. So I would like to ask you, if you will commit to publish specific forecasts within two weeks, so that the voters can absorb them and understand them and analyze them, showing exactly what al these problems you’ve mentioned tonight – on energy, on defense, on the cities – how these impact on inflation, and what inflation’s actually going to be over five years.ANDERSON: Miss Quinn, I would be very happy to accept the challenge of your question tonight, to tell the voters of this country exactly what I think it’s going to cost, because I believe that all too often in past elections, politicians have simply been promising people things that they cannot deliver. When these Presidential Debates were held just four years ago, I remember the incumbent President, who was willing to debate, President Ford, telling the American people that they simply ought not to vote for somebody who promised more than they could deliver. Well, we’ve seen what has happened. We haven’t gotten either the economies in Government that were promised; we haven’t gotten the 4% inflation that we were supposed to get at the end of Mr. Carter’s first term. Instead we had, I think, in the second quarter, a Consumer Price Index registering around 12%. And nobody really knows, with the latest increase in the Wholesale Price Index – that’s about 18% on an annualized basis – what it’s going to be. Let me say this. I think my programs are far less inflationary than those of Governor Reagan. His own running mate, when he was running for the Presidency, said that they would cost 30% inflation inside of two years, and he cited his leading economic advisor, a very distinguished economist, Paul Macavoy, as the source of that information. He went so far as to call it “brutal economics.” I’ve been very careful – I have been very careful in saying that what I’m going to do is to bring Federal spending under control first. I would like to stand here and promise the American people a tax cut, as Governor Reagan has done. But, you know, it’s gotten to be about $122 difference. Somebody worked it out. And they figured out that between the tax cut that Governor Reagan is promising the American people, and the tax cut that Jimmy Carter is promising in 198I, his is worth about $122 more. So you, dear voters, are out there on the auction block, and these two candidates are bidding for your votes. And one is going to give you $122 more if you happen to be in that range of about a $20,000-a-year income. I’m going to wait until I see that that inflation rate is going down, before I even begin to phase in the business tax cuts that I’ve talked about. But I think, by improving productivity, they would be far less inflationary than the consumption-oriented tax cut that Governor Reagan is recommending.MOYERS: Ms. Quinn.QUINN: Mr. Anderson, I’ll call you for that forecast. Mr. Reagan, will you publish specific forecasts within two weeks, so that the voters can have time to analyze and absorb them before the election, showing exactly what all these things you’ve discussed tonight – for energy, cities and defense – mean for inflation over the next five years?REAGAN: Miss Quinn, I don’t have to. I’ve done it. We have a back-up paper to my economic speech of a couple of weeks ago in Chicago, that gives all of the figures. And we used – yes, we used – the Senate Budget Committee’s projections for five years, which are based on an average inflation rate of 7.5% – which, I think, that under our plan, can be eliminated. And eliminated probably more quickly than our plan, but we wanted to be so conservative with it, that people would see how. how well it could be done. Now, John’s been in the Congress for 20 years. And John tells us that first, we’ve got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker. But Government has never reduced Government does not tax to get the money it needs. Government always needs the money it gets. And when John talks about his non-inflationary plan, as far as I have been able to learn, there are 88 proposals in it that call for additional Government spending programs. Now, I speak with some confidence of our plan, because I took over a state – California – 10% of the population of this nation – a state that, if it were a nation, would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world. And that state we controlled spending. We cut the rate of increase in spending in half. But at the same time, we gave back to the people of California – in tax rebates, tax credits, tax cuts – $5.7 billion. I vetoed 993 measures without having a veto overturned. And among those vetoes, I stopped $16 billion in additional spending. And the funny thing was that California, which is normally above the national average in inflation and unemployment, for those six years for the first time, was below the national average in both inflation and unemployment. We have considered inflation in our figures. We deliberately took figures that we, ourselves, believed were too conservative. I believe the budget can be balanced by 1982 or 1983, and it is a combination of planned reduction of the tax increase that Carter has built into the economy, and that’s what he’s counting on for his plan. But he’s going to get a half-a-trillion dollars more over the next five years that he can use for additional programs, or hopefully, someplace down the line, balancing the budget. We believe that that’s too much additional money to take out of the pockets of the people.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson.ANDERSON: Mr. Moyers, I’m not here to debate Governor Reagan’s record as Governor. This is 1980 and not 1966. But I do know that, despite his pledge to reduce state Government spending, that it rose from $4.6 billion when he took office in 1967, to $10.2 billion during his eight years in office. Spending, in other words. more than doubled, and it rose at a faster rate than spending was rising in the Federal Government. But on his very optimistic figures about his tax cut producing a balanced budget by 1983, and the fact that he is using, he says, the figures of the Senate Budget Committee, that Senate Budget Committee Report does not accommodate all of the Reagan defense plans. It doesn’t accommodate the expenditures that he calls for, for accelerated development and deployment of a new manned strategic bomber, for a permanent fleet in the Indian Ocean, for the restoration of the fleet to 600 ships, to the development and deployment of a dedicated modern aircraft interceptor. In other words, I have seen his program costed out to the point where it would amount to more than $300 million a year, just for the military. And I think the figures that he has given are simply not going to stand up.MOYERS: Would would you have a comment, Mr. Reagan?REAGAN: Well, some people look up figures, and some people make up figures. And John has just made up some very interesting figures. We took the Senate report, of course. But we did factor in our own ideas with regard to increases in the projected military spending that we believe would, over a period of time, do what is necessary. Now also, with regard to the figures about California. The truth of the matter is, we did cut the increase in spending in half. It at the John doesn’t quite realize – he’s never held an executive position of that kind. And I think being Governor of California is probably the closest thing to the Presidency, if that’s possible, of any executive job in America today – because it is the most populous state. And I can only tell him that we reduced, in proportion of other states, the per capita spending, the per capita size of Government – we only increased the size of Government one-twelfth what it had increased in the preceding eight years. And one journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, a respected newspaper, said there was no question about the fact that Governor Reagan had prevented the State of California from going bankrupt.MOYERS: Our final question comes from Soma Golden, and it’s directed to Mr. Reagan.GOLDEN, EDITORIAL WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I’d like to switch the focus from inflation to God. This week, Cardinal Medeiros of Boston warned Catholics that it’s sinful to vote for candidates who favor abortion. This did not defeat the two men he opposed, but it did raise questions about the roles of church and state. You. Mr. Reagan, have endorsed the participation of fundamentalist churches in your campaign. And you, Mr. Anderson, have tried three times to amend the Constitution to recognize the, quote, “law and authority,” unquote, of Jesus Christ. My question: Do you approve of the Church’s actions this week in Boston? And should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights, and defense spending?MOYERS: Mr. Reagan.GOLDEN: Mr. Reagan.REAGAN: Oh, I’m it’s my question. But whether I agree or disagree with some individual, or what he may say, or how he may say it, I don’t think there’s any way that we can suggest that because people believe in God and go to church, that they should not want reflected in those people and those causes they support, their own belief in morality, and in the high traditions and principles which we’ve abandoned so much in this country. Going around this country, I think that I have found a great hunger in America for a spiritual revival. For a belief that law must be based on a higher law. For a return to traditions and values that we once had. Our Government, in its most sacred documents – the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all – speak of man being created, of a Creator. That we’re a nation under God. Now, I have thought for a long time that too many of our churches have been too reluctant to speak up in behalf of what they believe is proper in Government, and they have been too too lax in interfering, in recent years, with Government’s invasion of the family itself, putting itself between parent and child. I vetoed a number of bills of that kind myself, when I was in California. Now, whether it is rightful, on a single issue, for anyone to advocate that someone should not be elected or not, I won’t take a position on that. But I do believe that no one in this country should be denied the right to express themselves, or to even try to persuade others to follow their leader. That’s what elections are all about.MOYERS: Ms. Golden.GOLDEN: Okay. I would point out that churches are tax-exempt institutions, and I’ll repeat my question. Do you approve the Church’s action this week in Boston, and should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights and defense spending?ANDERSON: Ms. Golden, certainly the church has the right to take a position on moral issues. But to try, as occurred in the case that you mentioned – that specific case – to try to tell the parishioners of any church, of any denomination, how they should vote, or for whom they should vote, I think violates the principle of separation of church and state. Now, Governor Reagan is running on a platform that calls for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I think that is a moral issue that ought to be left to the freedom of conscience of the individual. And for the state to interfere with a Constitutional amendment, and tell a woman that she must carry that pregnancy to term, regardless of her personal belief, that, I think, violates freedom of conscience as much as anything that I can think of. And he is also running on a platform that suggests a litmus test for the selection of judges – that only judges that hold a certain, quote, “view,” on the sanctity of family life, ought to be appointed to the Federal Judiciary, one of the three great independent branches of our Government. No. I believe in freedom of choice. I don’t believe in Constitutional Amendments that would interfere with that. I don’t believe in trying to legislate new tests for the selection of the Federal Judiciary. On the Amendment that you mentioned, I abandoned it 15 years ago. And I have said freely, all over this country, that it was a mistake for me or anyone to ever try to put the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country, important as it is, and important as my religious faith is to me – it’s a very deeply personal matter. But for me to try, in this very pluralistic society of ours, to try to frame any definition, whatever, of what that belief should be, is wrong. And so, not once, but twice – in 1971 – I voted on the floor of the House of Representatives against a Constitutional amendment that tried to bring prayer back into the public schools. I think mother ought to whisper to Johnny and to Susie, as they button their coats in the morning and leave for the classroom, “Be sure to say a prayer before you start your day’s work.” But I don’t think that the state, the Board of Regents, a Board of Education, or any state official, should try to compose that prayer for a child to recite.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan.REAGAN: The litmus test that John says is in the Republican platform, says no more than the judges to be appointed should have a respect for innocent life. Now, I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I think all of us should have a respect for innocent life. With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there’s one individual who’s not being considered at all. That’s the one who is being aborted. And I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. I I think that, technically, I know this is a difficult and an emotional problem, and many people sincerely feel on both sides of this, but I do believe that maybe we could find the answer through medical evidence, if we would determine once and for all, is an unborn child a human being? I happen to believe it is.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson.ANDERSON: I also think that that unborn child has a right to be wanted. And I also believe, sir, that the most personal intimate decision that any woman is ever called upon to make is the decision as to whether or not she shall carry a pregnancy to term. And for the state to interfere in that decision, under whatever guise, and with whatever rationale, for the state to try to take over in that situation, and by edict, command what the individual shall do, and substitute itself for that individual’s conscience, for her right to consult her rabbi, her minister, her priest, her doctor – any other counselor of her choice – I think goes beyond what we want to ever see accomplished in this country, if we really believe in the First Amendment: if we really believe in freedom of choice and the right of the individual.MOYERS: Mr. Reagan you now have three minutes for closing remarks.REAGAN: Before beginning my closing remarks, here, I would just like to remark a concern that I have that we have criticized the failures of the Carter policy here rather considerably, both of us this evening. And there might be some feeling of unfairness about this because he was not here to respond. But I believe it would have been much more unfair to have had John Anderson denied the right to participate in this debate. And I want to express my appreciation to the League of Women Voters for adopting a course with which I believe the great majority of Americans are in agreement. Now, as to my closing remarks: I’ve always believed that this land was placed here between the two great oceans by some divine plan. That it was placed here to be found by a special kind of people – people who had a special love for freedom and who had the courage to uproot themselves and leave hearth and homeland, and came to what, in the beginning, was the most undeveloped wilderness possible. We came from 100 different corners of the earth. We spoke a multitude of tongues. We landed on this Eastern shore and then went out over the mountains and the prairies and the deserts and the far western mountains to the Pacific, building cities and towns and farms, and schools and churches. If wind, water or fire destroyed them, we built them again. And in so doing, at the same time, we built a new breed of human called an American – a proud, an independent., and a most compassionate individual, for the most part. Two hundred years ago, Tom Paine, when the 13 tiny colonies were trying to become a nation, said, we have it in our power to begin the world over again. Today. we’re confronted with the horrendous problems that we’ve discussed here tonight. And some people in high positions of leadership, tell us that the answer is to retreat. That the best is over. That we must cut back. That we must share in an ever-increasing scarcity. That we must, in the failure to be able to protect our national security as it is today, we must not be provocative to any possible adversary. Well, we, the living Americans, have gone through four wars. We’ve gone through a Great Depression in our lifetime that literally was worldwide and almost brought us to our knees. But we came through all of those things and we achieved even new heights and new greatness. The living Americans today have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth. For 200 years, we’ve lived in the future, believing that tomorrow would be better than today, and today would be better than yesterday. I still believe that. I’m not running for the Presidency because I believe that I can solve the problems we’ve discussed tonight. I believe the people of this country can, and together, we can begin the world over again. We can meet our destiny – and that destiny to build a land here that will be, for all mankind, a shining city on a hill. I think we ought to get at it.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson, you have the final three minutes.ANDERSON: Mr. Movers, President Carter was not right a few weeks ago when he said that the American people were confronted with only two choices, with only two men, and with only two parties. I think you’ve seen tonight in this debate that Governor Reagan and I have agreed on exactly one thing – we are both against the reimposition of a peacetime draft. We have disagreed, I believe, on virtually every other issue. I respect him for showing tonight – for appearing here, and I thank the League of Women Voters for the opportunity that they have given me. I am running for President as an Independent because I believe our country is in trouble. I believe that all of us are going to have to begin to work together to solve our problems. If you think that I am a spoiler, consider these facts: Do you really think that our economy is healthy? Do you really think that 8 million Americans being out of work and the 50% unemployment among the youth of our country are acceptable? Do you really think that our armed forces are really acceptably strong in those areas of conventional capability where they should be? Do you think that our political institutions are working the way they should when literally only half of our citizens vote? I don’t think you do think that. And therefore, I think you ought to consider doing something about it, and voting for an Independent in 1980. You know, a generation of office seekers has tried to tell the American people that they could get something for nothing. It’s been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes. We’ve got to stop drifting. What I wish tonight so desperately is that we had had more time to talk about some of the other issues that are so fundamentally important. A great historian, Henry Steele Commager, said that in their lust for victory, neither traditional party is looking beyond November. And he went on to cite three issues that their platforms totally ignore: atomic warfare, Presidential Directive 59 notwithstanding. If we don’t resolve that issue, all others become irrelevant. The issue of our natural resources; the right of posterity to inherit the earth, and what kind of earth will it be? The issue of nationalism – the recognition, he says, that every major problem confronting us is global, and cannot be solved by nationalism here or elsewhere – that is chauvinistic, that is parochial, that is as anachronistic as states’ rights was in the days of Jefferson Davis. Those are some of the great issues – atomic warfare, the use of our natural resources, and the issue of nationalism – that I intend to be talking about in the remaining six weeks of this campaign, and I dare hope that the American people will be listening and that they will see that an Independent government of John Anderson and Patrick Lucey can give us the kind of coalition government that we need in 1980 to begin to solve our problems. Thank you.MOYERS: Mr. Anderson, we, too, wish there were more time, and for all the limitations of the form – and there are other forms to try – the Chair, for one, would like to see such meetings become a regular and frequent part of every Presidential campaign. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Anderson, we thank you for coming, and thanks to our panelists, Carol Loomis, Daniel Greenberg, Charles Corddry, Lee May, Jane Bryant Quinn and Soma Golden. And thank you in the audience at home for joining us. This first Presidential Debate of 1980 has been brought to you as a public service by the League of Women Voters Education Fund. I’m Bill Moyers. Good night.",
    "id": "c34cdf81-fde5-4b21-9ab1-a16b5c630884"
  },
  {
    "year": 2000,
    "date": "October 17, 2000",
    "title": "The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 17, 2000 Debate TranscriptOctober 17, 2000The Third Gore-Bush Presidential DebateMODERATOR: Good evening from the Field House at Washington University in St. Louis. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS. And I welcome you to this third and final Campaign 2000 debate between the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Al Gore, and the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas. Let’s welcome the candidates now.[Applause]Before proceeding tonight we would like to observe a moment of silence in memory of Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri, who along with his son and his former chief of staff, died in a private plane crash last night near St. Louis. A reminder, as we continue now, that these debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The formats and the rules were worked out by the commission and the two campaigns. Tonight’s questions will be asked by St. Louis area voters who were identified as being uncommitted by the Gallup organization. Earlier today each of them wrote a question on a small card like this. Those cards were collected and then given to me this afternoon. My job, under the rules of the evening, was to decide the order the questions will be asked and to call on the questioners accordingly. I also have the option of asking follow-ups which — in order to get to more of the panel’s questions. For the record, I plan to do sparingly and mostly for clarifications. The audience participants are bound by the following rule. They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner’s microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question. Those are the rules. As in Winston-Salem last week, no single answer or response from a candidate can exceed two minutes. There is an audience here in the hall and they have promised to remain absolutely quiet, as did their predecessors this year in Boston, Danville, and Winston-Salem. Before we begin, a correction from last week’s debate. I was wrong when I said Vice President Gore’s campaign commercials had called Governor Bush a bumbler. That specific charge was made in a press statement by Gore campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani, not in a TV Guide.GORE: I’m glad you clarified that.MODERATOR: Now, let’s go to the first question. Of over the 130 questions we received from this panel, we will begin with one of the 19 on health issues, and it goes to you, Mr. Vice President, and it will be asked by James Hankins. Mr. Hankins?MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How do you feel about HMOs and insurance companies making the critical decisions that affect people’s lives instead of the medical professionals, and why are the HMOs and insurance companies not held accountable for their decisions?GORE: Mr. Hankins, I don’t feel good about it, and I think we ought to have a patient’s bill of rights to take the medical decisions away from the HMOs and give them back to the doctors and nurses. I want to come back and tell you why, but if you will forgive me, I would like to say something right now at the beginning of this debate following on the moment of silence for Mel Carnahan and Randy Carnahan and Chris Sifford. Tipper and I were good friends with Mel and Randy, and I know that all of us here want to extend our sympathy and condolences to Jean and the family and to the Sifford family. And I would just like to say that this debate in a way is a living tribute to Mel Carnahan because he loved the vigorous discussion of ideas in our democracy. He was a fantastic governor of Missouri. This state became one of the top five in the nation for health care coverage for children under his leadership. One of the best in advancing all kinds of benefits for children to grow up healthy and strong. And of course, this debate also takes place at a time when the tragedy of the USS Cole is on our minds and hearts and insofar as the memorial service is tomorrow, I would like to also extend sympathy to the families of those who have died and those who are still missing, and the injured. Now, Mr. Hankins, I think that the situation that you describe has gotten completely out of hand. Doctors are giving prescriptions, they’re recommending treatments, and then their recommendations are being overruled by HMOs and insurance companies. That is unacceptable. I support a strong national patient’s bill of rights. It is actually a disagreement between us, a national law that is pending on this, the Dingle-Norwood bill, a bipartisan bill, is one that I support and that the governor does not.MODERATOR: Two minutes response, Governor Bush.BUSH: I, too, want to extend my prayers and blessings, God’s blessings on the families whose lives were overturned yes — tod — last night. It’s a tragic moment. Actually, Mr. Vice President, it’s not true. I do support a national patient’s bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient’s bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that’s what we did in my state. We have one of the most advanced patient’s bill of rights. It says, for example, that a woman doesn’t have to go through a gate keeper to go to her gynecologist. It says that you can’t gag a doctor, doctor can advise you. The HMO, the insurance company, can’t gag that doctor from giving you full advice. And this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. But we did something else that was interesting. We’re one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage. Now there’s what’s called an Independent Review Organization that you have to go through first. It says if you’ve got a complaint with your insurance company, you can take your complaint to an objective body. If the objective body rules on your behalf, the insurance company must follow those rules. However, if the insurance company doesn’t follow the findings of the IRO, then that becomes a cause of action in a court of law. It’s time for our nation to come together and do what’s right for the people, and I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patient’s bill of rights, Mr. Vice President, and I want all people covered. I don’t want the law to supersede good law like we’ve got in Texas. I think —MODERATOR: Governor, time is up, sir.GORE: Jim, we have a direct disagreement on this.MODERATOR: Just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I want to — the way the rules go here now, two minutes, two minutes, and then I’ll decide whether we go on. Okay. So what I want to make sure is we understand here is before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national patient’s bill of rights?GORE: Absolutely not. I referred to the Dingle-Norwood bill. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that’s pending, the one that the Republican majority has put forward. They like it because it doesn’t accomplish what I think really needs to be accomplished to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the HMO or insurance company, let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an HMO before you call 911, to let you see a specialist if you need to, and it has strong bipartisan support. It is being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Congress.MODERATOR: Sir.GORE: And I specifically would like to know whether Governor Bush will support the Dingle-Norwood bill, which is the main one pending.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, you may answer that if you’d like. But also I’d like to know how you see the differences between the two of you, and we need to move on.BUSH: Well, the difference is is that I can get it done. That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That’s what the question in this campaign is about. It’s not only what’s your philosophy and what’s your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can.GORE: What about the Dingle-Norwood bill?MODERATOR: All right. We’re going to go now to another — all right. Yes.BUSH: I’m not quite through. Let me finish. I talked about the principles and the issues that I think are important in a patient’s bill of rights. It’s kind of Washington, D.C. focus. Well, it’s in this committee or it’s got this sponsor. If I’m the president, we’re going to have emergency room care, we’re going have gag orders, we’re going to have direct access to OB/GYN. People will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That’s what I’ve done in Texas and that’s the kind of leadership style I’ll bring to Washington.MODERATOR: All right. Another — the next question also on health issue is from — it will be asked by Marie Payne Kloepy, and it goes to Governor Bush.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Are either of you concerned with — are either of you concerned with finding some feasible way to lower the price of pharmaceutical drugs such as education on minimizing intake, revamp of the FDA process or streamlining the drug companies’ procedures instead of just finding more money to pay for them?BUSH: Well, that’s a great question. I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there is no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. And therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs they do so on their own, there’s no kind of collective bargaining, no power of purchasing among seniors. So I think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have prescription drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all. The problem we have today is like the patient’s bill of rights, particularly with health care, there’s a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C. It’s kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue. So what I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to forget all the arguing and finger pointing, and come together and take care of our seniors’ prescription drug program, that says we’ll pay for the poor seniors, we’ll help all seniors with prescription drugs. In the meantime, I think it’s important to have what’s called Immediate Helping Hand, which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors, don’t have to choose between food and medicine. That’s part of an overall overhaul. The purchasing powers. And I’m against price controls. I think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it. One of the most important things is to continue the research and development component. And so I’m against price controls. Expediting drugs through the FDA makes sense, of course. Allowing the new bill that was passed in the Congress made sense to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back and other countries to come back into the United States. That makes sense. But the best thing to do is to reform Medicare.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, two minutes.GORE: All right, here we go again. Now look, if you want someone who will spend a lot of words describing a whole convoluted process and then end up supporting legislation that is supported by the big drug companies, this is your man. If you want someone who will fight for you and who will fight for the middle-class families and working men and women, who are sick and tired of having their parents and grandparents pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anybody else, then I want to fight for you. And you asked a great question because it’s not only seniors. Listen, for 24 years I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discover great new cures and that’s great. We want them to continue that. But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion. You see all these ads? Than they are on research and development. And they are trying artificially extend the monopoly patent protection so they can keep charging these very high prices. I want to streamline the approval of the competing generic drugs and the new kinds of treatments that can compete with them so we bring the price down for everybody. Now, briefly, let me tell you how my prescription drug plan works. The governor talked about Medicare. I propose a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors, all seniors, and here’s how it works. You pick your own doctor, and nobody can take that away from you. The doctor chooses the prescription that you need and nobody can overrule your doctor. You go to your own pharmacy and then Medicare pays half the price. If you’re poor, they pay all of it. If you have extraordinarily high cost, then they pay all over $4,000 out-of-pocket. And I’ll bring new competition to bring the price down. And if you pass the big drug companies’ bill, nothing will happen.MODERATOR: All right. Another health question, it comes from Vickie French, and it’s for you, Vice President Gore. Vickie French, where are you? Oh, there she is.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: We spend billions of dollars every year on taxes, or pay billions of dollars in taxes. Would you be open to the idea of a national health care plan for everybody? And if not, why? If so, is this something you would try to implement if you are elected into office and what would you do to implement this plan?GORE: I think that we should move step-by-step toward universal health coverage, but I am not in favor of government doing it all. We’ve spent 65 years now on the development of a hybrid system, partly private, partly public, and 85% of our people have health insurance, 15% don’t. That adds up to 44 million people. That is a national outrage. We have got to get health coverage for those who do not have it and we’ve got to improve the quality for those who do with a patient’s bill of rights that’s real and that works, the Dingle-Norwood bill, and we have got to fill in the gaps in coverage by finally bringing parity for the treatment of mental illness, because that’s been left out. We have got to deal with long-term care. Now, here are the steps that I would take, first of all. I will make a commitment to bring health care coverage of high quality that is affordable to every single child in America within four years. And then we’ll fill other gaps by covering the parents of those children when the family is poor or up to two and a half times the poverty rate. I want to give a tax credit for the purchase of individual health insurance plans. I want to give small business employers a tax credit, 25%, to encourage the providing of health insurance for the employees in small businesses. I want to give seniors who are, well, the near elderly, I don’t like that term because I am just about in that category, but those 55 to 65 ought to be able to buy into Medicare for premiums that are reasonable and fair and significantly below what they have to get now. Now, we have a big difference on this. And you need to know the record here. Under Governor Bush, Texas has sunk to be 50th out of 50 in health care — in health insurance for their citizens. Last week he said that they were spending 3.7 billion dollars, or 4.7 billion dollars on this.MODERATOR: Mr. Vice president.GORE: Okay.MODERATOR: Time is up. Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: I’m absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don’t want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan. And fortunately, it failed. I trust people, I don’t trust the federal government. It’s going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. I don’t want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. There is an issue with the uninsured, there sure is. And we have uninsured people in my state. Ours is a big state, a fast-growing state. We share a common border with another nation. But we’re providing health care for our people. One thing about insurance, that’s a Washington term. The question is, are people getting health care, and we have a strong safety net, and there needs to be a safety net in America. There needs to be more community health clinics where the poor can go get health care. We need a program for the uninsured. They’ve been talking about it in Washington, D.C. The number of uninsured has now gone up for the past seven years. We need a $2,000 credit, rebate for people, working people that don’t have insurance, they can get in the marketplace and start purchasing insurance. We need to have — allow small businesses to write insurance across jurisdictional lines so small business can afford health care, small restaurants can afford health care. So health care needs to be affordable and available. We have to trust people to make decisions with their lives. In the Medicare reform I talk about it says if you are a senior, you can stay in Medicare if you like it, and that’s fine, but we’re going to give you other choices to choose if you want to do so, just like they do the federal employees. The people that work in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. Congress or the United States senate. Get a variety of choices to make in their lives. And that’s what we ought to do for all people in America.MODERATOR: Yes, sir, sorry.GORE: Follow-up?BUSH: Trying to find my light.MODERATOR: Not right now. Education. These folks submitted 18 questions on education, and the first one is that will be asked on education will go to you, Governor, and asked by Angie Pettig. Angie Pettig, where are you? There she is, Governor, right there.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I’ve heard a lot about education and the need to hold teachers and schools accountable, and I certainly agree with that. But as an individual with an educational background, and also a parent, I have seen a lot of instances where the parents are unresponsive to the teachers or flat out uninvolved in their child’s education. How do you intend to not only hold the teachers and schools accountable but also hold parents accountable?BUSH: Well, you know, it’s hard to make people love one another. I wish I knew the law because I would darn sure sign it. I wish I knew the law that said all of us would be good parents. One of the things the next president must do is to remind people that if we are going to have a responsible period in America, that each of us must love our children with all our heart and all our soul. I happened to believe strong accountability encourages parental involvement, though. I think when you measure and post results on the Internet or in the town newspapers, most parents say wait a minute, my child’s school isn’t doing what I want it to do and, therefore, become involved in education. I recognize there are some who just don’t seem to care. But there are a lot of parents who feel like everything is going well in their child’s school, and all of a sudden they wake up and realize that wait a minute, standards aren’t being met. That’s why I’m so strong for accountability. I believe we ought to measure a lot, three, four, five, six, seven, eighth grade. We do so in my state of Texas. One of the good things we’ve gone in Texas is we have strong accountability because you can’t cure unless you know. You can’t solve a problem unless you diagnose it. I strongly believe that one of the best things to encourage parental involvement also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure. That’s why I support a teacher liability act at the federal level, that says if a teacher or principal upholds reasonable standards of classroom discipline they can’t be sued. They can’t be sued. I think parents will be more involved with education when they know their children’s classrooms are safe and secure as well. I also believe that we need to say to people that if you cannot meet standards, there has to be a consequence. Instead of just comes the soft bigotry of low expectations, that there has to be a consequence. We can’t continue to shuffle children through school. And one of the consequences to allow parents to have different choices.MODERATOR: Governor. Vice president Gore.GORE: We have huge difference between us on this question. I’d like to start by telling you what my vision is. I see a day in the United States of America where all of our public schools are considered excellent, world class. Where there are no failing schools, where the classrooms are small enough in size, number of students, so that the teacher can spend enough one-on-one time with each student. Now that means recruiting new teachers for the public schools. It means in my plan hiring bonuses to get 100,000 new teachers in the public schools within the next four years. It means also helping local school districts that sometimes find the parents of school age children outvoted on bond issues, to give them some help with interest-free bonding authority so that we can build new schools and modernize the classrooms. We need to give teachers the training and professional development that they need, including a paid time off to go visit the classroom of a master teacher to pick up some new skills. I want to give every middle-class family a $10,000 a year tax deduction for college tuition so that middle-class families will always be able to send their kids on to college. I want to work for universal free school because we know from all the studies that the youngsters learn, kids learn more in the first few years of life than any where else. Now, I said there was a contrast. Governor Bush is for vouchers, and in his plan he proposes to drain more money, more taxpayer money out of the public schools for private school vouchers than all of the money that he proposes in his entire budget for public schools themselves. And only one in 20 students would be eligible for these vouchers, and they wouldn’t even pay the full tuition to private school. I think that’s a mistake. I don’t think we should give up on the private schools and leave kids trapped in failing schools. I think we — I think we should make it the number one priority to make our schools the best in the world, all of them.MODERATOR: Governor, what is your position on that?BUSH: Yeah, I appreciate that. I think any time we end with one of these attacks, it’s appropriate to respond. Here’s what I think. First of all, vouchers are up to states. If you want to do a voucher program in Missouri, fine. I strongly believe in local control of schools. I’m a governor of state and I don’t like it when the federal government tells us what to do. I believe in local control of schools. But here’s what I said. I’ve said to the extent we spend federal money on disadvantaged children, we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are learning. What’s unreasonable about that? We expect there to be standards met and we expect there to be measurement. And if we find success we’ll praise it. But when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach, instead of saying oh, this is okay in America just to shuffle poor kids through schools, there has to be a consequence. And the consequence is that federal portion or federal money will go to the parent, so the parent can go to a tutoring program or another public school or another private school. You see, there has to be a consequence. We’ve got a society that says hey, the status quo is fine, just move them through. And guess who suffers.MODERATOR: What’s the harm on that, what’s the other side on that?GORE: Well, the program that he’s proposing is not the one that he just described. Described under your plan, Governor Bush, states would be required to pay vouchers to students to match the vouchers so that the federal government would put up. Now, you’re — and the way it would happen is that under his plan, if a school was designated as failing, the kids would be trapped there for another three years and then some of them would get federal vouchers and the state would be forced to match those, that money. Under my plan, if a school is failing, we work with the states to give them the authority and the resources to close down that school and reopen it right away with a new principal, a new faculty, a turn-around team of specialists who know what they’re doing. It’s based on the plan of Governor Jim Hunt in North Carolina, and it works great.MODERATOR: So no vouchers under — in a Gore administration?GORE: If I thought that there was no alternative, then I might feel differently. But I have an obligation to fight to make sure there are no failing schools. We have to turn around — most schools are excellent, but we have to make sure that all of them are.MODERATOR: Andrew Kosberg has a related question on education that’s right on this subject. Mr. Kosberg, where are you? And it’s for Vice President Gore.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Vice President, in a school district in which I work and in countless others across the nation, we face crumbling school buildings, increased school violence, student apathy, overcrowding, lack of funding, lawsuits, the list goes on. I could mention low teacher pay but I won’t. What can you tell me and my fellow American teachers today about your plans for our immediate future?GORE: What grade do you teach?MODERATOR: That’s a violation of your rule, Vice President Gore.GORE: High school. I mentioned before that the local communities are having a harder time passing bond issues. Traditionally, if you’ve been involved in a campaign like that, you know that the parents with kids in school are the ones that turn out and vote. It’s ironic that there are now — there is now a smaller percentage of the voters made up of parents with children than ever in American history because of the aging of our population, but at the same time we’ve got the largest generation of students in public schools ever. More than 90% of America’s children go to public schools. And it’s the largest number ever this year and they’ll break the record next year and every year for ten years running. We’ve got to do something about this. And local — it’s not enough to leave it up to the local school districts. They’re not able to do it and our future depends upon it. Look, we’re in an information age. Our economic future depends upon whether or not our children are going to get the kind of education that lets them go on to college. And again, I want to make it possible for all middle-class families to send their kids to college and more Pell grants for those who are in the lower income groups also, and then I want to make sure that we have job training on top of that and lifelong learning, but it all starts with the public school teachers. My proposal gives $10,000 hiring bonuses for those teachers who are — who get certified to teach in the areas where they’re most needed. Now, accountability, we basically agree on accountability. My plan requires testing of all students. It also requires something that Governor Bush’s plan doesn’t. It requires testing of all new teachers, including in the subjects that they teach. We have to start treating teachers like the professionals that they are, and give them the respect and the kind of quality of life that will draw more people into teaching because we need a lot more teachers.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it’s the largest increase in federal spending in years. And there’s just not going to be enough money. I have been a governor of a big state, I have made education my number one priority. That’s what governors ought to do. They ought to say this is the most important thing we do as a state. The federal government puts about 6% of the money up. They put about, you know, 60% of the strings where you have to fill out the paperwork. I don’t know if you have to be a paperwork filler-outer, but most of it’s because of the federal government. What I want to do is to send flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose what to do with the money. One size does not fit all. I worry about federalizing education if I were you. I believe strongly that the federal government can help, we need to fund Headstart. We need to have accountability. The Vice President’s plan does not have annual accountability, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade. We need to demand on results. I believe strongly in a teacher protection act like I mentioned. I hear from teachers all the time about the lawsuits and the threats, respect in the classroom. Part of it’s because you can’t — you can’t control the classroom. You can’t have a consequence for somebody without fear of getting sued under federal law. So I’m going to ask the Congress to pass a teacher protection act. So I believe in flexibility, I believe in a national reading initiative for local districts to access with K through 2 diagnostic testing, curriculum that works, phonics works, by the way, it needs to be a part of our curriculum. There needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. The federal government can be a part, but don’t fall prey to all this stuff about money here and money there because education is really funded at the local level. 94% comes from the local level.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, is the governor right when he says that you’re proposing the largest federal spending in years?GORE: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I’m so glad that I have the chance to knock that down. Look, the problem is that under Governor Bush’s plan, $1.6 trillion tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, under his own budget numbers, he proposes spending more money for a tax cut just for the wealthiest 1% than all the new money he budgets for education, health care and national defense combined. Now under my plan we’ll balance the budget every year. I’m not just saying this. I’m not just talking. I have helped to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years, paid down the debt. And under my plan, in four years, as the percentage of our gross domestic product, federal spending will be the smallest that it has been in 50 years. One reason is, you know, the third biggest spending item in our budget is interest on the national debt? We get nothing for it. We keep the good faith and credit of the United States. I will pay down the debt every single year until it is eliminated early in the next decade. That gets rid of the third biggest intrusion of the federal government in our economy. Now, because the governor has all this money for a tax cut mostly to the wealthy, there is no money left over, so schools get testing and lawsuit reform and not much else.MODERATOR: Governor, the vice president says you’re wrong.BUSH: Well, he’s wrong. (LAUGHTER) Just add up all the numbers. It’s three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed. The Senate Budget Committee —MODERATOR: Three times — excuse me, three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed?GORE: That was in an ad, Jim, that was knocked down by the journalists who analyzed the ad and said it was misleading.BUSH: My turn?MODERATOR: Yes, sir.BUSH: Forget the journalists. He proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combined. This is a big spender. And he ought to be proud of it, it’s part of his record. We just have a different philosophy. Let me talk about tax relief. If you pay taxes, you ought to get tax relief. The Vice President believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I don’t think that’s the role of the president to pick you’re right and you’re not right. I think if you’re going to have tax relief, everybody ought to get it. And therefore, wealthy people are going to get it. But the top 1% will end up paying one-third of the taxes in America and they get one-fifth of the benefits. And that’s because we structured the plan so that six million additional American families pay no taxes. If you’re a family of four making $50,000 in Missouri, you get a 50% cut in your federal income taxes. What I’ve done is set priorities and funded them. And there’s extra money. And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to get some money back. It’s a difference of opinion. He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. It’s just the right position to take.GORE: Can we take the time —MODERATOR: Governor — yeah, hold on one second here, thought. The governor just reversed the thing. What do you say specifically to what the vice president said tonight, he said it many, many times, that your tax cut benefits the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans, and you’ve heard what he said.BUSH: Of course it does. If you pay taxes, you are going to get a benefit. People who pay taxes will get tax relief.MODERATOR: All right. Why shouldn’t they?BUSH: Let me finish. Under my plan, if you make — the top — the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today. Afterwards they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you’re a single mother making $22,000 a year today and you’re trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000, and that’s not right. So I want to do something about that.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: Yeah, look. Look, this isn’t about Governor Bush, it’s not about me. It is about you. And I want to come back to something I said before. If you want somebody who believes that we were better off eight years ago than we are now and that we ought to go back to the kind of policies that we had back then, emphasizing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, here is your man. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won’t ask you, but if you do, you’re in the top 1%.MODERATOR: It would be a violation of the rules. They couldn’t —GORE: I’m not going to ask them. But if everyone here in this audience was dead on in the middle of the middle-class, then the tax cuts for every single one of you all added up would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top wealthiest 1%. Now you judge for yourselves whether or not that’s fair.MODERATOR: Quick, and then we’re moving on.BUSH: Good. 50 million Americans get no tax relief under his plan.GORE: That’s not right.BUSH: You may not be one of them, you’re just not one of the right people. And secondly, we’ve had enough fighting. It’s time to unite. You talk about eight years? In eight years they haven’t gotten anything done on Medicare, on Social Security, a patient’s bill of rights. It’s time to get something done.GORE: Hey, I’ve got to answer that, Jim.MODERATOR: All right.GORE: Medicare — I cast the tie-breaking vote to add 26 years to the life of Medicare. It was due to go bankrupt in 1999 and that 50 million figure again, the newspapers — I said — you said forget the journalists, but they are the keepers of the score card and whether or not you’re using facts that aren’t right. And that fact is just not right.MODERATOR: Speaking of keepers of the score card, that’s what I’m trying to do here Mr. Vice President and Governor Bush. We’re gonna move on. We’re gonna have to move on. All right, there were 12 questions on foreign and military matters, and the first one that we’re going to ask will be directed to you, Governor Bush. And David Norwood is going to ask it. Mr. Norwood, where are you? There you are.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What would you make — what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis?BUSH: I’ve been a leader. I’ve been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I’ve got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we’re somebody’s friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we’ll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to moderate Arab nations as well to build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need — the next leader needs to be patient. We can’t put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It’s got to be on the timetable of the people that we’re trying to bring to the peace table. We can’t dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can’t worry about polls or focus groups. You’ve got to have a clear vision. That’s what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don’t know because inspectors aren’t in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I see a future when the world is at peace, with the United States of America promoting the values of democracy and human rights and freedom all around the world. Even in Iran they have had an election that began to bring about some change. We stand for those values and we have to be willing to assert them. Right now our military is the strongest in the entire history of the world. I will — I pledge to you I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that it stays that way. Now, what can I bring to that challenge? When I was a young man, my father was a senator opposed to the Vietnam War. When I graduated from college, there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of going and being a part of that. I went and I volunteered, and I went to Vietnam. I didn’t do the most or run the greatest risk by a long shot, but I learned what it was like to be an enlisted man in the United States Army. In the Congress, in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we’re gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years. I’ve worked on that long and hard. When I went to the United States Senate, I asked for an assignment to the Armed Services Committee. And while I was there I worked on a bipartisan basis, as I did in the House, I worked with former President Reagan on the modernization of our strategic weaponry. In the Senate I was one of only ten Democrats, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, to support Governor Bush’s dad in the Persian Gulf War Resolution. And for the last eight years I’ve served on the National Security Council. Can I say just one other thing here?MODERATOR: No, sir. We’ll get that — I’m gonna — the next question is to you.GORE: Fine, I’ll wait.MODERATOR: It’s a related — it’s a related question that is going to be asked by Kenneth Allen. Mr. Allen?GORE: I think he gets a — oh, I’m sorry, you’re right, go ahead.MODERATOR: Mr. Allen, right there.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Vice President, today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during peacetime. I would like to know what you are — I think we would all like to know what you as president would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world.GORE: Thank you, sir. Just to finish briefly, I started to say that for the last eight years I’ve been on the National Security Council. Last week I broke up — I suspended campaigning for two days, or parts of two days, to go back and participate in the meetings that charted the President’s summit meeting that he just returned from earlier today. And our team of — our country’s team over there did a great job. It’s a difficult situation. The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. And that means keeping our military strong. Now, I said earlier that we are the strongest military, but we need to continue improving readiness and making sure that our military personnel are adequately paid and that the combination of their pay and their benefits and their retirement as veterans is comparable to the stiff competition that’s coming in this strong economy from the private sector. And I have supported the largest pay raise in many a year, and I support another one now. I also support modernization of our strategic and tactical weaponry. The governor has proposed skipping a generation of technology. I think that would be a mistake, because I think one of the ways we’ve been able to be so successful in Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti and in other places is by having the technological edge. You know, we won that conflict in Kosovo without losing a single human life in combat, a single American life in combat. Now, readiness. The trends before we — before I got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. And I’m happy to tell you that we have. Now, in my budget for the next ten years I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes $45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it’s needed.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I’m not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I’m concerned that we’re overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity — we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we’re smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I’m going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we’re not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, another kind of gun question. It will be asked by Robert Lutz. Mr. Lutz?MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Governor Bush —BUSH: Yes, sir.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Would just like to know what is your opposition to the Brady Handgun bill?BUSH: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Would like to know why you object to the Brady Handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad it showed that the National Rifle Association says that if you are elected, that they will be working out of your office.BUSH: I don’t think the National Rifle Association ran that ad. But let me just tell you my position on guns in general, sir, if you don’t mind.MODERATOR: Excuse me, I’m not sure he’s finished with his question.BUSH: I’m sorry.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: That kind of bothers me when I see an ad like that. I want you to explain that ad to me.BUSH: Well, I don’t think I ran the ad. I think somebody who doesn’t want me to be president might have run that ad. That wasn’t my ad. I think it might have been one of my opponent’s ads. Here is what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows, I’m for trigger locks, I think that makes sense. Matter of fact, we distributed free trigger locks in the State of Texas so that people can get them and put them on their guns to make their guns more safe. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. If we keep somebody — you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence. Enforcement of law, and the federal government can help. There is a great program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, where we focused federal taxpayers’ money and federal prosecutors and went after people who were illegally using guns. To me that’s how you make society the safest it can be. And so, yeah, sometimes I agree with some of these groups in Washington and sometimes I don’t. I’m a pretty independent thinker. The one thing I’m for is a safe society. And I’m for enforcing laws on the books. And that’s what is going to happen should I earn your confidence.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: Well, it was not one of my ads, either, Governor. But I am familiar with the statement, and it was made by one of the top-ranking officials of that organization. Let me tell you my position. I think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of cheap handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. But all of my proposals are focused on that problem, gun safety. None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters, or sportsmen, or people who use rifles. They’re aimed at the real problem. Let’s make our schools safe, let’s make our neighborhoods safe. Let’s have a three-day waiting period, cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn’t have guns don’t get them. But I would like to use my remaining time on this exchange, Jim, to respond to an exchange that took place just a moment ago. Because a couple of times the governor has said that I am for a bigger government. Governor, I’m not. And let me tell you what the record shows. For the last eight years I have had the challenge of running the streamlining program called Reinventing Government. And if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means. The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people. And it’s now the smallest number that we have had since the — the smallest in size since John Kennedy’s administration. During the last five years, Texas’s government has gone up in size. Federal government has gone down, Texas’s government has gone up. Now, my plan for the future, I see a time when we have smaller, smarter government where you don’t have to wait in line because you can get services online cheaper, better, faster. We can do that.MODERATOR: Steve Luecker has a question, and it is for Vice President Gore. Mr. Luecker? There you are.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Vice President Gore. The family farms are disappearing and having a hard time even in the current positive economic environment. What steps would you or your administration take on agricultural policy developments to protect the family farms for this multi-functional service they perform?GORE: We’ve got a bumper crop this year. But that’s the good news. You know what the bad news is that follows on that. The prices are low. In the last several years, the so-called Freedom To Farm Law has, in my view, been mostly a failure. I want to change many of its provisions. Now, many here who are not involved in farming don’t — won’t follow this, so just forgive me. Because the 2% of the country that is involved in farming is important because the rest of us wouldn’t eat except for them. And you guys have been having a hard time, and I want to fight for you. I want to change those provisions. I want to restore a meaningful safety net. And I think that you pointed the way in your comments, because when you say there are multiple things accomplished by farmers, you’re specifically including conservation and protection of the environment. And yes, farmers are the first environmentalists. And when they decide not to plow a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion, that may cost them a little money, but it helps the environment. I think that we ought to have an expanded conservation reserve program. And I think that the environmental benefits that come from sound management of the land ought to represent a new way for farmers to get some income that will enable them — enable you to make sensible choices in crop rotation, and when you leave the land fallow and the rest. Now, I’ll go beyond that and say I think we need much more focus on rural economic development programs. I see a time when the Internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the extra source of income that farm families used to have from shoe factories is replaced by an extra source of income from working in the information economy. So we need to do a lot of things, but we ought to start with a better safety net.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: I would like our farmers feeding the world. We’re the best producers in the world, and I want — I want the farmers feeding the world. We need to open up markets. Exports are down, and every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. I want the next president to have fast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world. We’re the best and the most efficient farmers. I don’t want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn’t be using food. It hurts the farmers. It’s not the right thing to do. I’m for value-added processing. We need more work on value-added processing. You take the raw product you produce, I presume you’re a farmer, off your farm, and you convert it. Value-added processing is important. I’m for research and development. Spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. I’m for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The President shouldn’t have vetoed that bill. It’s a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer. So should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote, I also understand — I want to open up markets, but I also understand that farming is a part of our national security. I’m from a big farm state. We’re the second biggest state — farming state in the country. And I hear from my farmers and friends all the time. The Vice President is right, by the way. Every day is earth day if you own the land. I like the policies that will encourage farmers to put — set aside land as well for conservation purposes. Thank you.MODERATOR: A quick thing on the inheritance tax. There is a difference between the two of you on this. Vice President Gore?GORE: Yeah. I’m for a massive reform of the estate tax or the death tax. And under the plan that I’ve proposed, 80% of all family farms will be completely exempt from the estate tax. And the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced. So 80% — now the problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the wealthiest 1%. The amount of money that has to be raised in taxes for middle-class families to make up for completely eliminating that on the very wealthiest, the billionaires, that would be an extra heavy burden on middle-class families. And so let’s do it for most all, but not completely eliminate it for the very top.MODERATOR: What’s the case for doing that, Governor?BUSH: Eliminating the death tax.MODERATOR: Completely. For everybody.BUSH: Because people shouldn’t be taxed twice on their assets. It’s either unfair for some or unfair for all. Again, this is just a difference of opinion. If you’re from Washington, you want to pick and choose winners. I don’t think that’s the role of the president. I think if you’re going to have tax relief, everybody benefits. Secondly, I think your plan — a lot of fine print in your plan, Mr. Vice President, with all due respect. It is — I’m not so sure 80% of the people get the death tax. I know this, 100% will get it if I’m the president. I just don’t think it’s fair to tax people’s assets twice regardless of your status. It’s a fairness issue. It’s an issue of principle, not politics.MODERATOR: New issue. New issue. And the question will be asked by Joyce Cleamer of Governor Bush. Joyce Cleamer? There you are.BUSH: Hi, Joyce.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Hi, Governor. I’m very concerned about the morality of our country now. TV, movies, the music that our children are, you know, barraged with every day. And I want to know if there’s anything that can be worked out with the — Hollywood, or whoever, to help get rid of some of this bad language and whatever, you know. It’s just bringing the country down. And our children are very important to us and we’re concerned about their education at school. We should be concerned about their education at home, also. Thank you.BUSH: Appreciate that question. Laura and I are proud parents of teenage girls, twin daughters, and I know what you’re saying. Government ought to stand on the side of parents. Parents are teaching their children right from wrong, and the message oftentimes gets undermined by the popular culture. You bet there’s things that government can do. We can work with the entertainment industry to provide family hour. We can have filters on Internets where public money is spent. There ought to be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so if kids get on the Internet, there is not going to be pornography or violence coming in. I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn’t directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you’re teaching. Greatly expand character education funding so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time. There’s afterschool money available. I think that afterschool money ought to be available for faith-based programs and charitable programs that exist because somebody has heard the call to love a neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. That will help reinforce the values that parents teach at home as well. Ours is a great land, and one of the reasons why is because we’re free. And so I don’t support censorship. But I do believe that we ought to talk plainly to the Hollywood moguls and people who produce this stuff and explain the consequences. I think we need to have rating systems that are clear. I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use so you can tune out these programs you don’t want in your house. I’ll remind mothers and dads the best weapon is the off/on button, and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them and being — I’m sorry. I was on my peroration.GORE: My turn.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore.GORE: I care a lot about this. It’s not just movies; television, video games, music, the Internet. Parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have. Tipper and I have four children. And God bless them, every one of them decided on their own to come here this evening. I don’t want to embarrass our oldest daughter. She and her husband made us grandparents almost a year-and-a-half ago, and yet if she’ll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it and Tipper hit the ceiling. And that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that — warning labels for parents. And I’m so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there. I’ve been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents’ protection page every time 95% of the pages come up. And a feature that allows parents to automatically check with one click what sites your kids have visited lately. You know, some parents are worried about those filters, that you will have to ask your kids how to put them on there. But if you can check up on them, that’s real power. And recently the Federal Trade Commission pointed out that some of these entertainment companies have warned parents that the material is inappropriate for children, and then they’ve turned around behind the backs of the parents and advertised that same adult material directly to children. That is an outrage. Joe Lieberman and I gave them six months to clean up their act. And if they don’t do it, we’re gonna ask for tougher authority in the hands of the FTC on the false and deceptive advertising. I’ll tell you this, I want to do something about this. Respect the First Amendment, but I will do something to help you raise your kids without that garbage.MODERATOR: All right. Vice President Gore, the next question is for you, and it will be asked by Steven Koosmann. Mr. Koosmann, where are you, sir? You’re right behind me as well. There we go.GORE: Right next to the last.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: It seems that when we hear about issues of this campaign, it’s usually Medicare, Social Security or prescription drugs. As a college professor, I hear a lot of apathy amongst young people who feel that there are no issues directed to them. And they don’t plan to vote. How do you address that?GORE: We’ve got to change it. I spend a good deal of time talking to young people, and in my standard speech out there on the stump I usually end my speech by saying, I want to ask you for something and I want to direct it especially to the young people in the audience. And I want to tell you what I tell them. Sometimes people who are very idealistic and have great dreams, as young people do, are apt to stay at arm’s length from the political process because they think their good hearts might be brittle, and if they invest their hopes and allow themselves to believe, then they’re gonna be let down and disappointed. But thank goodness we’ve always had enough people who have been willing in every generation to push past the fear of a broken heart and become deeply involved in forming a more perfect union. We’re America, and we believe in our future and we know we have the ability to shape our future. Now, we’ve got to address one of the biggest threats to our democracy. And that is the current campaign financing system. And I know they say it doesn’t rank anywhere on the polls. I don’t believe that’s a fair measure. I’m telling you, I will make it the — I will make the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill the very first measure that I send to the Congress as president. Governor Bush opposes it. I wish that he would consider changing his mind on that. Because I think that the special interests have too much power, and we need to give our democracy back to the American people. Let me tell you why. Those issues you mentioned, Social Security, prescription drugs, the big drug companies are against the prescription drug proposal that I’ve made. The HMOs are against the patient’s rights bill, the Dingle-Norwood bill that I support, and that Gov. Bush does not support. The big oil companies are against the measures to get more energy independence and renewable fuel. They ought to have their voices heard, but they shouldn’t have a big megaphone that drowns out the American people. We need campaign finance reform and we need to shoot straight with young and old alike and tell them what the real choices are. And we can renew and rekindle the American spirit and make our future what our founders dreamed it could be. We can.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: Tell you what I hear. A lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington, D.C. and therefore they don’t want any part of politics. They look at Washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another. There’s a lot of young folks saying, you know, why do I want to be involved with this mess? And what I think needs to happen in order to encourage the young to become involved is to shoot straight, is to set aside the partisan differences, and set an agenda that will make sense. Medicare, I know you talked about it, but Medicare is relevant for all of us, young and old alike. We better get it right now. Tax reform is relevant for old and young alike. I don’t think it’s the issues that turn kids off. I think it’s the tone. I think it’s the attitude. I think it’s a cynicism in Washington and it doesn’t have to be that way. Before I decided to run, I had to resolve two issues in my mind. One, could our family endure all this business. And I came to the conclusion that our love was strong enough to be able to do it. The other was could an administration change the tone in Washington, D.C. And I believe the answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn’t be asking for your vote. That’s what happened in Texas. We worked together. There is a man here in this audience named Hugo Berlanga. He is the chairman of the health committee. He came here for a reason, to tout our record on health in Texas. He’s a Democrat. I didn’t care whether he was a Republican or Democrat. What I cared about is could we work together. That’s what Washington, D.C. needs. And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who will tell the truth. That’s the best way to get people back in the system.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, Norma Curby has the next question. And it’s for you. Norma Curby, where are you?BUSH: Hi, Norma.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Hi. How will your administration address diversity, inclusiveness, and what role will affirmative action play in your overall plan?BUSH: I’ve had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in Texas. I’m going to find people that want to serve their country. But I want a diverse administration, I think it’s important. I’ve worked hard in the State of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. Policy that rejects quotas. I don’t like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America. It’s not the way America is all about. But policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves. For example, in our State of Texas I worked with the legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you’re automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning, college. And as a result, our universities are now more diverse. It was a smart thing to do. What I called it, I labeled it affirmative access. I think the contracting business in government can help. Not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller, the agencies need to be — need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. I think we can do that in a way that represents what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. So to answer your question, I support, I guess the way to put it, is affirmative access. I’ll have an administration that will make you proud. Thank you.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I believe in this goal and effort with all my heart. I believe that our future as a nation depends upon whether or not we can break down these barriers that have been used to pit group against group, and bring our people together. How do you do it? Well, you establish respect for differences. You don’t ignore differences. It’s all too easy for somebody in the majority in the population to say oh, we’re just all the same, without an understanding of the different life experience that you’ve had, that others have had. Once you have that understanding and mutual respect, then we can transcend the differences and embrace the highest common denominator of the American spirit. I don’t know what affirmative access means. I do know what affirmative action means. I know the governor is against it, and I know that I’m for it. I know what a hate crime statute pending at the national level is all about in the aftermath of James Byrd’s death. I’m for that proposed law, the governor is against it. I know what it means to have a commitment to diversity. I am part of an administration that has the finest record on diversity. And incidentally, an excellent — I mean, I think our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it. Because we’re able to draw on the wisdom and experience from different parts of the society that hadn’t been tapped in the same way before. And incidentally, Mel Carnahan in Missouri had the finest record on diversity in any governor in the entire history of the State of Missouri. And I want to honor that among his other achievements here. Now, I just believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. I’m against quotas. This is, with all due respect, Governor, that’s a red herring. Affirmative action isn’t quotas. I’m against quotas, they’re illegal. They’re against the American way. Affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice and bring all people into the American dream because it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefitting.MODERATOR: Governor, what is your — are you opposed to affirmative action?BUSH: If affirmative action means quotas, I’m against it. If affirmative action means what I just described what I’m for, then I’m for it. You heard what I was for. The vice president keeps saying I’m against things. You heard what I was for, and that’s what I support.MODERATOR: What about — Mr. Vice President, you heard what he said.GORE: He said if affirmative action means quotas, he’s against it. Affirmative action doesn’t mean quotas. Are you for it without quotas?BUSH: I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I’m for what I just described to the lady.GORE: Are you for what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action?MODERATOR: Let’s go on to another —GORE: I think that speaks for itself.BUSH: No, it doesn’t speak for itself, Mr. Vice President, it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don’t mean anything.MODERATOR: The question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Lisa Kee will ask it. Lisa Kee, where are you? There we go, sorry.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents?GORE: If you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1,000 in a savings account, you’ll get a tax credit, which means in essence that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000. If you make less than $30,000 a year and you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1500. If you make more than $60,000 and up to 100 you’ll still get a match, but not as generous. You’ll get an access to life-long learning and education, help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or training. If you want to purchase health insurance, you will get help with that. If you want to participate in some of the dynamic changes that are going on in our country, you will get specific help in doing that. If you are part of the — of the bottom 20% or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded earned income tax credit. Now, the tax relief that I propose is directed specifically at middle-income individuals and families. And if you have a — if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs long-term care, then you will get help with that. $3,000 tax credit to help your expenses in taking care of a loved one who needs long-term care.MODERATOR: Governor Bush?BUSH: Let me just say the first — this business about the entitlement he tried to describe about savings, you know, matching savings here and matching savings there, fully-funded it’s gonna cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we have. You’re going to get a tax relief in my plan. You’re not going to be targeted in or targeted out. Everybody that pays taxes is going to get tax relief. If you take care of an elderly in your home, you’re going to get the personal exemption increased. I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is important, but it doesn’t keep up with the new medicines. If you’re a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don’t get the new procedures. You’re stuck in a time warp in many ways. So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. You’re going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we’re going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. A mission that doesn’t try to be all things to all people. A judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace. You’ll live in a world, hopefully, that is more educated so it’s less likely you’ll be harmed in your neighborhood. See, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. You’ll be in a world in which fits into my philosophy. The harder you work, the more you can keep. It’s the American way. Government shouldn’t be a heavy hand. It’s what the federal government does to you. It should be a helping hand, and tax relief and the proposals I just described should be a good helping hand.MODERATOR: Governor, next question is for you, and Leo Anderson will ask it. Mr. Anderson. You want a mike?MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: In one of the last debates held, the subject of capital punishment came up, and in your response to the question, you seemed overly joyed and as a matter of fact proud that Texas led the nation in the execution of prisoners. Sir, did I misread your response and are you really, really proud of the fact that Texas is number one in executions?BUSH: No, I’m not proud of that. The death penalty is a very serious business, Leo. It’s an issue that good people obviously disagree on. I take my job seriously. And if you think I was proud of it, I think you misread me, I do. I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. During the course of the campaign in 1994 I was asked do you support the death penalty. I said I did if administered fairly and justly. Because I believe it saves lives, Leo, I do. If it’s administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. One of the things that happens when you’re a governor, at least oftentimes you have to make tough decisions. You can’t let public persuasion sway you, because the job is to enforce the law. And that’s what I did, sir. There have been some tough cases come across my desk. Some of the hardest moments since I’ve been the governor of the State of Texas is to deal with those cases. But my job is to ask two questions, sir. Is the person guilty of the crime? And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I can tell you looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative. I’m not proud of any record. I’m proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the State of Texas. I’m proud of the fact that we hold people accountable. But I’m not proud of any record, sir, I’m not.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy? If the wrong guy is put to death, then that’s a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed, but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it. And in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases.MODERATOR: Do both of you believe the death penalty actually deters crime? Governor?BUSH: I do. It’s the only reason to be for it. Let me finish, sir. I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives.GORE: I think it is a deterrent. I know that’s a controversial view, but I do believe it’s a deterrent.MODERATOR: Next question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Thomas Fischer will ask it. Mr. Fischer?MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Yes. My 6th grade class at St. Claire’s School wanted to ask of all these promises you guys are making and all the pledges, will you keep them when you’re in office? (LAUGHTER)GORE: Yes. (LAUGHTER) I am a person who keeps promises. And, you know, we’ve heard a lot about — from the governor about not much being done in the last eight years, as if the promises that I made eight years ago have not been kept. I think the record shows otherwise. We have gone from the biggest deficits eight years ago to the biggest surpluses in history today. Instead of high unemployment, we now have the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest Latino unemployment ever measured. 22 million new jobs, very low unemployment nationally. Instead of ballooning the debt and multiplying it four times over, we have seen the debt actually begun to be paid down. Here are some promises that I’ll make to you now. I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the debt every year. I will give middle-class Americans tax cuts, meaningful ones. And I will invest in education, health care, protecting the environment and retirement security. We both made promises in this campaign. I promise you I will keep mine. Let me tell you about one of the governor’s. He has promised a trillion dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund for young working adults to invest and save on their own. But he’s promised seniors that their Social Security benefits will not be cut, and he’s promised the same trillion dollars to them. So this is a show me state. Reminds me of the line from the movie, “Show me the money.” Which one of those promises will you keep and which will you break, Governor?MODERATOR: Governor Bush.BUSH: Thank you for your question. (LAUGHTER) I — there’s an old high school debating trick, which is to answer something and then attack your opponent at the end. You asked about promises. You were promised that Medicare would be reformed, and that Social Security would be reformed. You were promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. It didn’t happen. There’s too much bitterness in Washington. There’s too much wrangling. It’s time to have a fresh start. One of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn’t try to be all things to all people. When I campaigned in a race, a lot of folks didn’t think I could win including, by the way, my mother. (LAUGHTER) I said I’d do four things; tort reform, education reform, welfare reform and juvenile justice reform. And I won. And I had the will of the people in my state behind me. And then I brought folks together to get it done. And that’s what we need, I think, in this election. To me that’s what it’s all about. I’m sure your 6th grade kids are listening and saying, these guys will say anything to get elected. But there’s a record, and that’s what I hope people look at. One of my promises is going to be Social Security reform, and you bet, we need to take a trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus. Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you’re a younger worker, if you’re younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise you’re gonna be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we’re gonna take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines so you get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2% that the federal government gets for you today. That’s one of my promises. But it’s gonna require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it done. That’s what it requires. There was a chance to get this done. It was a bipartisan approach, but it’s been rejected. I’m going to bring them together.MODERATOR: Both of you — both of you on this subject. There are other questions that also go to this skepticism, not necessarily about you, but all people in politics. Why is that?GORE: Well, first of all, Jim, I would like to respond to what the governor just said. Because the trillion dollars that has been promised to young people has also been promised to older people. And you cannot keep both promises. If you’re in your mid-40’s under the governor’s plan, Social Security will be bankrupt by the time you retire, if he takes it out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Under my plan it will be — its solvency will be extended until you’re 100. Now that is the difference. And the governor may not want to answer that question, he may want to call it a high school debating trick, but let me tell you this. This election is not about debating tricks, it is about your future. The reason Social Security — he says it gets 2%. You know, it’s not a bank account that just pays back money that’s invested. It is also used to give your mothers and fathers the Social Security checks that they live on. If you take a trillion dollars out of that Social Security Trust Fund, how are the checks going to be — how are you going to keep faith with the seniors? Now let me come directly to your question.MODERATOR: We have to go to the closing statements and —BUSH: Well, can I answer that? One reason people are skeptical is because people don’t answer the questions they’ve been asked. The trillion dollars comes out of the surplus so that you can invest some of your own money. There’s just a difference of opinion. I want workers to have their own assets. It’s who you trust, government or people.MODERATOR: All right. Now we’re going to go to closing statements. Vice President Gore, you’re first.GORE: Thank you very much, Jim, and I’ll begin by answering your questions — your last question. I believe that a lot of people are skeptical about people in politics today because we have seen a time of great challenge for our country. Since the assassination of our best leaders in the ’60’s, since the Vietnam War, since Watergate, and because we need campaign finance reform. I would like to tell you something about me. I keep my word. I have kept the faith. I’ve kept the faith with my country. I volunteered for the Army. I served in Vietnam. I kept the faith with my family. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years. We have devoted ourselves to our children and now our nearly one-and-a-half-year-old grandson. I have kept the faith with our country. Nine times I have raised my hand to take an oath to the Constitution, and I have never violated that oath. I have not spent the last quarter century in pursuit of personal wealth. I have spent the last quarter century fighting for middle-class working men and women in the United States of America. I believe very deeply that you have to be willing to stand up and fight no matter what powerful forces might be on the other side. If you want somebody who is willing to fight for you, I am asking for your support and your vote and, yes, your confidence and your willingness to believe that we can do the right thing in America, and be the better for it. We’ve made some progress during the last eight years. We have seen the strongest economy in the history of the United States. Lower crime rates for eight years in a row. Highest private home ownership ever, but I’ll make you one promise here. You ain’t seen nothing yet. And I will keep that promise.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: Well, Jim, I want to thank you and thank the folks here at Washington University and the vice president. Appreciate the chance to have a good, honest dialogue about our differences of opinion. I think after three debates the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between big federal government and somebody who is coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals. I’ve got an agenda that I want to get done for the country. It’s an agenda that says we’re going to reform Medicare to make sure seniors have got prescription drugs and to give seniors different options from which they can choose. It’s an agenda that says we’re listen to the young voices in Social Security and say we’re going to think differently about making sure we have a system, but also fulfill the promise to the seniors in America. A promise made will be a promise kept should I be fortunate enough to become your president. I want to have the military keeping the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America keeps its promise so not one child is left behind. After setting priorities, I want to give some of your money back. I don’t think the surplus is the government’s money. I think it’s the people’s money. I don’t think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government, I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people. And you ought to have some of this surplus so you can save and dream and build. I look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. I’m asking for your vote. For those of you for me, thanks for your help. For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. (LAUGHTER) But for those who have not made up their mind, I would like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate enough to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God. Thank you very much.MODERATOR: A closing piece of business before we go. The Debate Commission wants reaction to the three kinds of formats used in the debates this year, and you may register an opinion at their website at www.debates.org. Vice President Gore, Governor Bush, thank you. And good night from Washington University in St. Louis.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "e636a25e-b437-42dd-a007-3f0bcec537a3"
  },
  {
    "year": 1988,
    "date": "October 5, 1988",
    "title": "The Bentsen-Quayle Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 5, 1988 Debate TranscriptsOctober 5, 1988The Bentsen-Quayle Vice Presidential DebateWOODRUFF: On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I am pleased to welcome you to this Vice Presidential debate. I’m Judy Woodruff of PBS’ MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour and Frontline. My colleagues on the panel are: John Margolis of the Chicago Tribune; Tom Brokaw of NBC NEWS; and Brit Hume of ABC NEWS. The importance of tonight’s debate is underscored by two facts. Both George Bush and Michael Dukakis said their selections of a running mate would reveal a lot about themselves. And based on the history since World War II, there is almost a 50-50 chance that one of the two men here tonight will become President of the United States. The candidates are Senator Dan Quayle, the Republican nominee, and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic nominee. (Applause)WOODRUFF: For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two campaigns. However, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and I may ask this evening. By prior agreement between the two candidates, the first question goes to Senator Quayle, and you have two minutes to respond. Senator, you have been criticized, as we all know, for your decision to stay out of the Vietnam War, for your poor academic record. But more troubling to some are some of the comments that have been made by people in your own party. Just last week former Secretary of State Haig said that your pick was the dumbest call George Bush could have made. Your leader in the Senate. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Your leader in the Senate Bob Dole said that a better qualified person could have been chosen. Other Republicans have been far more critical in private. Why do you think that you have not made a more substantial impression on some of these people who have been able to observe you up close?QUAYLE: The question goes to whether I am qualified to be Vice President, and in the case of a tragedy, whether I’m qualified to be President. Qualifications for the office of Vice President or President are not age alone. You must look at accomplishments, and you must look at experience. I have more experience than others that have sought the office of Vice President. Now let’s look at qualifications, and let’s look at the three biggest issues that are going to be confronting America in the next presidency. Those three issues are national security and arms control; jobs and education; and the Federal budget deficit. On each one of those issues I have more experience than does the Governor of Massachusetts. In national security and arms control, you have to understand the difference between a ballistic missile, a warhead, what throwweight, what megatonnage is. You better understand about telemetry and encryption. And you better understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength. These are important issues, because we want to have more arms control and arms reductions. In the area of jobs and education, I wrote the Job Training Partnership Act, a bipartisan bill, a bill that has trained and employed over three million economically disadvantaged youth and adults in this country. On the area of the Federal budget deficit, I have worked eight years on the Senate Budget Committee. And I wish that the Congress would give us the line item veto to help deal with that. And if qualifications alone are going to be the issue in this campaign, George Bush has more qualifications than Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen combined. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen – I’m going to interrupt at this point and ask once again that the audience please keep your responses as quiet as possible. We know that many of you here are for one candidate or another. But you are simply taking time away from your candidate, and more likely than not, you’ll be causing the partisans for the other candidate to react again when their candidate speaks. So please. Senator Bentsen, you have one minute to respond.BENTSEN: This debate tonight is not about the qualifications for the Vice Presidency. The debate is whether or not Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen are qualified to be President of the United States. Because Judy, just as you have said, that has happened too often in the past. And if that tragedy should occur, we have to step in there without any margin for error, without time for preparation, to take over the responsibility for the biggest job in the world, that of running this great country of ours; to take over the awesome responsibility for commanding the nuclear weaponry that this country has. No, the debate tonight is a debate about the presidency itself, and a presidential decision that has to be made by you. The stakes could not be higher.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, a question for you, and you also have two minutes to respond. What bothers people is not so much your qualifications but your split on policy with Gov. Dukakis. He has said that he does not want a clone of himself, but you disagree with him on some major issues: aid to the Nicaraguan Contras; the death penalty; gun control; among others. If you had to step into the presidency, whose agenda would you pursue, yours or his?BENTSEN: Well, I am delighted to respond to that question, because we agree on so many things and the vast majority of the issues. We agree on the fact that we have to cut this deficit. And Gov. Dukakis has been able to cut that deficit ten budgets in a row in the State of Massachusetts, while he lowered the tax burden on their people from one of the highest to one of the lower in the United States. That is a major sense of achievement. And I admire that. And I’m just delighted to be on the ticket with him. Gov. Dukakis and I agreed that we ought to have a trade policy for this country; that we’ve seen this Administration more than double the national debt, that; they’ve moved this country from the number one lender nation in the world to the number one debtor nation in the world under their Administration; that they have not had a trade policy; that they have let trade be a handmaiden for their foreign policy objectives of the country; that this country has exported too many jobs and not enough products. And as I worked to pass a trade bill through the United States Senate, they threw roadblocks in the way every step of the way. But we passed a trade bill that has this premise, that any country that has full access to our markets, we’re entitled to full access to their markets. Now, that means that we’re going to stand tough for America, and we’re going to protect those jobs, and we’re going to push American products, and we’re going to open up markets around the world. We’ll show leadership in that respect, and turn this deficit and trade around. That’s the sort of thing that Michael Dukakis and I will do to bring about a better America for all our people.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, a minute to respond.QUAYLE: As you notice, Senator Bentsen didn’t tell you very much about what Gov. Dukakis would do – Gov. Dukakis, one of the most liberal governors in the United States of America The one thing he tried to point out about Gov. Dukakis is that he’s cut taxes. The fact of the matter is, Senator Bentsen, he’s raised taxes five times. He just raised taxes this past year. And that’s why a lot of people refer to him as Tax-hike Mike. That’s why they refer to the State of Massachusetts as Taxachusetts. Because every time there’s a problem, the liberal governor from Massachusetts raises taxes. I don’t blame Senator Bentsen for not talking about Gov. Michael Dukakis. He’s talking more about his record. If I had to defend the liberal policies of Gov. Michael Dukakis, I wouldn’t talk about it either.WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Bentsen.MARGOLIS: Senator Bentsen, you have claimed that Vice President Bush and the Republicans will raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and you have vowed to protect it. But as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, you must know that there is something to the argument of your fellow Democrat Bob Strauss that some restraint on Social Security growth may be needed, or at least some decision to tax most Social Security benefits as regular income. In fact, you once voted for and spoke for a six-month delay on cost of living adjustment increases for Social Security. Senator, aren’t you and Gov. Dukakis using this issue politically, rather than dealing with it responsibly?BENTSEN: Well, I must say I hate to disappoint my good friend Bob Strauss, but we have a contract with the American people on Social Security. And Social Security is an issue where Senator Quayle voted eight times to cut the benefits on Social Security, where this administration came in and tried to cut the benefits, the minimum benefits, $122 a month for widows, for retirees, tried to cut the benefits for 62-year-old retirees by 40 percent, tried to do an end run on Social Security when they first came in after promising not to cut it – to cut it by some 20 billion, and while we were working together to reform the Social Security system and to be certain that that money was going to be there for people when they retired. At that point they tried a $40-billion end run to cut Social Security. Now, the record is clear. And we saw Vice President Bush fly back from the west coast to break a tie in the United States Senate. He doesn’t get to vote very often in the Senate, but he made a special trip to come back and vote against a cost-of-living increase. Now, when you talk about Social Security, the people that are going to protect it are the Democrats that brought forth that program. And I think it’s very important that we not see these kinds of end runs by this administration. When they talk about the fact that they are going to continue to cut this budget, I know too well what their rack record is. And we should be concerned with that kind of an effort once again after the election is over.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response?QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen, you know that I did not vote to cut Social Security benefits eight times. What I have voted for and what Senator Bentsen has voted for is to delay the cost-of-living adjustments. Senator Bentsen two times in the United States Senate voted to delay the cost-of-living adjustments. The governor of Massachusetts at a governors’ conference supported a resolution to delay the cost-of-living adjustment. And, John, you are right: they use this for political advantage. What they try to do time and time again is to scare the old people of this country. That’s the politics of the past. In 1983 Republicans and Democrats dropped their political swords and in a bipartisan effort saved the Social Security system. Republicans and Democrats banded together because we know that this program is not a Republican program, it’s not a Democrat program – it’s a program for older Americans. And that program is actuarially sound to the turn of this century.WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Quayle.MARGOLIS: Senator, since coming to the Senate you have voted against environmental protection legislation about two-thirds of the time. This includes votes against pesticide controls, the toxic waste superfund, and health and safety protection from nuclear wastes. Senator, do you consider yourself an environmentalist, and, if you do, how do you reconcile that with your voting record?QUAYLE: I have a very strong record on the environment in the United States Senate. (Laughter) I have a record where I voted for the superfund legislation. I have a record where I voted against my president on the override of the Clean Water Act. I have voted for the major pieces of environmental legislation that have come down and been voted on in the United States Senate. This administration – and I support this administration and its environmental efforts – has moved in the area for the first time to deal with the ozone problem. We now have an international treaty, the treaty that is commonly referred to as the Montreal Treaty. For the first time we are talking about the impact of CO2 to the ozone layer. That’s progress with the environment. We are committed to the environment. I take my children hiking and fishing, walking in the woods, in the wilderness. Believe me, we have a commit to preserving the environment. You bring up the environment, you can’t help but think about the environmental policy of the governor of Massachusetts. He talks about being an environmentalist. Let me tell you about his environmental policy. The Boston Harbor – the Boston Harbor, which is the dirtiest waterway in America, tons of raw sewage go in there each and every day. What has the governor of Massachusetts done about that? Virtually nothing. And then he has the audacity to go down to New Jersey and tell the people of New Jersey that he’s against ocean dumping. This is the same governor that applied for a license to dump Massachusetts sewage waste off the coast of New Jersey. Who has the environmental record? Who has the environmental interest? George Bush and I do.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: This late conversion is interesting to me. (Laughter and applause) I must say, when they talk about Boston Harbor and he says he hasn’t done anything, the facts are he has a $6-billion program under way on waste treatment. And it was this administration, their administration, that cut out the money early on to be able to clean up water, and made it impossible to move ahead at that time on Boston Harbor. We are the authors, the Democratic Party, of Clean Air, of Clean Water, of the superfund. I am one who played a very major role in passing the superfund legislation. And every environmental organization that I know, every major one, has now endorsed the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket. And I am one who has just received the environmental award in Texas for the work I’ve done to clean up the bays, to clean up the water, off the coast of Texas. No, I think we know well who’s going to help clean up this environment. The record is there, the history is there. And Dukakis and Bentsen will be committed to that. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Quayle.BROKAW: Thank you, Judy. Senator Quayle, there’s been a lot of talk during the course of this campaign about family. It was a principal theme, as I recall, in your acceptance speech in New Orleans. Tonight I’d like to ask you about the sixty-five million American children who live with their families in poverty. I’d like for you to describe to the audience the last time that you may have visited with one of those families personally and how you explain to that family your votes against the school breakfast program, the school lunch program, and the expansion of the child immunization program. (Applause)QUAYLE: I have met with those people, and I met with them in Fort Wayne, Indiana, at a food bank. You may be surprised, Tom, they didn’t ask me those questions on those votes, because they were glad that I took time out of my schedule to go down and to talk about how we are going to get a food bank going and making sure that a food bank goes in Fort Wayne, Indiana. And I have a very good record and a commitment to the poor, to those that don’t have a family, that want to have a family. This administration, and a George Bush administration, will be committed to eradicating poverty. Poverty hasn’t gone up in this administration; it hasn’t gone down much either, and that means we have a challenge ahead of us. But let me tell you something, what we have done for the poor. What we have done for the poor is that we in fact – the homeless bill, the McKinney Act, which is the major piece of legislation that deals with homeless – the Congress has cut the funding that the administration has recommended. The poor and the poverty – the biggest thing that we have done for poverty in America is the Tax Simplification Act of 1986: six million working poor families got off the payroll; six million people are off the taxpaying payrolls because of that tax reform, and they are keeping the tax money there. To help the poor, we’ll have a commitment to the programs and those programs will go on. And we are spending more in poverty programs today than we were in 1981 – that is a fact. The poverty program we are going to concentrate on is creating jobs and opportunities, so that everyone will have the opportunities that they want.] (Scattered applause)WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, your response.BENTSEN: I find that very interesting, because he has been of no help at all when it comes to passing the most major welfare reform bill in the history of our country, one where we are working very hard to see that people can get off welfare, break that cycle, take a step up in life, doing the kinds of things that we did there to let them have Medicaid for a year. That’s a positive thing that’s done. What also frustrates me with the kind of report that I have just heard here is the kind of votes that he has cast against child nutrition programs, the fact that he has voted against money that we needed for further immunization, the denial of polio shots to kids where the parents couldn’t afford to get that kind of a shot. Now, I don’t really believe that that is identifying with the concerns of people in poverty.WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Bentsen.BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, I’d like to take you back to the question that Judy asked you about your differences with Michael Dukakis on contra aid. After all, the contra aid is one of the cutting issues of foreign policy of this country in the last eight years. You and Michael Dukakis seem to be diametrically opposed on that. 1 have been told that in a closed session of the U.S. Senate you made one of the most eloquent and statesmanlike speeches in behalf of contra aid that anyone had made in the eight years of the Reagan term, that in fact you alluded to the threat that the Sandinista regime could pose to your own state of Texas. Governor Dukakis, on the other hand, has described the contra aid policy as immoral and illegal. Is he wrong? (Scattered applause)BENTSEN: Gov. Dukakis and I have disagreed on the contra program; no question about that. But my big difference with this Administration is, they look at the contra aid program as the only way to resolve that problem. They concentrate on that. And I really think we have to give peace a chance. And that’s why I have been a strong supporter of the Arias plan, a plan that won the Nobel Prize for President Arias, the President of Costa Rica. I believe you have to work with the leaders of those other Central American countries to try to bring about the democratization of Nicaragua – by negotiation, by pressure, by counseling, by diplomatic pressure, that we ought to be trying that first. But in concentrating so much just on the Contras, this Administration has not paid enough attention to the rest of Central America. The concern I have is that we have a country with 85 million people sharing a 2,000mile border with us, with half of those people under the age of 15, a country that’s had its standard of living cut 50 percent in the last six years. Now we ought to be concerned about that, and we ought to be involved. I was born and reared on that Mexican border. I speak their language. I’ve spent a good part of my life down there. Gov. Dukakis speaks Spanish, too. He’s spent a good deal of time in Central and South America. And we believe that we ought to be working with a new Alliance for Progress, bringing in other countries to help; bring in Europeans, the Spanish, who have a real affinity for that area; bringing in the Japanese who have a great surplus now and looking for places to invest it. Those are the positive things I think we could do to bring about peace in that area, to help raise that standard of living and give them the kind of stability where democracy can proceed and can prosper and bloom. Those are the kinds of things that we’d be committed to in a Dukakis-Bentsen Administration to try to make this world a better place in which to live.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response.QUAYLE: There’s no doubt in a Dukakis Administration that the aid would be cut off to the democratic resistance in Nicaragua, and that is unfortunate. The reason it is unfortunate, because it is beyond me why it’s okay for the Soviet Union to put in billions of dollars to prop up the communist Sandinistas, but somehow it’s wrong for the United States to give a few dollars to the democratic resistance. There’s a thing called the Monroe Doctrine, something that the Governor of Massachusetts has said has been superseded. I doubt if many Americans agree with that. I think they believe in the Monroe Doctrine. Senator Bentsen talked about the entire Central America. There’s another issue that Michael Dukakis is wrong on in Central America, and that’s Grenada. He criticized our rescue mission in Grenada, according to a UPI report. Criticized that, yet 85 percent of the American people supported our rescue mission, and we turned a communist country into a noncommunist country. The Governor of Massachusetts is simply out of step with mainstream America.WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Bentsen.HUME: Good evening, Senator Bentsen, Senator Quayle. I’m sort of the cleanup man in this order, and I’ve been asked by my colleagues to try to deal with anything that’s been left on base. Senator, I have a follow up question for you, Senator Quayle. But Senator Bentsen, I first want to ask you a question about PAC money, a thing I’m sure you’re prepared to talk about. Gov. Dukakis has tried to make ethics a major issue in the campaign. And he has you as a running mate, a man who leads the league at last count in the receipt of PAC money, that being the money raised by the special interest organizations. That is a kind of campaign financing which Gov. Dukakis finds so distasteful that he has refused to accept any of it. Do you find that embarrassing, Senator?BENTSEN: No, I don’t find it embarrassing at all. Because you have to remember that PAC money is the result of the last campaign reform bill, one that talks about employees have greater participation. And what I’ve done in PAC money is just what my opponent in my campaign has done in his campaign. He has been raising PAC money, too. So what you have to do is comply with the laws as they are, whether you’re paying taxes or you’re playing a football game. Whether you like those laws or not, you comply with them. Now, I have been for campaign reform, and have pushed it very hard. I believe that we have to do some things in that regard. But I’ve noticed that the Senator from Indiana has opposed that campaign reform and voted repeatedly against it. The things we have to do, I believe, that will cut back on soft money, for example, which I look on as frankly one of those things that we’ve had to do because the Republicans have done it for so long. But I think it’s a loophole, frankly. But campaign reform, changing the rules of the game, is something we tried repeatedly in this session of the Congress, but only to have the Republicans lead the charge against us and defeat us. And I wish that Senator Quayle would change his mind on that particular piece of legislation and give us the kind of a campaign reform law that I think is needed in America.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response.QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen is the number one PAC raiser. As a matter of fact, he used to have a $10,000 breakfast club. $10,000 breakfast club. It only costs high paid lobbyists, special interests in Washington, to come down and have breakfast with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the one that oversees all the tax loopholes in the tax code, $10,000. I’m sure they weren’t paying to have cornflakes. Well, I’ll tell you the kind of campaign reform I’m supporting, Senator Bentsen. I think it’s time we get rid of PAC money. Support our legislation where we totally eliminate contributions by special interests and political action committees, and let’s have the individual contribute and the political parties contribute. That’s the kind of campaign reform that Republicans are for. They want to get rid of this special interest and rely on the individuals, and also, the political parties.WOODRUFF: Brit, your question for Senator Quayle. Once again, let me caution the audience: please, keep your reactions as quiet as possible. Brit?HUME: Senator, I want to take you back if I can to the question Judy asked you about some of the apprehensions people may feel about your being a heart beat away from the presidency. And let us assume if we can for the sake of this question that you have become Vice President and the President is incapacitated for one reason or another, and you have to take the reins of power. When that moment came, what would be the first steps that you’d take, and why?QUAYLE: First – first, I’d say a prayer for myself and for the country that I’m about to lead. And then I would assemble his people and talk. And I think this question keeps going back to the qualifications and what kind of Vice President in this hypothetical situation, if I had to assume the responsibilities of President, what I would be. And as I have said, age alone, although I can tell you, after the experiences of these last few week in the campaign, I’ve added ten years to my age, age alone is not the only qualification. You’ve got to look at experience, and you’ve got to look at accomplishments, and can you make a difference. Have I made a difference in the United States Senate where I’ve served for eight years? Yes, I have. Have I made a difference in the Congress that I’ve served for 12 years? Yes, I have. As I said before, looking at the issue of qualifications – and I am delighted that it comes up, because on the three most important challenges facing America, arms control and national security, jobs and education and budget deficit, I have more experience and accomplishments than does the Governor of Massachusetts. I have been in the Congress and I’ve worked on these issues. And believe me, when you look at arms control and trying to deal with the Soviet Union, you cannot come at it from a naive position. You have to understand the Soviet Union. You have to understand how they will respond. Sitting on that Senate Armed Services Committee for eight years has given me the experience to deal with the Soviet Union and how we can move forward. That is just one of the troubling issues that’s going to be facing this nation, and I’m prepared.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Well, I can’t leave something on the table that he’s charged me with, and so let’s get to that one. When you talk about the breakfast club, as you know, that was perfectly legal. And I formed it, and I closed it down almost immediately because I thought the perception was bad. But it’s the same law – it’s the same law – that lets you invite high priced lobbyists down to Williamsburg. And bring them down there and entertain them playing golf, playing tennis, and bringing Republican Senators down there, to have exchanged for that contributions to their campaign. It’s the same kind of law that lets you have honorariums – and you’ve collected over a quarter of a million dollars of honorariums now, speaking to various interest groups. And there’s no control over what you do with that money. You can spend it on anything you want to. You can spent it on golf club dues, if you want to do that. (Applause)BENTSEN: Now, that’s what I’ve seen you do in this Administration. And that’s why we need campaign reform laws, and why I support them. And you in turn have voted against them time and time again. (Applause)WOODRUFF: John Margolis, question for Senator Quayle.MARGOLIS: Senator Quayle, in recent years the Reagan administration has scaled back the activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, prompted in part by Vice President Bush’s Task Force on Regulatory Relief. The budget for the agency has been cut by 20 percent and the number of inspections and manufacturing plants has been reduced by 33 percent. This has had a special effect in this area where many people work in the meat packing industry, which has a far higher rate of serious injuries than almost any other injury, a rate which appears to have been rising, although we’re not really sure, because some of the largest companies have allegedly falsifying their reports. Would you acknowledge to the hundreds of injured and maimed people Nebraska, Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest that in this case deregulation may have gone too far and the government should reassert itself in protecting workers’ rights.QUAYLE: The premise of your question, John, is that somehow this administration has been lax in enforcement of the OSHA regulations. And I disagree with that. And I’ll tell you why. If you want to ask some business people that I talk to periodically, they complain about the tough enforcement of this administration and, furthermore, let me tell you this for the record, when we have found violations in this administration, there has not only been tough enforcement, but there have been the most severe penalties – the largest penalties in the history of the Department of Labor – have been levied when these violations have been found. There is a commitment and there will always be a commitment to the safety of our working men and women. They deserve it and we’re committed to them. Now, the broader question goes to the whole issue of deregulation and has deregulation worked or has deregulation not worked. In my judgment deregulation has worked. We have a deregulated economy and we have produced through low taxes, not high taxes, through deregulation – the spirit of entrepreneurship, the individual going out and starting a business, the businessman or women willing to go out and risk their investments to start up a business and hire people. We have produced 17 million jobs in this country since 1982. Deregulation as a form of political philosophy is a good philosophy. It’s one that our opponents disagree with. They want a centralized government. But we believe in the market, we believe in the people and yes, there’s a role of government and the role of government is to make sure that those safety – and health and the welfare of the people is taken care of. And we’ll continue to do that.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen?BENTSEN: Well, I think you see once again a piece of Democratic legislation that’s been passed to try protect the working men and women of America. And then you’ve seen an administration that came in and really didn’t have it’s heart in that kind of an enforcement. A good example of that is the environmental protection laws that we were talking about a moment ago. This administration came in and put in a James Watt, an Ann Gorsuch, now that’s the Bonnie and Clyde, really, of environmental protection. And that’s why it’s important that you have people that truly believe and trying to represent the working men and women of America. Most employers do a good job of that, but some of them put their profits before people and that’s why you have to have OSHA and that’s why you have to have tough and good and fair enforcement of it and that’s what a Democratic administration would do to help make this working place a safer and better place to be employed.WOODRUFF: John Margolis, another question for Senator Bentsen.MARGOLIS: Senator Bentsen, since you have been in the Senate, the government has spent increasing amounts of money in an effort to protect the family farmer. Though most of the subsidies seem to go – do go to the largest and richest farmers who presumably need it least, while it’s the smaller farmers who are often forced to sell out, sometimes to their large farmer neighbor who’s gotten more subsidies to begin with. Despite the fact that I believe you, sir, are a rather large farmer, yourself, do you believe that it’s time to uncouple the subsidy formula from the amount of land the farmer has and target Federal money to the small and medium size farmer?BENTSEN: Well, I’ve supported that. I voted for the 50,000 limitation to get away from the million dollar contributions to farmer. You know, of the four that are on this ticket, I’m the only on that was born and reared on a farm and still involved in farming, so I think I understand their concerns and their problems. Now, I feel very strongly that we ought to be doing more for the American farmer and what we’ve seen under this administration is neglect of that farmer. We’ve seen them drive 220,000 farmers off the farm. They seem to think the answer is move them to town, but we ought not to be doing that. What you have seen them do is cut the farm assistance for the rural areas by over 50 percent. We’re seeing rural hospitals close all over the country because of this kind of an administration. We’ve seen an administration that has lost much of our market abroad, because they have not had a trade policy. We saw our market loss by some 40 percent. And that’s one of the reasons that we’ve seen the cost of the farm program, which was only about two and a half billion dollars when they took office, now go to about $25 billion. Now, we can bring that kind of a cost down and get more to market prices if we’ll have a good trade policy. I was in January visiting with Mr. Takeshita, the new Prime Minister of Japan. I said, “You’re paying five times as much for beef as we pay for our in country – pay for it in our country, six times as much for rice. You have a $60 billion trade surplus with us. You could improve the standard of living of your people. You’re spending 27 percent of your disposable income. We spend 14 or 15 percent.” “When you have that kind of barrier up against us, that’s not free and fair trade and we don’t believe that should continue.” We would be pushing very hard to open up those markets and stand up for the American farmer and see that we recapture those foreign markets and I think we can do it with the Dukakis-Bentsen administration.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle?QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen talks about recapturing the foreign markets. Well, I’ll tell you one way that we’re not going to recapture the foreign markets and that is if, in fact, we have another Jimmy Carter grain embargo. (Equal amounts of cheering and booing) Jimmy Carter – Jimmy Carter grain embargo set the American farmer back. You know what the farmer’s interested in? Net farm income. Every one percent in increase in interest rates, a billion dollars out of the farmer’s pocket. Net farm income, increased inflation, another billion dollars. Another thing that a farmer is not interested in and that’s supply management that the Democratic platform talks about. But the Governor of Massachusetts, he has a farm program. He went to the farmers in the Midwest and told them not to grow corn, not to grow soybeans, but to grow Belgium [sic] endive. That’s what his – that’s what he and his Harvard buddies think of the American farmer, grow Belgium endive. To come in and to tell our farmers not to grow corn, not to grow soybeans, that’s the kind of farm policy you’ll get under a Dukakis administration and one I think the American farmer rightfully will reject.WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Bentsen.BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, you were a businessman before you entered the U.S. Senate. Let me offer you an inventory if I may: Lower interest rates, lower unemployment, lower inflation and an arms control deal with the Soviet Union. Now two guys come through your door at your business and say, “We’d like you to change,” without offering a lot of specifics. Why would you accept their deal?BENTSEN: You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too. (Laughter and applause) This is an administration that has more than doubled the national debt, and they’ve done that in less than eight years. They have taken this country from the No. 1 lender nation in the world to the No. 1 debtor nation in the world. And the interest on that debt next year, on this Reagan-Bush debt of our nation, is going to be $640 for every man, woman, and child in America because of this kind of a credit-card mentality. So we go out and we try to sell our securities every week, and hope that the foreigners will buy them. And they do buy them. But every time they do, we lose some of our economic independence for the future. Now they’ve turned around and they’ve bought 10 percent of the manufacturing base of this country. They bought 20 percent of the banks. They own 46 percent of the commercial real estate in Los Angeles. They are buying America on the cheap. Now, when we have other countries that can’t manage their economy down in Central and South America, we send down the American ambassador, we send down the International Monetary Fund, and we tell them what they can buy and what they can sell and how to run their economies. The ultimate irony would be to have that happen to us, because foreigners finally quit buying our securities. So what we need in this country is someone like Mike Dukakis, who gave ten balanced budgets in a row there, and was able to do that, meet that kind of a commitment, set those tough priorities. We need an administration that will turn this trade policy around and open up those markets, stand tough with our trading partners to help keep the jobs at home and send the products abroad.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle.QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen talks about running up the debt. Well, the governor of Massachusetts has run up more debt than all the governors in the history of Massachusetts combined, going back to the days of the Pilgrims. I don’t believe that that’s the kind of policy that we want. The question went to the heart of the matter, Tom. You asked the question why would we change. Well, we have changed since 1980. We’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got inflation down, people are working again, America is held in respect once again around the world. But we are going to build on that change. And as we made those positive changes of lower interest rates, lower rate of inflation, the governor of Massachusetts fought us every step of the way. We are proud of the record of accomplishment and the opportunities and the hope for millions of Americans. Hope and opportunity of these Americans is because of the policies that we have had for the last eight years, and we want to build on that and change it for even the better.WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Quayle.BROKAW: Senator Quayle, as you mentioned here tonight, you actively supported the invasion of Grenada, which was a military operation to rescue some American medical students and to rescue an island from a Marxist takeover. If military force was necessary in that endeavor, why not use the military to go after the South American drug cartels and after General Noriega, for that matter, in a surgical strike, since drugs in the minds of most Americans pose a far greater danger to many more people? (Scattered applause)QUAYLE: You are absolutely right that the drug problem is the No. 1 issue.BROKAW: But would you please address the military aspect of it.QUAYLE: I will address the military aspect, if I may respond. The military aspect of the drug problem is being addressed. As a matter of fact, we are using the Department of Defense in a coordinated effort, in reconnaissance. But I don’t believe that we are going to turn the Department of Defense into a police organization. We are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction, and we’ve made some success in this area. Seventy tons of cocaine have been stopped. But, you know, when you look at the drug problem – and it is a tremendous problem, and there are no easy solutions to it – it’s a complicated problem, and it’s heading up the effort to try to create a drug-free America, which is a challenge and a goal of all of us. Not only will we utilize national defense and the Department of Defense, but we’ve got to get on the demand side of the ledger; we’ve got to get to education. And education ought to begin at home, and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. And there’s another thing that will be more important than the premise of this question on a hypothetical of using troops. We will use the military assets, we will use military assets – but we need to focus on another part of this problem, and that problem is law enforcement. And here is where we have a major disagreement with the governor of Massachusetts. He is opposed to the death penalty for drug kingpins. We believe people convicted of that crime deserve the death penalty, as does the legislation that’s in the Congress that is supported by a bipartisan, including many Democrats of his party. He also was opposed to mandatory drug sentencing for drug dealers in the state of Massachusetts. You cannot have a war on drugs, you cannot be tough on drugs and weak on crime.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: It’s interesting to see that the Senator from Indiana, when we had a resolution on the floor of the United States Senate sponsored by Senator Dole, that this government would make no deal with Noriega – that the Senator from Indiana was one of the dozen senators that voted against it. It’s also interesting to see that one of his campaign managers that’s trying to help him with his image was also hired by Noriega to help him with his image in Panama. (Shouts and applause) What we have seen under this administration – we have seen them using eight cabinet officers, twenty-eight different agencies, all fighting over turf – and that is one thing we would correct under a Dukakis-Bentsen administration. We would put one person in charge in the war against drugs, and we would commit the resources to get that job done. Now, Mike Dukakis has been able to do that type of thing in the state of Massachusetts by cutting the drug use in the high schools while it’s going up around the rest of the country, by putting in a drug educational program that the Drug Enforcement Agency said was a model to the country. We would be doing that around the rest of the country. That’s a positive attack against drugs.WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Quayle.HUME: Senator, I want to take you back to the question that I asked you earlier about what would happen if you were to take over in an emergency, and what you would do first and why. You said you would say a prayer, and you said something about a meeting. What would you do next? (Laughter)QUAYLE: I don’t believe that it’s proper for me to get into the specifics of a hypothetical situation like that. The situation is that if I was called upon to serve as the president of this country, or the responsibilities of the president of this country, would I be capable and qualified to do that? And I’ve tried to list the qualifications of twelve years in the United States Congress. I have served in the Congress for twelve years; I have served in the Congress and served eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have traveled a number of times – I’ve been to Geneva many times to meet with our negotiators as we were hammering out the INF Treaty; I’ve met with the western political leaders – Margaret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl – I know them, they know me. I know what it takes to lead this country forward. And if that situation arises, yes, I will be prepared, and I will be prepared to lead this country, if that happens. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Once again I think what we are looking at here is someone that can step in at the presidency level at the moment, if that tragedy would occur. And if that’s the case, again you have to look at maturity of judgment, and you have to look at breadth of experience. You have to see what kind of leadership roles that person has played in his life before that crisis struck him. And if you do that type of thing, then you arrive at a judgment that I think would be a wise one. And I hope that would mean that you would say we are going to vote for Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Brit, question for Senator Bentsen.HUME: Senator, I want to take you back if I can to the celebrated Breakfast Club, when it was first revealed that you had a plan to have people pay $10,000 a plate to have breakfast with you. You handled it with disarming, not to say charming, candor, you said it was a mistake, and you disbanded it and called the whole idea off. And you were widely praised for having handled it deftly. The question I have is: If The Washington Post had not broken that story and other media picked up on it, what can you tell us tonight as to why we should not believe that you would still be having those breakfasts to this day? (Scattered laughter)BENTSEN: I really must say, Brit, I don’t make many mistakes, but that one was a real doozy. And I agree with that. And, as you know, I immediately disbanded it. It was perfectly legal. And you have all kinds of such clubs on the Hill – and you know that. But I still believe that the better way to go is to have a campaign reform law that takes care of that kind of a situation. Even though it’s legal, the perception is bad. So I would push very strong to see that we reform the entire situation. I’d work for that end, and that’s what my friend from Indiana has opposed repeatedly, vote after vote.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle.QUAYLE: He disbanded the club, but he’s still got the money. He is the number one – he is the number one receiver of political action committee money. Now, Senator Bentsen has talked about reform. Well, let me tell you about the reform that we’re pushing. Let’s eliminate political action committees, the special interest money. There’s legislation before the Congress to do that. That way, we won’t have to worry about breakfast clubs, or who’s the number one PAC raiser. We can go back and get the contributions from the working men and women and the individuals of America. We can also strengthen our two party system – and it needs strengthening – and rely more on the political parties than we have in the past. That’s the kind of campaign reform that I’m for, and I hope the Senator will join me.WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Bentsen.MARGOLIS: Senator, we’ve all just finished – most America has just finished one of the hottest summers it can remember. And apparently this year will be the fifth out of the last nine that are among the hottest on record. No one knows, but most scientists think, that something we’re doing, human beings are doing, are exacerbating this problem, and that this could, in a couple of generations, threaten our descendants comfort and health and perhaps even their existence. As Vice President what would you urge our government to do to deal with this problem? And specifically as a Texan, could you support a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels which might be necessary down the road?BENTSEN: Well, I think what you can do in that one, and which would be very helpful, is to use a lot more natural gas, which burns a lot cleaner. And what Mike Dukakis has said is that he’ll try to break down those regulatory roadblocks that you have in the regulatory agency that denies much of the passage of that natural gas to the northeast, a way, in turn, can fight against acid rain which is another threat, because it’s sterilizing our lakes, it’s killing our fish. And it’s interesting to me to see in the resume of Senator Quayle that he brags on the fact that he’s been able to fight the acid rain legislation. I don’t think that that’s a proper objective in trying to clean up this environment. But the greenhouse effect is one that has to be a threat to all of us, and we have to look for alternative sources of fuel. And I’ve supported that very strongly. The Department of Energy is one that has cut back substantially on the study of those alternative sources of fuels. We can use other things that’ll help the farmer. We can convert corn to ethanol, and I would push for that very strong. So absolutely. I’ll do those things that are necessary to put the environment of our country number one. Because if we don’t protect that, we’ll destroy the future of our children. And we must be committed to trying – to clean up the water, clean up the air, and do everything we can, not only from a research standpoint, but also in the applied legislation to see that that’s carried out.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle?QUAYLE: Vice President George Bush has said that he will take on the environmental problem. He has said further that he will deal with the acid rain legislation and reduce millions of tons of the S02 content. That legislation won’t get through the Congress this year. But it will get through in a George Bush Administration, a George Bush Administration that is committed to the environment. Now the greenhouse effect is an important environmental issue. It is important for us to get the data in, to see what alternatives we might have to the fossil fuels, and make sure we know what we’re doing. And there are some explorations and things that we can consider in this area. The drought highlighted the problem that we have, and therefore, we need to get on with it, and in a George Bush Administration, you can bet that we will.WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Quayle.MARGOLIS: Senator, as Vice President your most important contribution would be the advice you gave the President. One of the most troubling facts that’s going to face the new Administration is the fact that the United States has now become the world’s largest debtor nation. In 1987 foreigners underwrote our debts to the tune of about $138 billion. Last week a top official of the Japanese Economic Planning Agency bragged that Japan now is in a position to influence the value of the dollar, of our interest rates, and even our stock prices. And he warned that one day maybe they’d do just that. If you were Vice President of the United States and Japan did that, what would you tell the President to do?QUAYLE: When you look at dealing with this total problem – it’s not just with the Japanese, but the underlying question on this total world debt problem – you have got to see, why are we a debtor, and what is attracting the foreign investment into our country today, whether it’s Japanese or others. I would rather have people come over here and to make investments in this country, rather than going elsewhere. Because by coming over here, and making investments in this country, we are seeing jobs. Do you realize that today we are producing Hondas and exporting Hondas to Japan? We are the envy of the world. The United States – (Laughter)QUAYLE: Some of Senator Bentsen’s supporters laugh at that. They laugh at that because they don’t believe that the United States of America is the envy of the world. Well, I can tell you, the American people think the United States of America is the envy of the world. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Senator – oh, I’m sorry, go ahead.QUAYLE: We are the greatest nation in this world, and the greatest economic power. Now, there’s been some talk in Congress about forgiveness of debt. Forgiveness of debt is wrong. Forgiveness of international debt would be counterproductive. And I would like to see those that talk about forgiving debt, Senator Bentsen, go out and talk about a farmer that’s in debt that doesn’t have his forgiven. That’s not the kind of policy George Bush will have.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Well, I’ve told you what I’d do about trade and trying to help turn that situation around. But what we also should do is get them to give us more burden sharing when it comes to national defense. We have a situation today where, on a per capita basis, people in Western Europe are spending about one-third as much as we are in our country. And then when you go to Japan, where we’re spending 6-1/2 percent on defense of the democracies, they’re spending one percent. I met with some of the Japanese business leaders, talking to them about it. And I said, you know, we have 50,000 troops here in Japan, protecting the democracies of Asia. And it costs $3.5 billion a year. You’re the number two economic power in the world. You ought to measure up to that responsibility and carry some of that cost. I said, if we were not doing what we’re doing, we’d have a big budget surplus. And I said, you’d have chaos, because you get 55 percent of your oil from the Persian Gulf, and you wouldn’t have the U.S. Navy down there to take care of that. Now, the Senator from Indiana, when we passed a resolution in the United States Senate to ask for burden sharing on that cost to keep those sea lanes open from the Japanese, he votes against that. I don’t understand that.WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Quayle.BROKAW: Senator Quayle, I don’t mean to beat this drum until it has no more sound in it. But to follow up on Brit Hume’s question, when you said that it was a hypothetical situation, it is, sir, after all, the reason that we’re here tonight, because you are running not just for Vice President – (Applause)BROKAW: And if you cite the experience that you had in Congress, surely you must have some plan in mind about what you would do if it fell to you to become President of the United States, as it has to so many Vice Presidents just in the last 25 years or so.QUAYLE: Let me try to answer the question one more time. I think this is the fourth time that I’ve had this question.BROKAW: The third time.QUAYLE: Three times that I’ve had this question – and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is what kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president, what kind of qualifications do I have and what would I do in this kind of a situation. And what would I do in this situation? I would make sure that the people in the cabinet and the people that are advisors to the president are called in, and I would talk to them, and I will work with them. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because as vice president I will sit on the National Security Council. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because I’m going to be coordinating the drug effort. I will know them on a firsthand basis because Vice President George Bush is going to recreate the Space Council, and I will be in charge of that. I will have day-to-day activities with all the people in government. And then, if that unfortunate situation happens – if that situation, which would be very tragic, happens, I will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency of the United States of America. And I will be prepared to do that. I will be prepared not only because of my service in the Congress, but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. It is not just age; it’s accomplishments, it’s experience. I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the –WOODRUFF: Please, please, once again you are only taking time away from your own candidate.QUAYLE: That was really uncalled for, Senator. (Shouts and applause)BENTSEN: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator – and I’m one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Bentsen.BROKAW: Since you seem to be taking no hostages on the stage, let me ask you a question – (Laughter) – about the American hostages, nine, still in brutal captivity in the Middle East. Senator Bentsen, you have been critical of the Iran-contra affair, but tell me, does the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket have any realistic plan for getting the American hostages being held in the Middle East released in any due time?BENTSEN: Tom, that’s one of the toughest problems that any chief executive will face, because you can’t help but have sympathy for that family, and for those hostages in the cells. But the one thing we ought to know by now is that you can’t go out and make secret deals with the Ayatollah, you can’t trade arms for hostages. When you try to do that there is no question but what you just encourage more taking of hostages. And that’s been the result by this dumb idea that was cooked up in the White House basement. And I want to tell you that George Bush, attending seventeen of those meetings, and having no record of what he said – if Lloyd Bentsen was in those meetings, you would certainly hear from him and no one would be asking: Where is Lloyd? (Shouts and applause) Because I would be saying: That’s a dumb idea, and now let’s put an end to it. And I would speak up on that type of thing. So all you can do in that is to continue to push, use every bit of diplomatic pressure you can, what you can do in the way of economic pressure in addition to that. And that’s what you would strive to do to have a successful release finally of those hostages. But not to encourage more taking of hostages.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle.QUAYLE: There’s no doubt about it that arms for hostages is wrong, and it will never be repeated – we learn by our mistakes. But there have been a number of successes in foreign policy in this administration. But the question goes to a very difficult one: How do you do it? No one has the answer. If they did, we would certainly do it. But we will keep trying, we’ll keep the doors open, and hopefully some day Iran and others who control those hostages will want to return to civilized international community. And they can do that, starting now, by releasing those hostages that are held illegally.WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Senator, much of the Dukakis and Bentsen campaign of late has been devoted to the notion that Senator Quayle isn’t ready for the vice presidency and perhaps the presidency, and certainly nothing that you have said here tonight suggests that you think otherwise. I wonder if you think it’s really fair for you to advance that view in light of the fact that you ran for the presidency, not the vice-presidency, in 1976 having not yet completed one full term in the Senate and having previously served three terms in the House almost a quarter of a century earlier, when in fact your time in Washington was about equal to what he has now.BENTSEN: Well, I think what you have to look at is the record of a man who has served his country – (Shouts, laughter) – served his country in war, headed up a squadron in combat, a man who built a business, knew what it was to meet a payroll and create jobs, and then serve in the United States Senate; and one who has been able to bring about some of the kinds of legislation that I’ve been able to bring about in my service there. I must say I didn’t do a very good job of running for the presidency, and I’m well aware of that. But what we are looking at today is trying to judge once again the breadth of experience and the maturity of someone taking on this kind of a task. That is the judgment that has to be exercised by the people of America. It’s a presidential decision that you are facing, and a very important one, because we are talking about who is going to lead this country into its future. And you can’t have a more important responsibility than that one.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle.QUAYLE: When you look at qualifications, you look at accomplishments as well as experience. And one of the accomplishments I’m proudest of is the authorship of the Job Training Partnership Act that has trained and educated and employed over three million young people and adults that are economically disadvantaged. And we did it in a way that we got the private sector to involve itself with the public sector on private industry councils throughout America that serve over the service delivery areas. We have 51 percent of that private industry council that are businessmen and women; we have members of unions; we have community-based organizations; we have education leaders. And what we have been able to do is establish a program that is working, that is putting people back to work. That is an accomplishment, and that is an accomplishment that I will take with me into the White House.WOODRUFF: Brit, a question for Senator Quayle.HUME: Senator, I want to ask you a question that may be a little off the subject of politics, but which is aimed to get more at the question of what sort of person you are. I would hope that, Senator Bentsen, if you choose to, you might choose to answer the same question in your rebuttal time. Senator, can you identify any work of literature or art or even of film that you have seen or read or experienced in any way in the last two years that has had a particularly strong effect on you, and tell us why.QUAYLE: In the last six months, I think there are three very important books that I read that have had an impact. The three books are, one, Richard Nixon’s Victory in 1999, Richard Lugar’s – Senator Richard Lugar’s – Letters to the Next President, Bob Massey’s Nicholas and Alexandra, which deals with the fall of the Russian empire and the coming of Leninism in 1917. Those three books, which I read over the last spring vacation and early summer, had a very definite impact, because what former President Nixon and Senator Richard Lugar were talking about was a foreign policy as we move toward the 21st century. And the historical book of the downfall of the czar and the coming of Leninism, combining those three books together, gave me a better appreciation of the challenges that we have ahead of us. In Senator Lugar’s book, he talks about the advancement of human rights around the world; he talked about his leadership effort in the Philippines and South Africa, where we now see human rights advancement on the Reagan agenda. Former President Nixon talked about what we are going to do after detente and arms control, and how we are going to pursue new arms control with the Soviet Union; he talked a little bit about how we deal with the Soviet Union – and this is one of the differences between George Bush and Michael Dukakis, because George Bush understands that to deal with the Soviet Union and to get progress you must deal from a position of strength. And the governor of Massachusetts doesn’t understand that. I understand it. And a George Bush administration will pursue that policy.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.BENTSEN: Well, I think reading “Winds of War” and “Guns of August” back to back – I think that really shows you how we make the same mistakes too often, over and over again. And it seems to me that the Senator from Indiana is beginning to do that one. As I look toward our progress that’s been made toward disarmament and cutting back on nuclear weapons and see what Ronald Reagan has been able to do with the INF treaty – and I think he deserves great credit with that one. I see a situation where the Senator from Indiana has now jumped off the reservation, when we talk about building on what Ronald Reagan has done and opposes what Ronald Reagan wants to do, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense and says let’s go slow on further disarmament in trying to get the next treaty. I think that’s a mistake. I think that you have to deal with the Russians from strength and we have to understand that you have to have a strong modernized nuclear deterrent, but I think we can make substantial progress and we ought to take advantage. I think he’s arrived at a very dangerous judgment in the question of war and peace and it concerns me very much. Because I saw him also try to sabotage the INF treaty when it was on the Floor of the United States Senate with what he was doing there. He’s listening once again to the winds of the radical right.WOODRUFF: Senator.BENTSEN: My light was still on, Judy.WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Quayle.MARGOLIS: Senator Quayle, I want to go back to the matter of qualifications, which I think for most people is more than just your –BENTSEN: John, we can’t hear you.MARGOLIS: Can you hear now?QUAYLE: I can hear you. [Laughter.]MARGOLIS: I want to go back to the question of qualifications, which I think for most people is more than just how long you’ve been in the Senate and how long you’ve been in public life. There’s also a question of candor and of consistency. And several of the things you’ve said, both here and earlier, I think have raised some reasonable questions. Each of them alone might seem rather trivial, but I think together they create a pattern that needs to be asked. You’ve talked a few times today about the Job Training Partnership Act, which you authored. In fact, I believe you co-authored it with another Senator, whom you almost never name. Earlier in the campaign when you were asked why you got a very – a desk job in the National Guard after being trained as a welder, you said at the time you had a very strong background in journalism, which at that time was summer jobs at your family-owned newspaper, which you have not been very forthcoming about what they were. As you have not been very forthcoming about your college record. Now, I have to say – at least the males on this panel have earlier agreed that your record was probably comparable to ours, but – [Laughter.]MARGOLIS: Nonetheless, these examples of sort of overstatement and exaggeration and not being forthcoming – this what has led a lot of people to question this part of your qualifications, not your experience, but your character. Would you like to set some of these things straight now as to what you did in your summer jobs in college, what your grades were like and would you like to identify your co-sponsor of the Job Training Partnership Act?QUAYLE: All in two minutes?MARGOLIS: Sure.QUAYLE: Let me start with the underlying premise, that somehow I haven’t been straightforward. And I have. And let’s go to the – right to the very first question – the Job Training Partnership Act. I was the author of that. The co-author in the United States Senate was Senator Kennedy. I was the Chairman of the Employment and Productivity Subcommittee. Chairmen of the committee write that legislation. Chairmen of the committee write the legislation and then they go out and get co-sponsorship. And when you are the chairman of the committee and you sit down and you write the legislation, you are the author of that. And I’m proud to have been the author of that. Because you know what we had, we had a CETA program that spent $50 billion from about 1973 through 1982 and when we concluded that program – when we concluded that program, unemployment was higher than when it began. It was a program that didn’t work and the Job Training Partnership Act does work. Now, the issue of releasing all the – my grades – I am – and I stand before you tonight – as the most investigated person ever to seek public office. (Applause)QUAYLE: Thousands of journalists have asked every professor I’ve had, all my teachers and they know – and I have never professed to be anything but an average student. I have never said I was anything more than that, but it’s not whether you’re an average study, it’s what are you going to do with your life. And what have I – going to do with my life. I have committed it to public service since I was 29 years of age – elected to the House of Representatives. Elected to the United States Senate when I was 33. I now have the opportunity at 41 to seek the office of the Vice Presidency.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen?BENTSEN: I have absolutely no quarrel with Senator Quayle’s military record. But I do strongly disagree with him on some of the issues. You make great patriotic speeches and I enjoy them, but I don’t understand your vote on veterans issues. Senator Quayle has one of the worst voting records in the United States Senate on veterans issues. And one of them that particularly bothers me, sponsoring legislation to put a tax on combat pay and disability pay for veterans, for fighting men and women of America. Tax on their disability pay when they’re lying there in the hospital, people who have sacrificed for our country. I think you ought to explain that to the people of America and you ought to explain it tonight.WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Bentsen.MARGOLIS: Senator, you’re Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and you’re generally considered rather an orthodox conservative on fiscal matters, meaning someone who would be very concerned about the budget deficit. With everybody in politics afraid even to mention taxes, more social security cuts or even very much restrain in defense sending, would you now list a few specific programs which would reduce or eliminate – which you would reduce or eliminate, to cut the deficit by about $50 billion, the deficit which is expected to be about $135 billion this Fiscal Year.BENTSEN: One of them that I’d work on – and I do this as a farmer – I try to turn the situation around where we have seen the subsidy payments go from two and a half billion to ten times that under this administration. And the way I would accomplish that–was with a tough trade policy, opening up those markets, getting those prices back up to market prices. We can do that if we have an aggressive trade policy for our country, if we make trade a number one priority and not trade it off for some foreign policy objective at the moment. That means we have to stand up for the American farmers and that cuts back on the regulation on American farmers. That’s a positive way to accomplish that. In addition to that, we do some of the things that I think have to be done insofar as doing a better job of procurement, particularly when we’re talking about some of our military things that we should buy. I know that I fought very hard to put in an independent inspector general for the Defense Department, that the Senator from Indiana opposed me on that. But we were finally able to put that into effect and we saved over a quarter of a billion dollars this year, almost enough to buy a squadron of 716s. Those are the kids of things that I’d work on. One of the things I learned in business is that you can expect what you inspect. So, we’d be a – doing a much tougher job of auditing, to try to get rid of some of these kickbacks to consultants on military contracts, to be much more aggressive on that. In addition, those types of things would bring the interest rate down. I’d try to turn this trade deficit around and that too would help us and help us very substantially. And I’d get rid of some things like these planes that – are going to have – that the administration wants that’ll fly from New York to Tokyo and take those investment bankers over there in four hours. I don’t think we can afford a piece of technological elegance like that. I’d strike that sort of thing from the ticket. I don’t know how many people have ridden the Concorde, not many, but I voted against it, said it would be a financial disaster and it’s been just that.WOODRUFF: Senator.BENTSEN: So, those are the types of things that I would work on.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle?QUAYLE: The way we’re going to reduce this budget deficit, and it is a challenge to make sure that it is reduce, is first to stick to the Gramm-Rudman targets. The Gramm-Rudman targets have worked. We’ve reduced the Federal budget deficit $70 billion. Senator Bentsen voted against Gramm-Rudman, the very tool that has been used to bring the Federal budget deficit down. We’re going to need all the tools possible to bring this Federal budget deficit down. We need the tools of a line item veto. A line item veto that 43 governors in this country have, but not the President of the United States. The President of the United States needs to have a line item veto. When Congress goes ahead and puts into appropriations bills unrequested and unnecessary spending, let the President put a line through that, send it back to the Congress and let the Congress vote on it again. Congress has to help out in reducing this budget deficit as much as the Executive Branch.WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a last question for Senator Bentsen.BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, I’d like to ask you about your split personality during this election year. You’re running on the ticket with Michael Dukakis, a man who is opposed to the death penalty, a man who is in favor of gun control, and at the same time you’re running for the United States Senate in the state of Texas, where your position on many of those same issues is well known, and absolutely opposed to him. How do you explain to the people of Texas how you can be a social conservative on those cutting issues and still run with Michael Dukakis on the national ticket?BENTSEN: Michael Dukakis wasn’t looking for a clone. I think it’s part of the strength and the character of this land that he reaches out, and that he wants someone that will speak up – and that I’ll do. I’ve seen many chief executives come into my office and say they’re going over and tell the president of the United States off, they’re going to pound the desk, and go into that office and turn to Jello. Now, I’ve dealt with many a president, and I don’t hesitate for a minute to speak up. But when you’re talking about something like the death penalty, where Michael Dukakis and I do disagree, what you really ought to get to is what’s being done against crime, and what kind of progress he’s been able to make. In the state of Massachusetts he has the homicide rate down to the lowest of any industrial state. It’s substantially ahead of the national average. He’s been able to do that with an educated program for the people of that state by adding some 1,500 new police officers; he’s done it in turn by the leadership that I think he will bring to the ticket when he becomes president of the United States and fighting drugs. He’s taken it down some four percent in the high schools of that state, while it’s gone up about the rest of the nation. But you would seem him as president of the United States being very aggressive in this fight against crime, and having that kind of a successful result. And that’s one of the reasons I’m delighted and proud to be on the ticket with him. Sure, we have some differences, but overall we have so many things we agree on. This situation of a trade policy, of cutting back on the deficit. Those are positive, plus things, and major issues facing our nation.WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle.QUAYLE: One of the things that they don’t agree on is in the area of national defense. National defense, and how we’re going to preserve the freedom in this country. Michael Dukakis is the most liberal national Democrat to seek the office of presidency since George McGovern. He is for – he is against the MX missile, the midgetman, cutting two aircraft carriers. He is opposed to many defense programs that are necessary to defend this country. That’s why former Secretary of Defense and former Energy Secretary in the Carter administration, Jim Schlesinger, in an open letter to Time magazine asked Governor Dukakis, “are you viscerally anti-military?” Jim Schlesinger never got an answer. And the reason he did is because the governor of Massachusetts doesn’t want to answer former Secretary Jim Schlesinger on that very important question.WOODRUFF: Tom, a last question for Senator Quayle. BROKA W: Senator Quayle, all of us in our lifetime encounter an experience that helps shapes our adult philosophy in some form or another. Could you describe for this audience tonight what experience you may have had, and how it shaped our political philosophy?QUAYLE: There are a lot of experiences that I’ve had that have shaped my adult philosophy, but the one that I keep coming back to time and time again – and I talk about it at commencement addresses, I talk about it in the high schools. I talk about it when I visit the job training centers. And it’s the advice that my maternal grandmother, Martha Pulliam, who’s 97 years old. We are a modern day, four generation family. The advice that she gave me when I was growing up is advice that I’ve given my children, and I’ve given to a number of children, number of people. And it’s very simple. It’s very common sense. And she says, “You can do anything you want to if you just set your mind to it, and go to work.” Now, the Dukakis supporters sneer at that because it’s common sense. (Laughter)QUAYLE: They sneer at common sense advice. Midwestern advice. Midwestern advice from a grandmother to a grandson. Important advice. Something that we ought to talk about, because if you want to, you can make a difference. You, America can make a difference. You’re going to have that choice come this election. Everyone can make a difference if they want to.WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen?BENTSEN: I think being born and reared on the Rio Grande, to have spent part of my life seeing some of the struggles that have taken place in one of the lowest per capita incomes in the United States. And that’s one of the reasons I worked so hard to try to assist on education. And when I found that the bankers in that area found that they could not handle the loans because of some of the detail and the expense, couldn’t make a profit on it, I went down there and helped form a nonprofit organization, to buy out those loans from them, and to manage them, and do it in a way where they’d continue to make those loans. Now they have. And they’ve educated more than 20,000 of those students, loaned out over a hundred million dollars. And it hasn’t cost the taxpayers of this country one cent. That’s one of the reasons I’ve worked so hard to bring better health care to the people, because what I’ve seen in the way of poverty down there in that area, and the lack of medical attention, and trying to see that that’s turned around; why I’ve worked so hard on the welfare reform bill–to give them a chance to break these cycles of poverty, a chance for a step up in life. Judy, something’s happened. My light’s still on.WOODRUFF: Your light’s not working.BENTSEN: All right.WOODRUFF: We’re sorry about that if that’s the case. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bentsen. Thank you, Senator Quayle. We have now come to the end of the questions, and before I ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I’d like to thank all of you for joining us. Senator Quayle, yours is the first closing statement.QUAYLE: Thank you. Tonight has been a very important evening. You have been able to see Dan Quayle as I really am, and how George Bush and I want to lead this country into the future. Thank you, America, for listening, and thank you for your fairness. Now you will have a choice to make on election day. You will have a choice of whether America is going to choose the road of Michael Dukakis or the road of George Bush as we march toward the 21st Century. The road of Michael Dukakis comes down to this: Bigger government, higher taxes. They’ve always believed in higher taxes; they always have, and they always will. Cuts in national defense. Back to the old economics of high interest rates, high inflation, and the old politics of high unemployment. Now the road of George Bush is the road to the future, and it comes down to this: An America second to none, with visions of greatness, economic expansion, tough laws, tough judges, strong values, respect for the flag and our institutions. George Bush will lead us to the 21st Century, a century that will be of hope and peace. Ronald Reagan and George Bush saved America from decline. We changed America. Michael Dukakis fought us every step of the way. It’s not that they’re not sympathetic; it’s simply that they will take America backwards. George Bush has the experience, and with me, the future, a future committed to our family, a future committed to the freedom. Thank you, good night, and God bless you. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, your closing statement.BENTSEN: In just 34 days, America will elect new leadership for our country. It’s a most important decision, because there’s no bigger job than governing this great country of ours, and leading it into its future. Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen offer you experience, tempered, capable leadership, to meet those challenges of the future. Our opposition says lower your sights, rest on your laurels. Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America can do better, that America can’t just coast into the future, clinging to the past. This race is too close. The competition is too tough, the stakes are too high. Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America must move into that future united in a commitment to make this country of ours the most powerful, the most prosperous nation in the world. As Americans, we honor our past, and we should. But our children are going to live in the future, and Mike Dukakis says the best of America is yet to come. But that won’t happen. Taking care of our economy, just putting it on automatic pilot. It won’t happen by accident. It’s going to take leadership, and it’s going to take courage. And the commitment, and a contribution by all of us to do that. I’ve worked for the betterment of our country, both in war and peace, as a bomber pilot, as one who has been a businessman, and a United States senator, working to make this nation the fairest and the strongest and the most powerful in the world. Help us bring America to a new era of greatness. The debate has been ours, but the decision is yours. God bless you. (Applause)WOODRUFF: Thank you both, thank you.",
    "id": "2bb5f832-f099-470c-b16f-dbe2bbc0efc0"
  },
  {
    "year": 2020,
    "date": "October 22, 2020",
    "title": "Presidential Debate",
    "content": "Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, TennesseeOctober 22, 2020PARTICIPANTS:Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) andPresident Donald Trump (R)MODERATOR:Kristen Welker (NBC News)WELKER:Good evening from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m Kristen Welker of NBC News and I welcome you to the final 2020 presidential debate between President Donald J. Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. Tonight’s debate is sponsored by The Commission on Presidential Debates. It is conducted under health and safety protocols designed by the commission’s health security advisor. The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. No cheers, boos or other interruptions except right now, as we welcome to the stage former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump.And I do want to say a very good evening to both of you. This debate will cover six major topics. At the beginning of each section, each candidate will have two minutes, uninterrupted, to answer my first question. The debate commission will then turn on their microphone only when it is their turn to answer, and the commission will turn it off exactly when the two minutes have expired. After that, both microphones will remain on, but on behalf of the voters, I’m going to ask you to please speak one at a time. The goal is for you to hear each other and for the American people to hear every word of what you both have to say. And so with that, if you’re ready, let’s start.And we will begin with the fight against the coronavirus. President Trump, the first question is for you. The country is heading into a dangerous new phase. More than 40,000 Americans are in the hospital tonight with COVID, including record numbers here in Tennessee. And since the two of you last shared a stage, 16,000 Americans have died from COVID. So please be specific: how would you lead the country during this next stage of the coronavirus crisis? Two minutes, uninterrupted.TRUMP:So, as you know, 2.2 million people, modeled out, were expected to die. We closed up the greatest economy in the world in order to fight this horrible disease that came from China. It’s a worldwide pandemic. It’s all over the world. You see the spikes in Europe and many other places right now. If you notice, the mortality rate is down, 85%. The excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country. And we’re fighting it and we’re fighting it hard. There is a spike. There was a spike in Florida, and it’s now gone. There was a very big spike in Texas, it’s now gone. There was a very big spike in Arizona, it’s now gone. And there were some spikes and surges in other places. They will soon be gone. We have a vaccine that’s coming, it’s ready. It’s going to be announced within weeks, and it’s going to be delivered. We have Operation Warp Speed, which is the military, is going to distribute the vaccine. I can tell you from personal experience that I was in the hospital, I had it. And I got better and I will tell you that I had something that they gave me — a therapeutic, I guess they would call it. Some people could say it was a cure. But I was in for a short period of time and I got better very fast or I wouldn’t be here tonight. And now they say I’m immune. Whether it’s four months or a lifetime, nobody’s been able to say that, but I’m immune. More and more people are getting better. We have a problem that’s a worldwide problem. This is a worldwide problem, but I’ve been congratulated by the heads of many countries on what we’ve been able to do with the — if you take a look at what we’ve done in terms of goggles and masks and gowns and everything else, and in particular, ventilators. We’re now making ventilators. All over the world, thousands and thousands a month, distributing them all over the world, it will go away and as I say, we’re rounding the turn, we’re rounding the corner, it’s going away.WELKER:OK, former Vice President Biden, to you, how would you lead the country out of this crisis? You have two minutes uninterrupted.BIDEN:220,000 Americans dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this. Anyone who’s responsible for not taking control — in fact, not saying, I take no responsibility, initially — anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America. We’re in a situation where there are thousands of deaths a day, a thousand deaths a day. And there are over 70,000 new cases per day. Compared to what’s going on in Europe, as the New England Medical Journal said, they’re starting from a very low rate. We’re starting from a very high rate. The expectation is we’ll have another 200,000 Americans dead by the time, between now and the end of the year. If we just wore these masks — the President’s own advisors have told him — we could save 100,000 lives. And we’re in a circumstance where the President, thus far, still has no plan. No comprehensive plan. What I would do is make sure we have everyone encouraged to wear a mask, all the time. I would make sure we move in the direction of rapid testing, investing in rapid testing. I would make sure that we set up national standards as to how to open up schools and open up businesses so they can be safe, and give them the wherewithal and financial resources to be able to do that. We’re in a situation now where the New England Medical Journal — one of the serious, most serious journals in the whole world — said for the first time ever that this, the way this President has responded to this crisis has been absolutely tragic. And so folks, I will take care of this, I will end this, I will make sure we have a plan.WELKER:President Trump, I’d like to follow up with you and your comments. You talked about taking a therapeutic. I assume you’re referencing Regeneron. You also said a vaccine will be coming within weeks. Is that a guarantee?TRUMP:No, it’s not a guarantee but it will be by the end of the year, but I think it has a good chance. There are two companies, I think, within a matter of weeks, and it will be distributed very quickly.WELKER:Can you tell us which companies?TRUMP:Johnson and Johnson is doing very well. Moderna is doing very well. Pfizer is doing very well, and we have numerous others. And then we also have others that we’re working on very closely with other countries, in particular Europe.WELKER:Let me follow up with you, and because this is new information — you have said a vaccine is coming soon, within weeks now. Your own officials say it could take well into 2021 at the earliest for enough Americans to get vaccinated, and even then they say the country will be wearing masks and distancing into 2022. Is your timeline realistic?TRUMP:No, I think my timeline is going to be more accurate. I don’t know that they’re counting on the military the way I do, but we have our generals lined up, one in particular, that’s the head of logistics. And this is a very easy distribution for him. He’s ready to go as soon as we have the vaccine, and we expect to have 100 million vials as soon as we have the vaccine, he’s ready to go.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your reaction? Just 40% of Americans say they would definitely agree to take a coronavirus vaccine if it was approved by the government. What steps would you take to give Americans confidence in a vaccine if it were approved?BIDEN:Make sure it’s totally transparent. Have the scientific world see it, know it, look at it, go through all the processes. And by the way, this is the same fellow who told you this is going to end by Easter last time. This the same fellow who told you that, don’t worry, we’re going to end this by the summer. We’re about to go into a dark winter, a dark winter, and he has no clear plan and there’s no prospect that there’s going to be a vaccine available for the majority of the American people before the middle of next year.WELKER:President Trump, your reaction? He says you have no plan.TRUMP:I don’t think we’re going to have a dark winter at all. We’re opening up our country. We’ve learned and studied and understand the disease, which we didn’t at the beginning. When I closed and banned China from coming in heavily infected, and then ultimately Europe, but China was in January — months later he was saying I was xenophobic, I did it too soon. Now he’s saying, ‘Oh, I should have, I should have, you know, moved quicker.’ But he didn’t move quicker; he was months behind me, many months behind me. And frankly, he ran the H1N1 swine flu, and it was a total disaster. Far less lethal. But it was a total disaster. Had that had this kind of numbers, 700,000 people would be dead right now, but it was a far less lethal disease. Look, his own person who ran that for him who, as you know was his chief of staff, said ‘It was catastrophic, it was horrible, we didn’t know what we were doing.’ Now he comes up and he tells us how to do this. Also everything that he said about the way — every single move that he said we should make — that’s what we’ve done, we’ve done all of it, but he was way behind us.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response?BIDEN:My responses is, he is xenophobic but not because he shut down access from China. And he did it late, after 40 countries had already done that. In addition to that, what he did, he made sure that we had 44 people that were in there, in China, trying to get to Wuhan to determine what exactly the source was. What did the President say in January? He said no, he said, this is — he’s being transparent, the president of China is being transparent. We owe him a debt of gratitude. We have to thank him. And then what happened was, we started talking about using the Defense Act, to make sure we go out and get whatever is needed out there to protect people. And again, I go back to this, he had nothing. He did virtually nothing. And then he gets out of the hospital, and he talks about we’re, this is, ‘Oh, don’t worry. This is all going to be over soon.’ Come on, there’s not another serious scientist in the world who thinks it’s going to be over soon.WELKER:President Trump, your reaction?TRUMP:I did not say over soon. I say we’re learning to live with it. We have no choice. We can’t lock ourselves up in a basement like Joe does. He has the ability to lock himself up. I don’t know, he’s obviously made a lot of money, someplace, but he has this thing about living in a basement. People can’t do that. By the way, I, as the president, couldn’t do that. I’d love to put myself in the basement or in a beautiful room in the White House and go away for a year and a half until it disappears. I can’t do that. And Kristen — every, every meeting I had — every meeting I had — and I’d meet a lot of families, including Gold Star families and military families, every meeting I had — and I had to meet them, I had to, it would be horrible to have canceled everything. I said, you know, this is dangerous. And you catch it. And you know, I caught it. I learned a lot. I learned a lot, great doctors, great hospitals. And now, I recovered. 99.9 of young people recover. 99% of people recover. We have to recover. We can’t close up our nation, we have to open our school, and we can’t close up our nation, or you’re not going to have a nation.WELKER:And of course the CDC has said young people can get sick with COVID-19 and can pass it. Vice President Biden, I want to talk broadly about strategy, though.BIDEN:Can I respond to that?WELKER:30 seconds please, and then I have a question.BIDEN:Number one. He says that we’re, you know, we’re learning to live with it. People are learning to die with it. You folks home will have an empty chair at the kitchen table this morning. That man or wife going to bed tonight and reaching over to try to touch their, out of habit, where their wife or husband was, is gone. Learning to live with it? Come on. We’re dying with it, because he’s never said — he said it’s dangerous. When’s the last time? Is it really dangerous, still? Are we dangerous? You tell the people it’s dangerous now? What should they do about the danger? And you say, I take no responsibility.WELKER:Let me talk about —TRUMP:Excuse me.WELKER:Very quickly.TRUMP:I take full responsibility. It’s not my fault that it came here. It’s China’s fault. And you know what, it’s not Joe’s fault that it came here either. It’s China’s fault. They kept it from going into the rest of China, for the most part, but they didn’t keep it from coming out to the world including Europe and ourselves.WELKER:Vice President Biden.BIDEN:The fact is, that when we knew it was coming, when it hit — what happened? What did the President say? He said don’t worry, it’s going to go away, be gone by Easter. Don’t worry, the warm weather. Don’t worry, maybe inject bleach — he said he was kidding when he said that, but a lot of people thought it was serious. A whole range of things the President said. And even today, he thinks we are in control. We’re about to lose 200,000 more people.WELKER:President Trump.TRUMP:Look, perhaps just to finish this, I was kidding on that but just to finish this. When I closed, he said, I shouldn’t have closed. And that went on for months. What Nancy Pelosi said the same thing. She was dancing on the streets in Chinatown in San Francisco. But when I closed, he said, this is a terrible thing. You’re xenophobic. I think he called me racist, even, and because I was closing it to China. Now he says I should have closed it earlier. It just, Joe, it doesn’t work.BIDEN:I didn’t say either of those things.TRUMP:You certainly did.BIDEN:I talked about his xenophobia in a different context. It wasn’t about closing the border to Chinese coming to the United States.WELKER:All right, I want to talk about both of your different strategies to handling this.TRUMP:He thought I shouldn’t have closed the border. That’s obvious.WELKER:Do you want to respond to that quickly, Vice President Biden?BIDEN:No.WELKER:OK, let’s talk about your different strategies toward dealing with this. Mr. Vice President, you suggested you would support new shutdowns if scientists recommended it. What do you say to Americans who are fearful that the cost of shutdowns, the impact on the economy, the higher rates of hunger, depression, domestic and substance abuse, outweighs the risk of exposure to the virus?BIDEN:What I would say is I’m going to shut down the virus, not the country. It’s his ineptitude that caused the country to have to shut down in large part — why businesses have gone under, why schools are closed, why so many people have lost their living and why they’re concerned. Those other concerns are real. That’s why he should have been — instead of in a sand trap at his golf course — he should have been negotiating with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats and Republicans about what to do about the acts they were passing for billions of dollars to make sure people had the capacity.WELKER:Well you haven’t ruled out more shutdowns.BIDEN:Oh no, I’m not shutting down the nation but there are, look, they need standards. The standard is, if you have a reproduction rate in a community that’s above a certain level, everybody says, slow up. More social distancing. Do not open bars and do not open gymnasiums. Do not open until you get this under control, under more control. But when you do open, give the people the capacity to be able to open and have the capacity to do it safely. For example schools — schools, they need a lot of money to open. They need to deal with ventilation systems, they need to deal with smaller classes, more teachers, more pods, and he’s refused to support that money, or at least up to now.WELKER:Let’s talk about schools. President Trump —TRUMP:Well, I think we have to respond, if I might.WELKER:Please, and then I have a follow up.TRUMP:Thank you, and I appreciate that. Look, all he does is talk about shutdowns but forget about him. His democrat governors — Cuomo in New York, you look at what’s going on in California, you look at Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Democrats, Democrats all — they are shut down so tight, and they’re dying. They’re dying. And he supports all these people. All he talks about is shutdowns. No, we’re not going to shut down, and we have to open our schools. And it’s like, as an example, I have a young son. He also tested positive. By the time I spoke to the doctor, the second time, he was fine, it just went away. Young people, I guess it’s their immune system.WELKER:Let me follow up with you, President Trump. You’ve demanded schools open in person and insisted they can do it safely. But just yesterday, Boston became the latest city to move its public school system entirely online after a coronavirus spike. What is your message to parents who worry that sending their children to school will endanger not only their kids, but also their teachers and families?TRUMP:I want to open the schools. The transmittal rate to the teachers is very small, but I want to open the schools. We have to open our country. We’re not going to have a country. You can’t do this, we can’t keep this country closed. It is a massive country with a massive economy. People are losing their jobs, they’re committing suicide. There’s depression, alcohol, drugs at a level that nobody’s ever seen before. There’s abuse, tremendous abuse. We have to open our country. You know I’ve said it often — the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself, and that’s what’s happening, and he wants to close down. He’ll close down the country if one person in our, in our massive bureaucracy says we should close it down.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response.BIDEN:Simply not true. We’re gonna be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We ought to be able to safely open, but they need resources to open. You need to be able to, for example, if you’re gonna open a business, have social distancing within the business. You need to have, if you have a restaurant, you need to have plexiglass dividers so people cannot infect one another. You need to be in a position where you can take testing rapidly and know whether a person is, in fact, infected. You need to be able to trace. You need to be able to provide all the resources that are needed to do this and that is not inconsistent with saying that we’re going to make sure that we open safely. And by the way, all you teachers out there — not that many of you are going to die, so don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it. Come on.WELKER:President Trump, let me follow up with you quickly.TRUMP:By the way, I will say this, if you go and look at what’s happened to New York, it’s a ghost town. It’s a ghost town. And when you talk about plexiglass — these are restaurants that are dying. These are businesses with no money. Putting up plexiglass is unbelievably expensive, and it’s not the answer. I mean, you’re going to sit there in a cubicle wrapped around with plastic? These are businesses that are dying, Joe, you can’t do that to people, you just can’t. Take a look at New York and what’s happened to my wonderful city. For so many years, I loved it. It was vibrant. It’s dying. Everyone’s leaving New York.WELKER:Vice President Biden.BIDEN:Take a look at what New York has done in terms of turning the curve down, in terms of the number of people dying. And I don’t look at this in terms of the way he does, blue states and red states. They’re all the United States. And look at the states that are having such a spike in the coronavirus. They’re the red states. They are the states in the Midwest, they are the states in the upper Midwest, that’s where the spike is occurring significantly, but they’re all Americans. They’re all Americans and what we have to do is say, wear these masks, number one, make sure we get the help that the businesses need. The money’s already been passed to do that. It’s been out there since the beginning of the summer and nothing’s happened.TRUMP:Kristen, New York has lost more than 40,000 people. 11,000 people in nursing homes.WELKER:President Trump, what about —TRUMP:When you say spike, take a look at what’s happening in Pennsylvania, where they’ve had it closed. Take a look at what’s happening with your friend in Michigan, where her husband’s the only one allowed to do anything. It’s been like a prison. Now it was just ruled unconstitutional. Take a look at North Carolina. They’re having spikes and they’ve been closed, and they’re getting killed financially. We can’t let that happen, Joe, you can’t let that happen. We have to open up and we understand the disease, we have to protect our seniors, we have to protect our elderly, we have to protect, especially, our seniors with heart problems and diabetes problems, and we will protect them. We have the best testing in the world by far. That’s why we have so many cases.WELKER:Let me follow up with you before we move on to our next section. President Trump, this week you called Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s best known infectious disease expert, “a disaster.” You described him and other medical experts as “idiots.” If you’re not listening to them, who are you listening to?TRUMP:I’m listening to all of them, including Anthony. I get along very well with Anthony. But he did say, ‘don’t wear masks.’ He did say, as you know, ‘this is not going to be a problem.’ I think he’s a Democrat, but that’s okay. He said, ‘this is not going to be a problem. We are not going to have a problem at all.’ When Joe says that, I said — Anthony Fauci said and others and many others. And I’m not knocking him. Nobody knew. Look, nobody knew what this thing was, nobody knew where it was coming from, what it was. We’ve learned a lot, but Anthony said, ‘don’t wear masks.’ Now he wants to wear masks. Anthony also said, if you look back, exact words, here’s his exact words: ‘This is no problem, this is going to go away soon.’ So he’s allowed to make mistakes, he happens to be a good person.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response, quickly and then we’re going to move on to the next section.BIDEN:My response is that, think about what the President knew in January and didn’t tell the American people. He was told this was a serious virus that spread in the air, and it was much worse than — much worse — than the flu. He went on record and said to one of your colleagues, recorded, that in fact he knew how dangerous it was but he didn’t want to tell us, didn’t want to tell us because he didn’t want us to panic. He didn’t want us — Americans don’t panic. He panicked. But, guess what, in the meantime, we find out in the New York Times the other day that in fact, his folks went to Wall Street and said, ‘this is a really dangerous thing,’ and a memo out of that meeting — not from his administration, but from some of the brokers — said, ‘sell short, because we gotta get moving. It’s a dangerous problem.’TRUMP:Well this is —WELKER:I’m going to give you 30 seconds to respond and then we’re gonna move on.TRUMP:I don’t know, somebody went to Wall Street. You’re the one that takes all the money from Wall Street. I don’t take it. You have raised a lot of money, tremendous amounts of money. And every time you raise money, deals are made, Joe. I could raise so much more money. As president and as somebody that knows most of those people, I could call the heads of Wall Street, the heads of every company in America, I would blow away every record. But I don’t want to do that because it puts me in a bad position. And then you bring up Wall Street? You shouldn’t be bringing up Wall Street. Because you’re the one that takes the money from Wall Street, not me. I could blow away your records like you wouldn’t believe. We don’t need money. We have plenty of money. In fact, we beat Hillary Clinton with a tiny fraction of the money that she was able to get. Don’t tell me about Wall Street.WELKER:All right, gentlemen, we’re gonna move on.BIDEN:Average contribution, $43.WELKER:All right, we’re gonna move on to our next section which is national security. And I do want to start with the security of our elections and some breaking news from overnight. Just last night, top intelligence officials confirmed again that both Russia and Iran are working to influence this election. Both countries have obtained U.S. voter registration information, these officials say, and Iran sent intimidating messages to Florida voters. This question goes to you, Mr. Vice President, what would you do to put an end to this threat? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.BIDEN:I made it clear. And I asked everyone else to take the pledge. I made it clear that any country, no matter who it is, that interferes in American elections will pay a price. They will pay a price. It has been overwhelmingly clear in this election — I won’t even get into the last one — this election, that Russia has been involved. China has been involved to some degree, and now we learned that, that Iran is involved. They will pay a price if I’m elected. They’re interfering with American sovereignty. That’s what’s going on right now. They’re interfering with American sovereignty. And to the best of my knowledge, I don’t think the President has said anything to Putin about it. I don’t think he’s talking to him a lot. I don’t think he’s said a word. I don’t know why he hasn’t said a word to Putin about it. And I don’t know what he has recently said, if anything, to the Iranians. My guess is he’d probably be more outspoken with regard to the Iranians. But the point is this, folks. We are in a situation where we have foreign countries trying to interfere in the outcome of our election. His own national security advisor told him that what is happening with his buddy — well, I won’t, I shouldn’t — I will — his buddy Rudy Giuliani. He’s being used as a Russian pawn. He’s being fed information that is Russian, that is not true. And then what happens? Nothing happens. And then you find out that everything is going on here about Russia is wanting to make sure that I do not get elected the next President of the United States because they know I know them, and they know me. I don’t understand why this President is unwilling to take on Putin when he’s actually paying bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, when he’s engaged in activities that are trying to destabilize all of NATO. I don’t know why he doesn’t do it but it’s worth asking the question. Why isn’t that being done? Any country that interferes with us will, in fact, pay a price because they’re affecting our sovereignty.WELKER:President Trump, same question to you. Let me, let me ask the question. You’re gonna have two minutes to respond for two elections in a row now there has been substantial interference from foreign adversaries. What would you do in your next term to put an end to this? Two minutes, uninterrupted.TRUMP:Well, let me respond to the first part, as Joe answered. Joe got three and a half million dollars from Russia. And it came through Putin, because he was very friendly with the former mayor of Moscow and it was the mayor of Moscow’s wife. You got three and a half million dollars. Your family got three and a half million dollars and you know someday, you’re gonna have to explain — why did you get three and a half? I never got any money from Russia. I don’t get money from Russia. Now, about your thing last night, I knew all about that, and through John — who is John Radcliffe, who is fantastic, DNI — he said, the one thing that’s common to both of them, they both want you to lose. Because there has been nobody tougher to Russia. Between the sanctions, nobody tougher than me on Russia. Between the sanctions between all of what I’ve done with NATO. You know, I’ve got the NATO countries to put up an extra 130 billion, going to $420 billion a year, that’s to guard against Russia. I sold — while he was selling pillows and sheets — I sold tank busters to Ukraine. There has been nobody tougher on Russia than Donald Trump. And I’ll tell you, they were so bad. They took over the, the submarine port. You remember that very well during your term, during you and Barack Obama. They took over a big part of what should have been Ukraine. You handed it to them. But you were getting a lot of money from Russia. They were paying you a lot of money and they probably still are, but now, with what came out today, it’s even worse. All of the emails, the emails are horrible. The emails of the kind of money that you were raking in, you and your family. And Joe, you were vice president when some of this was happening. And it should have never happened. And I think you owe an explanation to the American people. Why is it, somebody just had a news conference a little while ago, who was essentially supposed to work with you and your family, but what he said was damning. And regardless of me, I think you have to clean it up and talk to the American people. Maybe you can do it right now.WELKER:Vice President Biden, you may respond and then I do want to follow up on the election security.BIDEN:I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life. We learn that this President paid 50 times the tax in China, has a secret bank account with China, does business in China, and in fact, is talking about me taking money? I have not taken a single penny from any country whatsoever, ever, number one. Number two, this is a president — I have released all of my tax returns. 22 years. Go look at them. 22 years of my tax returns. You have not released a single solitary year of your tax return. What are you hiding? Why are you unwilling? The foreign countries are paying you a lot. Russia is paying you a lot. China is paying a lot. And your hotels and all your businesses all around the country, all around the world. And China’s building a new road to a new gas… a golf course you have overseas. So what’s going on here? Why don’t you release your tax return or stop talking about corruption?WELKER:President Trump, your response.TRUMP:First of all, I called my accountants — under audit. I’m going to release them as soon as we can. I want to do it, and it will show how successful, how great this company is. But much more importantly than that, people were saying $750. I asked them a week ago, I said, what did I pay? They said, sir, you pre-paid tens of millions of dollars. I prepaid my tax. Tens. Over the last number of years. Tens of millions of dollars, I prepaid, because at some point, they think, it’s an estimate. They think I may have to pay tax. So, I already prepaid it. Nobody told me that.WELKER:Did your accountant tell you —TRUMP:Excuse me. And it wasn’t written whenever they write this. They keep talking about $750, which I think is a filing fee. But let me just tell you, I prepaid millions and millions of dollars in taxes, number one. Number two, I don’t make money from China, you do. I don’t make money from Ukraine, you do. I don’t make money from Russia. You made three and a half million dollars, Joe, and your son gave you. They even have a statement that we have to give 10% to the big man. You’re the big man, I think. I don’t know, maybe you’re not. But you’re the big man, I think. Your son said we have to give 10% to the big man. Joe, what’s that all about? It’s terrible.WELKER:Alright, gentlemen, I want to ask you both some questions about all of this. I’m gonna let you both respond, very quickly. You just said you spoke to your accountant about potentially releasing your taxes. Did he tell you when you can release them? Do you have a deadline for when you’re going to release them to the American people?TRUMP:I get treated worse than the Tea Party got treated. A lot of people in there, deep down in the IRS, they treat me horribly. We made a deal, it was all settled, until I decided to run for president. I get treated very badly by the IRS, very unfairly, but we had a deal all done. As soon as we’re completed with the deal, I want to release it. But I have paid millions and millions of dollars. And it’s worse than paying. I paid in advance. It’s called prepaying your taxes.WELKER:I want to ask you both about questions regarding your potential foreign entanglements and questions that have been raised to give you both a chance to talk about this more broadly.BIDEN:At some point I want to respond.WELKER:Respond very quickly, and then I’ll get to my question.BIDEN:Why do he — He’s been saying this for four years. Show us. Just show us. Stop playing around. You’ve been saying for four years you’re going to release your taxes. Nobody knows, Mr. President, what they do know is you’re not paying your taxes or you’re paying taxes that are so low. When last time he said what he paid, he said, ‘I only pay that little because I’m smart. I know how to game the system.’ Come on, come on, folks.WELKER:Quickly, President Trump, and then I want to get to two questions to both of you.TRUMP:I was put through a phony witch hunt for three years. It started before I even got elected. They spied on my campaign. No president should ever have to go through what I went through. Let me just say this. Mueller and 18 angry Democrats, and FBI agents all over the place spent $48 million. They went through everything I had, including my tax returns, and they found absolutely no collusion and nothing wrong. $48 million. I guarantee you, if I spent 1 million on you Joe, I could find plenty wrong, because the kind of things that you’ve done and the kind of monies that your family has taken — I mean, your brother made money in Iraq, millions of dollars. Your other brother made a fortune, and it’s all through you, Joe. And they say you get some of it. And you do live very well. You have houses all over the place. You live very well.WELKER:All right, gentlemen, let me just ask some questions about all of this broadly. Vice President Biden, there have been questions about the work your son has done in China, and for a Ukrainian energy company when you were Vice President. In retrospect, was anything about those relationships inappropriate or unethical?BIDEN:Nothing was unethical. Here’s what the deal. With regard to Ukraine, we had this whole question about whether or not, because he was on the board, I later learned, of Burisma, a company, that somehow I had done something wrong. Yet every single solitary person, when he was going through his impeachment, testifying under oath who worked for him, said I did my job impeccably. I carried out US policy. Not one, single, solitary thing was out of line. Not a single thing, number one. Number two, the guy who got in trouble in Ukraine was this guy, trying to bribe the Ukrainian government to say something negative about me, which they would not do, and did not do, because it never, ever, ever happened. My son has not made money in terms of this thing about — what are you talking about — China. I have not had it. The only guy that made money from China is this guy. He’s the only one. Nobody else has made money from China.WELKER:President Trump, let me ask my question to you.TRUMP:Could I just — one thing.WELKER:Very quickly.TRUMP:His son didn’t have a job for a long time, was sadly no longer in the military service, I won’t get into that. And he didn’t have a job. As soon as he became vice president, Burisma — not the best, not the best reputation in the world — I hear they paid him 183,000 a month. Listen to this, 183, and they gave him a $3 million upfront payment, and he had no energy experience. That’s 100% dishonest.WELKER:I’m going to let the vice president respond to that quickly and then I have a question for you.BIDEN:No basis for that. Everybody investigated that, no one said anything he did was wrong in Ukraine.WELKER:OK, President Trump, this is for you. Since you took office, you’ve never divested from your business. You’ve personally promoted your properties abroad. A report this week, which was referenced, does indicate that your company has a bank account in China. So how can voters know that you don’t have any foreign conflicts of interest?TRUMP:I have many bank accounts and they’re all listed and they’re all over the place. I mean, I was a businessman doing business. The bank account you’re referring to — which is, everybody knows about it, it’s listed — the bank account was in 2013. That’s what it was. It was opened. It was closed in 2015, I believe, and then I decided, because I was going to do, I was thinking about doing a deal in China, like millions of other people, I was thinking about it. And I decided I’m not going to do it, didn’t like it, I decided not to do it, had an account open and I closed it.WELKER:OK.TRUMP:Excuse me, and then unlike him, where he’s Vice President, and he does business, I then decided to run for president after that. That was before. So I closed it before I even ran for president, let alone became president, big difference. He is the Vice President of the United States, and his son, his brother and his other brother are getting rich, they’re like a vacuum cleaner, there’s something —WELKER:Okay, President Trump, thank you. We do need to move on. I do want to ask you, Vice President Biden, about China. Let’s talk about China more broadly. There have, of course, President Trump has said that they should pay for not being fully transparent in regards to the coronavirus. If you were president, would you make China pay and please be specific, what would that look like?BIDEN:What I’d make China do is play by the international rules, not like he has done. He has caused the deficit in China to go up not down — with China, up not down. We are making sure that in order to do business in China, you have to give all your intellectual property. You have to get/have a partner in China, it is 51%. We would not do that at all, number one. Number two, we’re in a situation where China would have to play by the rules internationally as well. When I met with Xi, and when I was still vice president, he said ‘we’re setting up air identification zones in the South China Sea, you can’t fly through them.’ I said, ‘we’re gonna fly through them. We just flew B52/B1 bombers through it. We’re not going to pay attention.’ They have to play by the rules, and what’s he do? He embraces guys like the thugs like in North Korea, and, and, and the Chinese president and Putin and others, and he pokes his finger in the eye of all our friends, all of our allies. We make up only — we’re 25%. 25% of the world’s economy. We need to be having the rest of our friends with us, saying to China, these are the rules. You play by them or you’re going to pay the price for not playing by them, economically. That’s the way I will run it. And that’s what we did and upholding steel tariffs and a range of other things when we were president and vice president.WELKER:All right, let’s talk about North Korea.TRUMP:Excuse me, no, I have to respond to this.WELKER:OK, very quickly and then we’re gonna move on to North Korea…TRUMP:His son walked out with a billion and a half dollars from China —BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:— after spending 10 minutes in office and being in Air Force Two, number one. Number two, there’s a very strong email, talking about your family wanting to make $10 million a year for introductions.BIDEN:That is not true.WELKER:President Trump, on China policy, though. What are you gonna do? What specifically are you going to do to make China pay? You’ve said you’re going to make them pay.TRUMP:First of all, China is paying. They’re paying billions and billions of dollars. I just gave $28 billion.WELKER:New sanctions?TRUMP:I just gave $28 billion to our farmers.BIDEN:Taxpayers money.TRUMP:It’s what?BIDEN:Taxpayers money.TRUMP:No, you know who the taxpayer is. It’s called China.BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:China paid $28 billion and you know what they did to pay it, Joe? They devalued their currency and they also paid up, and you know who got the money? Our farmers. Our great farmers, because they were targeted. You never charge them anything. Also, I charged them 25% on dumped steel, because they were killing our steel industry. We were not going to have a steel industry, and now we have a steel industry.WELKER:OK, Vice President Biden, your response, please?BIDEN:My response is look, this isn’t about – there’s a reason why he’s bringing up all this malarkey. There’s a reason for it. He doesn’t want to talk about the substantive issues. It’s not about his family and my family. It’s about your family, and your family’s hurting badly. If you’re making less than, if you’re a middle class family, you’re getting hurt badly right now. You’re sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well, we can’t get new tires, they’re bald, because we have to wait another month or so. Or are we going to be able to pay the mortgage? Who’s going to tell her, she can’t go back to community college? They’re the decisions you’re making in the middle class families like I grew up in Scranton and Claymont. They’re in trouble. We should be talking about your families but that’s the last thing he wants to talk about.WELKER:I want to talk about North Korea –TRUMP:That is a typical statement. Excuse me, just for one second, please.WELKER:10 seconds, Mr. President, 10 seconds.TRUMP:That’s a typical political statement. Let’s get off this China thing, and then he looks — the family, around the table, everything. Just a typical politician when I see that.WELKER:Alright, let’s talk —TRUMP:I’m not a typical politician, that’s why I got elected.WELKER:Let’s talk about —TRUMP:Let’s get off the subject of China, let’s talk around sitting around the table. Come on, Joe, you can do better.WELKER:We’re gonna talk about North Korea now. President Trump, you’ve met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times. You’ve talked about your beautiful letters with him, you’ve touted the fact that there hasn’t been a war or a long range missile test, and yet North Korea recently rolled out its biggest ever intercontinental ballistic missile and continues to develop its nuclear arsenal. Do you see that as a betrayal of the relationship you forged? Just 30 seconds here because we need to get on to the next topic.TRUMP:So, when I met with Barack Obama, we sat in the White House, right at the beginning had a great conversation, was supposed to be 15 minutes and it was well over an hour. He said the biggest problem we have is North Korea. He indicated we will be in a war with North Korea. Guess what, it would be a nuclear war, and he does have plenty of nuclear capability. In the meantime, I have a very good relationship with him, different kind of a guy but he probably thinks the same thing about me. We have a different kind of a relationship. We have a very good relationship, and there’s no war. And you know, about two months ago, he broke into a certain area. They said, ‘oh there’s going to be trouble.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not. Because he’s not going to do that.’ And I was right. Look, instead of being in a war where millions of people — Seoul, you know, is 25 miles away, millions and millions, 32 million people in Seoul — millions of people would be dead right now. We don’t have a war, and I have a good relationship.WELKER:Vice President Biden to you, North Korea conducted four nuclear tests under the Obama administration. Why do you think you would be able to rein in this persistent threat?BIDEN:Because I’d make it clear, which we were making clear to China, they had to be part of the deal, because here’s the root. I made it clear, as a spokesperson for the administration when I went to China, that they said, ‘Why are you moving your missile defense up so close? Why are you moving more forces here? Why are you continuing to do military maneuvers with South Korea?’ I said, ‘Because North Korea is a problem. And we’re going to continue to do it so we can control them. We’re going to make sure we can control them and make sure they cannot hurt us. And so if you want to do something about it, step up and help. If not, it’s going to continue.’ What has he done? He’s legitimized North Korea, he’s talked about his good buddy who’s a thug, a thug, and he talks about how we’re better off, and they have much more capable missiles, able to reach U.S. territory, much more easily than ever did before.WELKER:Let me follow up with you, Vice President Biden, you’ve said you wouldn’t meet with Kim Jong Un without preconditions. Are there any conditions under which you would meet with him?BIDEN:On the condition that he would agree that he would be drawing down his nuclear capacity to get – the Korean Peninsula should be a nuclear free zone.WELKER:Alright, let’s move on to American families.TRUMP:Kristen, they tried to meet with him.WELKER:Very quickly. 10 seconds, President Trump.TRUMP:They tried to meet with him, he wouldn’t do it. He didn’t like Obama. He didn’t like him. He wouldn’t do it.WELKER:OK, I’ve got to give him a chance to respond.TRUMP:They tried, he wouldn’t do it. And that’s okay. You know what, North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. You know, people don’t understand — having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.WELKER:President Trump, we have to move on. We have a lot of questions to get through.BIDEN:We had a good relationship with Hitler before he in fact invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on. The reason he would not meet with President Obama is because President Obama said we’re gonna talk about denuclearization, we’re not gonna legitimize you, we’re gonna continue to put stronger and stronger sanctions on you. That’s why he wouldn’t meet with us.TRUMP:And it didn’t happen.WELKER:Let’s move on and talk about American families.TRUMP:Excuse me, he left me a mess, Kristen. They left me a mess. North Korea was a mess.WELKER:We need to move on so that we have time to get to all our questions tonight, President Trump.TRUMP:Remember the first two or three months. There was a very dangerous period in my first three months, before we sort of worked things out a little bit. They left us a mess, and Obama would be – I think, the first to say — it was the single biggest problem, he thought, that our country had.WELKER:Okay, let’s move on to American families and the economy. One of the issues that’s most important to them is health care, as you both know. Today, there was a key vote on a new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and healthcare is at the center of her confirmation fight. Over 20 million Americans get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. It’s headed to the Supreme Court, and your administration, Mr. President, is advocating for the court to overturn it. If the Supreme Court does overturn that law, those 20 million Americans could lose their health insurance almost overnight. So what would you do if those people have their health insurance taken away? You have two minutes uninterrupted.TRUMP:First of all, I’ve already done something that nobody thought was possible. Through the legislature, I terminated the individual mandate. That is the worst part of Obamacare, as we call it. The individual mandate – where you have to pay a fortune for the privilege of not having to pay for bad health insurance. I terminated it; it’s gone. Now it’s in court, because Obamacare is no good. But then I made a decision, ‘Run it as well as you can’ — to my people, great people — ‘Run it as well as you can.’ I could have gone the other route and made everybody very unhappy. They ran it. Premiums are down, everything’s down. Here’s the problem. No matter how well you run it, it’s no good. What we’d like to do is terminate it. We have the individual mandate done. I don’t know that it’s going to work. If we don’t win, we will have to run it and we’ll have Obamacare, but it will be better run. But it no longer is Obamacare. Because without the individual mandate, it’s much different. Pre-existing conditions will always stay. What I would like to do is a much better health care, much better. We’ll always protect people with pre-existing — so I’d like to terminate Obamacare, come up with a brand new beautiful health care. The Democrats will do it because there’ll be tremendous pressure on them. And we might even have the House by that time. And I think we’re going to win the House, okay? You’ll see, but I think we’re gonna win the House. But come up with a better health care, always protecting people with pre-existing conditions — and one thing very important. We have 180 million people out there that have great private health care, far more than we’re talking about with Obamacare. Joe Biden is going to terminate all of those policies. These are people that love their health care, people that have been successful — middle income people — been successful. They have 180 million plans, 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine. He won’t even have a choice. They want to terminate 180 million plans. We have done an incredible job on health care. And we’re going to do even better.WELKER:OK. Vice President Biden, yes, this is for you. Your health care plan calls for building on Obamacare. So my question is, what is your plan if the law is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? You have two minutes uninterrupted.BIDEN:What I’m going to do is pass Obamacare with a public option — become Bidencare. Public option is an option that says that if you, in fact, do not have the wherewithal to be — if you qualify for Medicaid, and you do not have the wherewithal in your state to get Medicaid, you automatically are enrolled, providing competition for insurance companies. That’s what’s going to happen. Secondly, we’re going to make sure we reduce the premiums and reduce drug prices by making sure that there’s competition that doesn’t exist now by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the insurance companies. Thirdly, the idea that I want to eliminate private insurance — the reason why I had such a fight for, with 20 candidates for the nomination, was I support private insurance. That’s why I did not — not one single person, private insurance, would lose their insurance under my plan, nor did they under Obamacare. They did not lose their insurance, unless they chose they wanted to go to something else. Lastly, we’re going to make sure we’re in a situation that we actually protect pre-existing — there’s no way he can protect pre-existing conditions. None, zero, you can’t do it in the ether. He’s been talking about this for a long time. There is no — he’s never come up with a plan. I guess we’re gonna get the pre-existing condition plan the same time we get the infrastructure plan that we waited since 17, 18, 19, 20. The fact— I still have a little, a few more minutes, I know you’re getting anxious — the fact is that he’s already cost the American people because of his terrible handling of the COVID virus and economic spillover. 10 million people have lost their private insurance, and he wants to take away 22 million more people who have been under Obamacare, and over 110 million people with pre-existing conditions. And all the people from COVID are going to have pre-existing conditions. What are they gonna do?WELKER:I have a follow up for you, Vice President Biden, it relates to something that President Trump said. He’s accusing you of wanting socialized medicine. What do you say to people who have concerns that your health care plan, which includes a government insurance option, takes the country one step closer to a health care system run entirely by the government? What’s your response to that?BIDEN:I say, it’s ridiculous. It’s like saying that, you know, we’re the idea that, the fact that there’s a public option that people can choose, that makes it a socialist plan? Look, the difference between the president — I think health care is not a privilege, it’s a right. Everyone should have the right to have affordable health care. And I am very proud of my plan. It’s gotten endorsed by all the major labor unions as well as, as well as a whole range of other people who in fact, are concerned in the medical field. This is something that’s going to save people’s lives. And this is going to give some people an opportunity, an opportunity to have health care for their children, how many of you home are worried and rolling around in bed at night wondering what in God’s name are you going to do if you get sick? Because you’ve lost your home insurance, your health insurance, your company’s gone under. We have to provide health insurance for people at an affordable rate, and that’s what I’d do.WELKER:President Trump, your response.TRUMP:Excuse me, he was there for 47 years — he didn’t do it. He was now there as Vice President for eight years. And it’s not like it was 25 years ago, it was three and three quarters. It was just a little while ago, right? Less than four years ago. He didn’t do anything. He didn’t do it. He wants socialized medicine. And it’s not that he wants it, his vice president — I mean, she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders and wants it even more. Bernie Sanders wants it, the Democrats want it. You’re going to have socialized medicine. Just like you went on with fracking — ‘We’re not going to have fracking, we’re going to stop fracking, we’re going to stop fracking.’ Then he goes to Pennsylvania after he gets the nomination — where he got very lucky to get it. And he goes to Pennsylvania, and he says, ‘Oh, we’re gonna have fracking.’ And you never asked that question. And by the way, so far, I respect very much the way you’re handling this, I have to say. But somebody should ask the question. He goes for a year —WELKER:We do have a number of — we have a number of topics –TRUMP:No, no, but that’s a big question —WELKER:We’re gonna get to it —TRUMP:It’s the same thing with socialized medicine.WELKER:Vice President, your response please.BIDEN:My response is people deserve to have affordable health care — period. Period, period, period. And the Bidencare proposal will, in fact, provide for that affordable health care, lower premiums. What we’re going to do is going to cost some money; it’s going to cost over $750 billion over 10 years to do it. And they’re going to have lower premiums, you can buy into the better plans, the cheaper plans, lower your premiums, deal with unexpected billing, and have your drug prices drop significantly. He keeps talking about it. He hasn’t done a thing for anybody on health care, not a thing.TRUMP:Kristen, when he says —WELKER:Very quickly, then I want to talk about what’s happening on Capitol Hill.TRUMP:When he says public option, he is talking about socialized medicine and health care. When he talks about a public option, he’s talking about destroying your Medicare, totally destroying — and destroying your Social Security. And this whole country will come down. You know, Bernie Sanders tried it in his state. He tried it in his state. His governor was a very liberal governor, they wanted to make it work —WELKER:Let’s see if —TRUMP:— it was impossible to work, it doesn’t work —WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response.BIDEN:He’s a very confused guy, he thinks he’s running against somebody else. He’s running against Joe Biden. I beat all those other people because I disagreed with them. Joe Biden, he’s running against. And the idea that we’re in a situation and are going to destroy Medicare — this is the guy that the actuary of Medicare said, ‘If in fact’ — and, social security — ‘If, in fact, he continues to withhold his plan to withhold the tax on Social Security, Social Security will be bankrupt by 2023, with no way to make up for it. This is a guy who’s tried to cut Medicare. So I don’t know. I mean, the idea that Donald Trump is lecturing me on Social Security and Medicare? Come on.TRUMP:He tried to get rid of —WELKER:Ten seconds, Mr. President, then I have to go to another question —TRUMP:— he tried to hurt Social Security years ago, years ago. Go back and look at the records. He tried to hurt Social Security years ago. One thing —WELKER:Alright, let’s move on. Mr. President I have to move on to the next question.TRUMP:They say the stock market will boom if I’m elected. If he’s elected, the stock market will crash.WELKER:OK, let’s move on to the next question.BIDEN:May I respond?WELKER:Very quickly.BIDEN:The idea that the stock market is booming is his only measure of what’s happening. Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don’t live off of the stock market. Just in the last three, three years during this crisis, the billionaires in this country made, according to the Wall Street, $700 billion more dollars. $700 billion more dollars. Because that’s his only measure. What happens to the ordinary people out there? What happens to them?TRUMP:401k’s are through the roof. People’s stock are through the roof —WELKER:We’re going to move on.TRUMP:And he doesn’t come from Scranton. That’s like, what — he lived there for a short period of time before he even knew —WELKER:We’re gonna move on —TRUMP:And he left. And the people of Pennsylvania will show you that.WELKER:— to my next question, gentlemen. As of tonight, more than 12 million people are out of work. And as of tonight, 8 million more Americans have fallen into poverty, and more families are going hungry every day. Those hit hardest are women and people of color. They see Washington fighting over a relief bill. Mr. President, why haven’t you been able to get them the help they need? 30 seconds here.TRUMP:Because Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to approve it. I do.WELKER:But you’re the president.TRUMP:I do. But I still have to get, unfortunately — that’s one of the reasons I think we’re going to take over the House, because of her. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to approve anything. Because she’d love to have some victories on a date called November 3rd. Nancy Pelosi does not want to approve it. We are ready, willing and able to do something. Don’t forget, we’ve already approved three plans. And it’s gone through, including the Democrats, in all fairness. This one she doesn’t want. It’s near the election, because she thinks it helps her politically. I think it hurts her politically.WELKER:Alright, Mr. Vice President —BIDEN:You know, the Republican leader in the United States Senate said he can’t pass it — he will not be able to pass it. He does not have Republican votes. Why isn’t he talking to his Republican friends?WELKER:Let me follow up with you, Vice President Biden –TRUMP:If we made a deal, the Republicans would pass it —WELKER:Let me ask Vice President Biden a question. You are the leader of the Democratic Party. Why have you not pushed the Democrats to get a deal for the American people?BIDEN:Well, I have and they have pushed it. Look, they passed this act all the way back in the beginning of the summer. This is like — it’s not new. It’s been out there. This HEROES Act has been sitting there. And look at what’s happening. When I was in charge of the Recovery Act with $800 billion, I was able to get $145 billion to local communities that have to balance their budget to states that have to balance their budgets, so then they have to fire fire — they have to fire firefighters, teachers, first responders, law enforcement officers, so they could keep their cities and counties running. He will not support that. They have not done a thing for them. And Mitch McConnell said, ‘Let him go bankrupt. Let him go bankrupt.’ Come on. What’s the matter with these guys.TRUMP:The bill that was passed in the House was a bailout of badly run high crime, Democrat, all run by Democrats, cities and states. It was a way of getting a lot of money, billions and billions of dollars to these cities. It was also a way of getting a lot of money from our people’s pockets to people that come into our country illegally. We were going to take care of everything for them. And what that does, and I’d love to do that, I’d love to help them. But what that does, everybody all over the world will start pouring into our country. We can’t do it. This was a way of taking care of them. This was a way of spending on things that had nothing to do with COVID, as for your question, but it was really a big bailout for badly run Democrat cities and states.WELKER:I want —BIDEN:If I get elected, I’m not gonna — I’m running as a proud Democrat, but I’m gonna be an American president. I don’t see red states and blue states. What I see is American, United States. And folks, every single state out there finds themself in trouble. They’re going to start laying off, whether they’re red or blue. Cops, firefighters, first responders, teachers — because they have to balance their budget. And the founders were smart. They allowed the federal government to deficit spend to compensate for the United States of America.WELKER:I want to talk about the minimum wage, gentlemen. Mr. Vice President, we are talking a lot about struggling small businesses and business owners these days. Do you think this is the right time to ask them to raise the minimum wage? You, of course, support a $15 minimum wage.BIDEN:I do, because I think one of the things we’re gonna have to do is we’re gonna have to bail them out, too. We should be bailing them out now, those small businesses. You’ve got one in six of them going under. They’re not going to be able to make it back. They passed a package that allows us to be able to call PPP, money’s supposed to go to help them do everything from organize how they could deal with their businesses being open safely. Schools, how they can make classrooms smaller, how they can hire more teachers, how they can put ventilation systems in. They need the help, the businesses, as well as the schools, need the help. But this, these guys will not help them. He is not giving them any of the money.WELKER:We are going to move on to immigration —TRUMP:One thing very quickly. He said we have to help our small businesses — by raising the minimum wage? That’s not helping. I think it should be a state option. Alabama is different than New York, New York is different from Vermont. Every state is different. It should be a state option. We have to help, it’s very important. We have to help our small businesses —WELKER:You said —TRUMP:How are you helping your small businesses when you’re forcing wages. What’s going to happen and what’s been proven to happen is when you do that these small businesses fire many of their employees.WELKER:You said very recently you would consider raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour —TRUMP:Say it?WELKER:You said recently you would consider raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Is that still the case?TRUMP:What I’d really like, and I would consider it to an extent. What I’d really like — in a second administration — but not to a level that’s going to put all these businesses out of business. It should be a state option. Look, I’ve looked at different places, I know different places. They’re all different. Some places, $15 is not so bad. In other places, other states, $15 would be —WELKER:OK, President Trump, thank you. Quick response, Vice President Biden.BIDEN:No one should work two jobs, one job and be below poverty. People are making 6, 7, 8 bucks an hour. These first responders we all clap for as they come down the street, because they’ve allowed us to make it. What’s happening? They deserve a minimum wage of $15. Anything below that puts you below the poverty level. And there is no evidence that when you raise the minimum wage, businesses go out of business. That is simply not true.WELKER:We’re going to talk about immigration. We’re going to talk about immigration, now, gentlemen, and we’re going to talk about families within this context. Mr. President, your administration separated children from their parents at the border, at least 4000 kids. You’ve since reversed your zero tolerance policy, but the United States can’t locate the parents of more than 500 children. So how will these families ever be reunited?TRUMP:Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here and they used to use them to get into our country. We now have a stronger border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall, you see the numbers, and we let people in, but they have to come in legally and they come in through –WELKER:But how will you reunite these kids with their families?TRUMP:Let me just tell you. They built cages. You know, they used to say I built the cages. And then they had a picture in a certain newspaper. There was a picture of these horrible cages and they said, ‘Look at these cages, President Trump built them.’ And then it was determined they were built in 2014. That was him.WELKER:Do you have a plan to reunite the kids?TRUMP:Yes, we’re working on it very — we’re trying very hard. But a lot of these kids come out without the parents, they come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs.WELKER:Vice President Biden, let me bring you into this conversation. Quick response and then another question to you.BIDEN:These 500 plus kids came with parents. They separated them at the border to make it a disincentive to come to begin with. Big, real tough, we’re really strong. And guess what? They cannot — it’s not, coyotes didn’t bring them over, their parents were with them. They got separated from their parents. And it makes us a laughingstock and violates every notion of who we are as a nation.WELKER:Let me ask you a follow up —TRUMP:Kristen, they did it, we changed the policy. They did it. We changed it. They set the cages. Who built the cages?BIDEN:So let’s talk about —TRUMP:Who built the cages, Joe?BIDEN:Let’s talk about what we’re talking about. What happened? Parents were ripped — their kids were ripped from their arms and separated. And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone. Nowhere to go, nowhere to go. It’s criminal. It’s criminal.WELKER:Let me ask you —TRUMP:Kristen, I will say this. They went down, we brought reporters and everything. They are so well taken care of. They’re in facilities that were so clean —WELKER:But some of them haven’t been reunited —TRUMP:But just ask one question. Who built the cages? I’d love you to ask that, who built the cages?WELKER:Let me ask about your immigration policy, Mr. Vice President. The Obama administration did fail to deliver immigration reform, which had been a key promise during the administration. It also presided over record deportations as well as family detentions at the border before changing course. So why should voters trust you with an immigration overhaul now?BIDEN:Because we made a mistake. It took too long to get it right. Took too long to get it right. I’ll be President of the United States, not Vice President of the United States. And the fact is, I’ve made it very clear, within 100 days, I’m going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people. And all those so called Dreamers, those DACA kids, they’re going to be immediately certified again, to be able to stay in this country, and put on a path to citizenship. The idea that they are being sent home by this guy, and they want to do that, is they go to a country they’ve never seen before. I can imagine you’re five years old, your parents are taking you across the Rio Grande River and it’s and it’s illegal. You say ‘Oh, no, Mom, leave me here. I’m not gonna go with you.’ They’ve been here. Many of them are model citizens. Over 20,000 of them are first responders out there taking care of people during this crisis. We owe them. We owe them.WELKER:President Trump, your response.TRUMP:Kristen, he had eight years to do what he said he was going to do. And I’ve changed without having a specific — we got rid of catch and release, we got rid of a lot of horrible things that they put in and that they lived with. But he had eight years he was vice president. He did nothing except build cages to keep children in.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response?BIDEN:Wrong. The catch and release, you know what he’s talking about there? If in fact, you had a family, came across, they’re arrested. They, in fact, were given a date to show up for their hearing. They were released. And guess what, they showed up for a hearing. This is the first President in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country. That’s never happened before in America. That’s never happened before in America. You come to the United States and you make your case. That I seek asylum based on the following premise, why I deserve it under American law. They’re sitting in squalor on the other side of the river.WELKER:President Trump, there is —TRUMP:It’s so important. It just shows that he has no understanding of immigration or the laws. Catch and release is a disaster. A murderer would come in, a rapist would come in, a very bad person would come in — we would take their name, we have to release them into our country. And then you say they come back. Less than 1% of the people come back.BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:We have to send ICE out and Border Patrol out to find them. We would say, ‘Come back in two years, three years — we’re going to give you a court case. You did Perry Mason, we’re going to give you a court case. When you say they come back, they don’t come back, Joe. They never come back. Only the really — I hate to say this — but those with the lowest IQ, they might come back. But there are very very few.WELKER:OK, President Trump, let’s give Vice President Biden a chance to respond, and then we’re going to move on to the next section.TRUMP:You don’t know the law, Joe.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response.BIDEN:I know the law. What he’s telling you is simply not true.TRUMP:They don’t come back.BIDEN:Check it out.WELKER:Alright, let’s move on —TRUMP:But we don’t have to worry about it because I terminated it. So we don’t have to worry about it.WELKER:Alright, let’s move on to the next section —BIDEN:You have 525 kids not knowing where in God’s name they’re going to be and lost their parents.TRUMP:Go ahead.WELKER:Alright. Let’s talk about our next section, which is race in America. And I want to talk about the way Black and Brown Americans experience race in this country. Part of that experience is something called “the talk.” It happens regardless of class and income — parents who feel they have no choice but to prepare their children for the chance that they could be targeted, including by the police, for no reason other than the color of their skin. Mr. Vice President, in the next two minutes, I want you to speak directly to these families. Do you understand why these parents fear for their children?BIDEN:I do. I do. You know, my daughter is a social worker. And she’s written a lot about this. She has a graduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania in social work. And you know, one of the reasons why I ended up working on the East side of Wilmington, Delaware, which is 90 percent African American, was to learn more about what was going on. What I didn’t — I never had to tell my daughter if she’s pulled over, make sure she puts, for a traffic stop, put both hands on top of the wheel. And don’t reach for the glove box because someone may shoot you. But a Black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child, when you’re walking down the street, don’t have a hoodie on when you go across the street, making sure that you, in fact, if you get pulled over, yes sir, no sir, hands on top of the wheel. Because you are in fact, a victim, whether you’re a person making 300,000 — $300,000-a-year person, or someone who’s on food stamps. The fact of the matter is there is institutional racism in America. And we have always said — we’ve never lived up to it. That we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women are created equal. But guess what — we have never ever lived up to it. But we have constantly been moving the needle further and further to inclusion, not exclusion. This is the first president come along and says that’s the end of that. We’re not going to do that anymore. We have to provide for economic opportunity, better education, better health care, better access to schooling, better access to opportunity to borrow money to start businesses. All the things we can do. And I’ve laid out a clear plan as to how to do those things. Just to give people a shot. It’s about accumulating the ability to have wealth, as well as it is to be free from violence.WELKER:President Trump, same question to you. And let me remind you of the question, I would like you to speak directly to these families. Do you understand why these parents fear for their children?TRUMP:Yes, I do. And again, he’s been in government 47 years. He never did a thing except in 1994, when he did such harm to the Black community. And they were called, and he called them, super predators. And he said that, he said it — super predators. And they have never lived that down. 1994, your crime bill, the super predators. Nobody has done more for the Black community than Donald Trump. And if you look, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln–possible exception, but the exception of Abraham Lincoln, nobody has done what I’ve done. Criminal justice reform, Obama and Joe didn’t do it. I don’t even think they tried because they had no chance at doing it. They might have wanted to do it. But if you had to see the arms I had a twist to get that done, it was not a pretty picture. And everybody knows it including some very liberal people that cried in my office–they cried in the Oval Office. Two weeks later, they’re out saying, ‘Gee, we have to defeat him.’ Criminal justice reform, prison reform, opportunity zones with Tim Scott, a great senator from South Carolina. He came in with this incredible idea for opportunity zones. It’s one of the most successful programs. People don’t talk about it. Tremendous investment is being made. Biggest beneficiary, the Black and Hispanic communities and then historically Black colleges and universities. After three years of coming to the office, I love some of those guys, they were great, they came into the office. And they said– I said, ‘What are you doing after three years?’ I said, ‘Why do you keep coming back?’ ‘Because we have no funding’. I said, ‘You don’t have to come back every year’, ‘We have to come back’, because President Obama would never give them long term funding. And I did. Ten-year, long term funding, and I gave them more money than they asked for, because I said, ‘I think you need more’. And I said, ‘The only bad part about this is I may never see you again’, because I got very friendly with them and they like me and I like them. But I saved historically black colleges and universities.WELKER:OK. And we’re going to talk about both of your records, but your response to that Vice President?BIDEN:My response to that is I never, ever said what he accused me of saying. The fact of the matter is, in 2000 though, after the crime bill had been in the law for a while, this is the guy who said, ‘The problem with the crime bill, there’s not enough people in jail. There’s not enough people in jail,’ and go on my website, get the quote, the date when he said it, ‘not enough people’. He talked about marauding gangs, young gangs, the people who are going to maraud our cities. This is a guy who when the Central Park five, five innocent Black kids, he continued to push for making sure that they got the death penalty. None of them were — none of them were guilty of what the crime, of the crimes that were suggested. Look, and talk about he, granted, he did in fact let 20 people — he commuted 20 people’s sentences. We commuted over 1,000 people’s sentences. Over 1,000. The very law he’s talking about is a law that, in fact, initiated by Barack Obama. And secondly, we’re in a situation here where we — the federal prison system was reduced by 38,000 people under our administration. And one of these things we should be doing is there should be no, no minimum mandatories in the law. That’s why I’m offering $20 billion to states to change their state laws to eliminate minimum mandatories and set up drug courts. No one should be going to jail because they have a drug problem. They should be going to rehabilitation, not to jail. We should fundamentally change the system and that’s what I’m going to do.TRUMP:But why didn’t he do it four years ago? Why didn’t you do that four years ago, even less than that? Why didn’t you–BIDEN:I am not–TRUMP:You were vice president. You keep talking about all these things you’re going to do and you’re going to do this. But you were there just a short time ago and you guys did nothing.BIDEN:We did–TRUMP:You know, Joe, I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama, because you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would have never run. I would’ve never run. I ran because of you. I’m looking at you now, you’re a politician. I ran because of you.WELKER:Alright, Vice President Biden, your response to that? And then I do have some questions for both of you.BIDEN:Well, I’ll tell you what, I hope he does look at me because what’s happening here is you know who I am, you know who he is, you know his character, you know my character, you know our reputations for honor and telling the truth. I am anxious to have this race. I’m anxious to see this take place. I am — the character of the country is on the ballot. Our character is on the ballot. Look at us closely.WELKER:Let me ask them some follow–TRUMP:Excuse me–WELKER:Please respond and then we’re gonna have follow up questions.TRUMP:If this stuff is true about Russia, Ukraine, China, other countries, Iraq — If this is true, then he’s a corrupt politician. So don’t give me the stuff about how you’re this innocent baby. Joe, they’re calling you a corrupt politician–BIDEN:Nobody says–WELKER:President Trump, I want to stay on the issue of race. We’re talking about the issue–TRUMP:It’s the laptop from hell.WELKER:President Trump, we’re talking about race right now and I do want to stay on the issue of race. President Trump—BIDEN:Nobody– Kristen, I have to respond to that.WELKER:Please, very quickly.BIDEN:Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four– five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.TRUMP:You mean, the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? You gotta be–BIDEN:That’s exactly what — That’s exactly what–TRUMP:Is this where you’re going? This is where he’s going. The laptop is Russia, Russia, Russia?WELKER:Gentleman, I want to stay on the issue of race, okay —TRUMP:You have to be kidding. Here we go again with Russia. Boy oh boy.WELKER:We’re going to continue on the issue of race. Mr. President, you’ve described the Black Lives Matter movement as a symbol of hate. You’ve shared a video of a man chanting white power to millions of your supporters. You’ve said that Black professional athletes exercising their first amendment rights should be fired. What do you say to Americans who say that kind of language from a president is contributing to a climate of hate and racial strife?TRUMP:Well you have to understand the first time I ever heard of Black Lives Matter they were chanting ‘pigs in a blanket’, talking about police, ‘pigs, pigs’, talking about our police, ‘pigs in a blanket, fry’ em like bacon’. I said, ‘That’s a horrible thing’. And they were marching down the street. And that was my first glimpse of Black Lives Matter. I thought it was a terrible thing. As far as my relationships with all people, I think I have great relationships with all people. I am the least racist person in this room.WELKER:What do you say to Americans who are concerned by that rhetoric?TRUMP:I don’t, I don’t know what to say. I got criminal justice reform done, and prison reform, and opportunity zones. I took care of Black colleges and universities. I don’t know what to say. They can say anything. I mean, they can say anything. It’s a very — it makes me sad because I am the least racist person. I can’t even see the audience because it’s so dark, but I don’t care who’s in the audience. I’m the least racist person in this room.WELKER:OK. Vice President Biden, let me ask you – very quickly, and then I have a follow up question for you.BIDEN:Abraham Lincoln here is one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history. He pours fuel on every single racist fire, every single one. He started off his campaign coming down the escalator saying he’s gonna get rid of those Mexican rapists. He’s banned Muslims because they’re Muslims. He has moved around and made everything worse across the board. He says to them about the ‘Poor Boys’, last time we were on stage here. He said, ‘I told him to stand down and stand ready’. Come on. This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a fog horn.WELKER:President Trump, I’m going to give you 10 seconds to respond and then I have a follow up question.TRUMP:He made a reference to Abraham Lincoln. Where did that come in? I mean —BIDEN:You said you were Abraham Lincoln.TRUMP:No, no. Where did that – no no, I said not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community. I didn’t say ‘I’m Abraham Lincoln’. I said, ‘Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done but what I’ve done for the Black community’. Now you have done nothing other than the crime bill, which put–BIDEN:Oh, God.TRUMP:Tens of thousands of Black men, mostly, in jail. And you know what? They remember it because if you look at what’s happening with the voting right now, they remember that you treated them very, very badly. Just take a look at what’s happening out there.WELKER:Vice President Biden, let me give you a chance to respond within this context. Crime bills that you supported in the 80s and 90s contributed to the incarceration of tens of thousands of young Black men who had small amounts of drugs in their possession. They are sons, they are brothers, they are fathers, they’re uncles whose families are still to this day, some of them, suffering the consequences. So speak to those families, why should they vote for you?BIDEN:One of the things is that in the ’80s, we passed 100%, all 100 senators voted for it, a bill on drugs and how to deal with drugs. It was a mistake. I’ve been trying to change it since then, particularly the portion on cocaine. That’s why I’ve been arguing that, in fact, we should not send anyone to jail for a pure drug offense. They should be going into treatment across the board. That’s what we should be spending money on. That’s why I set up drug courts which were never funded by Republican friends. They should not be going to jail for a drug or an alcohol problem. They should be going into treatment. Treatment. That’s what we’ve been trying to do. That’s what I’m going to get done because the American people have now seen that in fact, it was a mistake to pass those laws related to drugs. But they were not in the crime bill.TRUMP:But why didn’t he get it done? See, it’s all talk, no action with these politicians. Why didn’t he get it done? ‘That’s what I’m gonna do when I become president’. You were vice president, along with Obama as your President, your leader, for eight years. Why didn’t you get it done? You had eight years to get it done? Now, you’re saying you’re gonna get it done because you’re all talk and no action, Joe.BIDEN:We got a lot of it done. We released 38,000 — We got 38,000 prisoners left from —TRUMP:You didn’t get anything done. You got nothing done.BIDEN:38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison. We have — there were over 1000 people who were given clemency. We — in fact, we’re the ones that put in the legislation saying we could look at pattern or practice of police departments and what they were doing, how they were conducting themselves. I could go on, but we began the process. We began the process. We lost an election. That’s why I’m running to win back that election and change his terrible policy.TRUMP:I just ask — I just ask one question: why didn’t you do it in the eight years, a short time ago? Why didn’t you do it? You just said, ‘I’m going to do that. I’m going to do this.’ You put tens of thousands of mostly Black young men in prison. Now you’re saying you’re going to get — you’re going to undo that. Why didn’t you get it done? You had eight years with Obama? You know why, Joe, because you’re all talk and no action.WELKER:Alright, Vice President Biden and then we’re gonna move on to the next section.BIDEN:We had a Republican Congress. That’s the answer.WELKER:OK.TRUMP:Well, you gotta talk — you gotta talk ’em into it, Joe. Sometimes you gotta talk ’em into it.WELKER:Alright, we’re gonna move on to our next section which is climate change-TRUMP:Like I did with criminal justice reform. I had to talk Democrats into it.WELKER:Gentlemen, we’re running out of time so we gotta get on to climate change, please. You both have very different visions on climate change. President Trump, you say that environmental regulations have hurt jobs in the energy sector. Vice President Biden, you have said you see addressing climate change as an opportunity to create new jobs. For each of you, how would you both combat climate change and support job growth at the same time? Starting with you, President Trump, you have two minutes uninterrupted.TRUMP:So we have the trillion trees program, we have so many different programs. I do love the environment, but what I want is the cleanest, crystal clear water, the cleanest air. We have the best, lowest number in carbon emissions, which is a big standard that I noticed Obama goes with all the time. Not Joe. I haven’t heard Joe use the term because I’m not sure he knows what it represents or means, but I have heard Obama use it. And we have the best carbon emission numbers that we’ve had in 35 years. Under this administration, we are working so well with industry, but here’s what we can’t do — Look at China, how filthy it is. Look at Russia. Look at India. It’s filthy. The air is filthy. The Paris Accord, I took us out because we were going to have to spend trillions of dollars and we were treated very unfairly. When they put us in there, they did us a great disservice. They were going to take away our businesses. I will not sacrifice tens of millions of jobs, thousands and thousands of companies because of the Paris Accord. It was so unfair. China doesn’t kick in until 2030. Russia goes back to a low standard and we kicked in right away. It would have been — It would have been– It would have destroyed our businesses. So, you ready? We have done an incredible job environmentally. We have the cleanest air, the cleanest water and the best carbon emission standards that we’ve seen in many, many years.WELKER:Vice President Biden —TRUMP:And we haven’t destroyed our industries.WELKER:Vice President Biden, two minutes to you uninterrupted.BIDEN:Climate change, climate warming, global warming is an existential threat to humanity. We have a moral obligation to deal with it. And we’re told by all the leading scientists in the world we don’t have much time. We’re going to pass the point of no return within the next eight to 10 years. Four more years of this man eliminating all the regulations that were put in by us to clean up the climate, to clean up — to limit the — limit of emissions, will put us in a position where we’re going to be in real trouble. Here’s where we have a great opportunity. I was able to get both all the environmental organizations as well as labor, the people worried about jobs, to support my climate plan. Because what it does, it will create millions of new, good-paying jobs. We’re going to invest in, for example, 500,000 — 50,000, excuse me, 50,000 charging stations on our highways so that we can own the electric car market in the future. In the meantime, China’s doing that. We’re going to be in a position where we’re going to see to it that we’re going to take 4 million existing billion, buildings and 2 million existing homes and retrofit them so they don’t leak as much energy, saving hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in the process and creating significant number of jobs. And by the way, the whole idea of what this is all going to do, it’s going to create millions of jobs and it’s going to clean the environment. Our health and our jobs are at stake. That’s what’s happening. And what — right now, by the way, Wall Street firm has indicated that my plan — my plan will, in fact, create 18.6 million jobs, 7 million more than his. This from Wall Street and I’ll create $1 trillion more in economic growth than his proposal does, not on climate just on the economy.WELKER:President Trump, your response —TRUMP:They came out and said very strongly, ‘$6,500 will be taken away from families under his plan’, that his plan is an economic disaster. If you look at what he wants to do, you know the, if you look at his plan, his environmental plan, you know who developed it? AOC+3. They know nothing about the climate. I mean, she’s got a good line of stuff, but she knows nothing about the climate. And they’re all hopping through hoops for AOC+3. Look, their real plan costs $100 trillion. If we had the best year in the history of our country for 100 years, we would not even come close to a number like that. When he says buildings, they want to take buildings down because they want to make bigger windows into smaller windows. As far as they’re concerned, if you had no window it would be a lovely thing. This is the craziest plan that anybody has ever seen. And this wasn’t done by smart people. This wasn’t done by anybody. Frankly, I don’t even know how it can be good politically. They want to spend $100 trillion. That’s their real number. He’s trying to say it was six. It’s $100 trillion. They want to knock down buildings and build new buildings with little tiny, small windows and many other things. And many other things–WELKER:Alright — okay, let me have the vice president respond and we’re running out of time and we have a lot more questions to get to. So let’s hear from the Vice President. I have a number of more questions.BIDEN:I don’t know where he comes from. I don’t know where he comes up with these numbers. $100 trillion? Give me a break. This plan was — This plan has been endorsed by every major — every major environmental group and every labor group. Labor. Because they know the future lies, the future lies in us being able to breathe. And they know they’re good jobs in getting us there. And by the way, the fastest growing industry in America are –is, is, is the electric — excuse me, solar energy and wind. He thinks wind causes cancer, windmills. It’s the fastest growing jobs and they pay good prevailing wages, 45, 50 bucks an hour. We can grow and we can be cleaner, if we go the route I’m proposing.WELKER:President Trump — please respond and then I have some follow ups.TRUMP:Excuse me. We are energy independent for the first time. We don’t need all of these countries that we had a fight, war over because we needed their energy. We are energy independent. I know more about wind than you do. It’s extremely expensive, kills all the birds, it’s very intermittent. It’s got a lot of problems and they happen to make the windmills in both Germany and China. And the fumes coming up — if you’re a believer in carbon emission, the fumes coming up to make — make these massive windmills is more than anything that we’re talking about with natural gas, which is very clean. One other thing —BIDEN:Find me a scientist that says that.TRUMP:Solar. I love solar, but solar doesn’t quite have it yet. It’s not powerful enough yet to — to really run our big beautiful factories that we need to compete with the world —BIDEN:False.TRUMP:So, it’s all a pipe dream, but you know what we’ll do? We’re gonna have the greatest economy in the world. But if you want to kill the economy, get rid of your oil industry. You want – and what about fracking?WELKER:Alright. Let me allow Vice President Biden to respond —BIDEN:I have never said I oppose fracking.TRUMP:You said it on tape.BIDEN:I did? Show the tape. Put it on your website.TRUMP:I’ll put it on.BIDEN:Put it on the website. The fact of the matter is he’s flat lying.WELKER:Would you rule out banning fracking?BIDEN:I do rule out banning fracking because the answer we need — we need other industries to transition to get to, ultimately, a complete zero emissions by 2025. What I will do with fracking over time is make sure that we can capture the emissions from the fracking. Capture the emissions from gas. We can do that and we can do that by investing money into — it’s a transition to that.WELKER:I have one more question —TRUMP:Excuse me. He was against fracking. He said it. I will show that to you tomorrow. ‘I am against fracking’, until he got the nomination, went to Pennsylvania, then he said — you know what, Pennsylvania? He’ll be against it very soon because his party is totally against it.BIDEN:Fracking on federal land, I said, no fracking and oil on federal land —WELKER:Let me ask this final question in this section and then I want to move on to our final section. President Trump, people of color are much more likely to live near oil refineries and chemical plants. In Texas there are families who worry the plants near them are making them sick. Your administration has rolled back regulations on these kinds of facilities. Why should these families give you another four years in office?TRUMP:The families that we’re talking about are employed heavily and they are making a lot of money, more money than they’ve ever made. If you look at the kind of numbers that we produce for Hispanic, or Black, or Asian, it’s nine times greater, the percentage gain than it was under — in three years — than it was under eight years of the two of them, to put it nicely. Nine times more. Now, somebody lives — I have not heard the numbers or the statistics that you’re saying — but they’re making a tremendous amount of money. Economically, we saved it. And I saved it again a number of months ago when oil was crashing because of the pandemic. We saved it. We got — say what you want of that relationship, we got Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia to cut back, way back. We saved our oil industry and now it’s very vibrant and everybody has very inexpensive gasoline. Remember that.WELKER:Vice President Biden, your response and then we’re going to have a final question for both of you.BIDEN:My response is that those people live on what they call ‘fence lines’. He doesn’t understand this. They live near chemical plants that, in fact, pollute. Chemical plants and oil plants and refineries that pollute. I used to live near that when I was growing up in Claymont, Delaware. And all the more oil refineries in Marcus Hook and the Delaware River than there is any place, including in Houston at the time. When my mom would get in the car when there were first frost to drive me to school, turned on the windshield wipers there’d be oil slick in the window. That’s why so many people in my state were dying and getting cancer. The fact is those frontline communities, it doesn’t matter what you’re paying them. It matters how you keep them safe. What do you do? And you impose restrictions on the pollutions, on the pollutants coming out of those fence line communities.WELKER:OK, I have one final question —TRUMP:Would he close down the oil industry — would you close down the oil industry?BIDEN:I would transition from the oil industry, yes.TRUMP:Oh, transition. That’s a big statement.BIDEN:It is a big statement because I would stop —WELKER:Why would you do that?BIDEN:Because the oil industry pollutes, significantly — but here’s the deal —TRUMP:I see. That’s a big statement.BIDEN:Well, if you let me finish the statement, because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time. Over time. And I’d stop giving to the oil industry — I’d stop giving them federal subsidies. You won’t give federal subsidies to the gas and, excuse me, to solar and wind. Why are we giving it to oil industry?TRUMP:We actually do give it to solar and wind–WELKER:Alright, we have one final question —TRUMP:And that’s maybe the biggest statement in terms of business, that’s the biggest statement.WELKER:Okay, we have one final question. Mr. President —TRUMP:Because basically what he’s saying is he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that Texas? Will you remember that Pennsylvania? Oklahoma? Ohio?WELKER:Vice President Biden, let me give you ten seconds to respond and then I have to get to the final question. Vice President Biden?BIDEN:He takes everything out of context, but the point is, look, we have to move toward a net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production. By 2050, totally.WELKER:Alright. One final question —TRUMP:Is he gonna get China to do it? Is he going to get China to do it?WELKER:No, we’re finished with this. We have to move on to our final question.BIDEN:No, I’m going to rejoin the Paris Accord and make China abide by what they agreed to.TRUMP:That’ll cost you $1 trillion.WELKER:This is about leadership, gentlemen, and this first question does go to you, President Trump. Imagine this is your Inauguration Day. What will you say in your address to Americans who did not vote for you? You’ll each have one minute, starting with you, Mr. President.TRUMP:We have to make our country totally successful, as it was prior to the plague coming in from China. Now we’re rebuilding it and we’re doing record numbers, 11.4 million jobs in a short period of time etc. But, I will tell you, go back before the plague came in, just before, I was getting calls from people that were not normally people that would call me. They wanted to get together. We had the best Black unemployment numbers in the history of our country, Hispanic, women, Asian, people with diplomas, with no diplomas, MIT graduates, number one in the class — everybody had the best numbers. And you know what? The other side wanted to get together. They wanted to unify. Success is going to bring us together. We are on the road to success. But I’m cutting taxes and he wants to raise everybody’s taxes. And he wants to put new regulations on everything. He will kill it. If he gets in, you will have a depression, the likes of which you’ve never seen. Your 401K’s will go to hell and it’ll be a very, very sad day for this country.WELKER:Alright. Vice President Biden, same question to you. What will you say during your inaugural address to Americans who did not vote for you?BIDEN:I will say, I’m an American president. I represent all of you whether you voted for me or against me. And I’m going to make sure that you’re represented. I’m going to give you hope. We’re going to move. We’re going to choose science over fiction. We’re going to choose hope over fear. We’re going to choose to move forward because we have enormous opportunities, enormous opportunities to make things better. We can grow this economy. We can deal with systemic racism. At the same time, we can make sure that our economy is being run, and moved, and motivated by clean energy, creating millions of new jobs. And that’s the fact, that’s what we’re going to do. And I’m going to say, as I said at the beginning, what is on the ballot here is the character of this country. Decency. Honor. Respect. Treating people with dignity. Making sure that everyone has an even chance. Now, I’m going to make sure you get that. You haven’t been getting it the last four years.WELKER:Alright. I want to thank you both for a very robust hour and a half, a fantastic debate. Really appreciate it. President Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden. Thank you to Belmont University for hosting us tonight and most importantly, thank you to those watching tonight. Election Day is November 3rd. Don’t forget to vote. Thank you everyone and have a great night.",
    "id": "89f7a356-6af3-4e0b-a69f-9bb6214b9607"
  },
  {
    "year": 1976,
    "date": "October 6, 1976",
    "title": "The Second Carter-Ford Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 6, 1976 Debate TranscriptOctober 6, 1976The Second Carter-Ford Presidential DebateMS. FREDERICK: Good evening. I’m Pauline Frederick of NPR, moderator of this second of the historic debates of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R, Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for president, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for president. Thank you, President Ford and thank you, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight. This debate takes place before an audience in the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco. An estimated one hundred million Americans are watching on television as well. San Francisco was the site of the signing of the United Nations Charter, thirty one years ago. Thus, it is an appropriate place to hold this debate, the subject of which is foreign and defense issues. The questioners tonight are Max Frankel, associate editor of the New York Times, Henry L. Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, and Richard Valeriani, diplomatic correspondent of NBC News. The ground rules are basically the same as they were for the first debate two weeks ago. The questions will be alternated between candidates. By the toss of a coin, Governor Carter will take the first question. Each question sequence will be as follows: The question will be asked and the candidate will have up to three minutes to answer. His opponent will have up to two minutes to respond. And prior to the response, the questioner may ask a follow-up question to clarify the candidate’s answer when necessary with up to two minutes to reply. Each candidate will have three minutes for a closing statement at the end. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have notes or prepared remarks with them this evening, but they may take notes during the debate and refer to them. Mr. Frankel, you have the first question for Governor Carter.MR. FRANKEL: Governor, since the Democrats last ran our foreign policy, including many of the men who are advising you, country has been relieved of the Vietnam agony and the military draft, we’ve started arms control negotiations with the Russians, we’ve opened relations with China, we’ve arranged the disengagement in the Middle East, we’ve regained influence with the Arabs without deserting Israel, now, maybe we’ve even begun a process of peaceful change in Africa. Now you’ve objected in this campaign to the style with which much of this was done, and you’ve mentioned some other things that – that you think ought to have been done. But do you really have a quarrel with this Republican record? Would you not have done any of those things?MR. CARTER: Well I think this Republican administration has been almost all style, and spectacular, and not substance. We’ve uh – got a chance tonight to talk about, first of all, leadership, the character of our country, and a vision of the future. In every one of these instances, the Ford administration has failed, and I hope tonight that I and Mr. Ford will have a chance to discuss the reasons for those failures. Our country is not strong anymore; we’re not respected anymore. We can only be strong overseas if we’re strong at home; and when I became president we’ll not only be strong in those areas but also in defense – a defense capability second to none. We’ve lost in our foreign policy, the character of the American people. We’ve uh – ignored or excluded the American people and the Congress from participation in the shaping of our foreign policy. It’s been one of secrecy and exclusion. In addition to that we’ve had a chance to became now, contrary to our long-standing beliefs and principles, the arms merchant of the whole world. We’ve tried to buy success from our enemies, and at the same time we’ve excluded from the process the normal friendship of our allies. In addition to that we’ve become fearful to compete with the Soviet Union on an equal basis. We talk about detente. The Soviet Union knows what they want in detente, and they’ve been getting it. We have not known what we’ve wanted and we’ve been out-traded in almost every instance. The other point I wanna make is about our defense. We’ve got to be a nation blessed with a defense capability that’s efficient, tough, capable, well organized, narrowly focused – fighting capability. The ability to fight, if necessary, is the best way to avoid the chance for, or the requirement to fight. And the last point I wanna make is this: Mr. Ford, Mr. Kissinger have uh – continued on with the policies and failures of Richard Nixon. Even the Republican platform has criticized the lack of leadership in Mr. Ford and they’ve criticized the foreign policy of this administration. This is one instance where I agree with – with the Republican platform. I might say this in closing, and that is that as far as foreign policy goes, Mr. Kissinger has been the president of this country. Mr. Ford has shown an absence of leadership, and an absence of a grasp of what this country is and what it ought to be. That’s got to be changed. And that’s one of the major issues in this uh – campaign of 1976.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford, would you like to respond?MR. FORD: Governor Carter again is talking in broad generalities. Let me take just one question that he raises – the military strength and capability of the United States. Governor Carter in November of 1975 indicated that he wanted to cut the defense budget by $15 billion. A few months later, he said he wanted to cut the defense budget by eight or nine billion dollars. And more recently, he talks about cutting the defense budget by five to seven billion dollars. There is no way you can be strong militarily and have those kind of reductions in our military uh – appropriation. Now let me just tell you a little story. About uh – late October of 1975, I asked the then Secretary of Defense, Mr. Schlesinger, to tell me what had to be done if we were going to reduce the defense budget by uh – three to five billion dollars. A few days later, Mr. Schlesinger came back and said if we cut the defense budget by three to five billion dollars, we will have to cut military personnel by two hundred and fifty thousand, civilian personnel by a hundred thousand, jobs in America by a hundred thousand. We would have to stretch out our aircraft procurement, we would have to reduce our naval construction program, we would have to reduce the uh – research and development for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines by 8 percent. We would have to close twenty military bases in the United States immediately. That’s the kind of defense program that uh – Mr. Carter wants. Let me tell you this straight from the shoulder. You don’t negotiate with Mr. Brezhnev from weakness. And the kind of defense program that Mr. Carter wants will mean a weaker defense and a poor negotiating position.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Trewhitt, a question for President Ford.MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, my question really is the other side of the coin from Mr. Frankel’s. For a generation the United States has had a foreign policy based on containment of Communism. Yet we have lost the first war in Vietnam; we lost a shoving match in Angola. Uh – the Communists threatened to come to power by peaceful means in Italy and relations generally have cooled with the Soviet Union in the last few months. So le- let me ask you first, what do you do about such cases as Italy? And secondly, does this general drift mean that we’re moving back toward something like an old cold – cold-war relationship with the Soviet Union?MR. FORD: I don’t believe we should move to a cold-war relationship. I think it’s in the best interest of the United States, and the world as a whole that the United States negotiate rather than go back to the cold-war relationship with the Soviet Union. I don’t uh – look at the picture as bleakly as you have indicated in your question, Mr. Trewhitt. I believe that the United States ha- had many successes in recent years, in recent months, as far as the Communist movement is concerned. We have been successful in Portugal, where a year ago it looked like there was a very great possibility that the uh – Communists would take over in Portugal. It didn’t happen. We have a democracy in Portugal today. A few uh – months ago, or I should say, maybe two years ago, the Soviet Union looked like they had continued strength in the Middle East. Today, according to Prime Minister Rabin, the Soviet Union is weaker in the Middle East than they have been in many, many years. The facts are, there – the Soviet Union relationship with Egypt is uh – at a low level. The Soviet Union relationship with Syria is at a very low point. The United States today, according to Prime Minister Rabin of Israel, is a- at a peak in its uh – influence and power in the Middle East. But let’s turn for a minute to the uhh – southern African operations that are now going on. The United States of America took the initiative in southern Africa. We wanted to end the bloodshed in southern Africa. We wanted to have the right of self-determination in southern Africa. We wanted to have majority rule with the full protection of the rights of the minority. We wanted to preserve human dignity in southern Africa. We have taken the initiative, and in southern Africa today the United States is trusted by the black front-line nations and black Africa. The United States is trusted by other elements in southern Africa. The United States foreign policy under this administration has been one of progress and success. And I believe that instead of talking about Soviet progress, we can talk about American successes. And may I make an observation – part of the question you asked, Mr. Trewhitt? I don’t believe that it’s in the best interest of the United States and the NATO nations to have a Communist government in NATO. Mr. Carter has indicated he would look with sympathy to a Communist government in NATO. I think that would destroy the integrity and the strength of NATO, and I am totally opposed to it.MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford, unfortunately, has just made a statement that’s not true. I have never advocated a Communist government for Italy. That would obviously be a ridiculous thing for anyone to do who wanted to be president of this country. I think that this is uh – an instance of uh – deliberate distortion, and this has occurred also in the question about defense. As a matter of fact, uh – I’ve never advocated any cut of $15 billion in our defense budget. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ford has made a political football out of the defense budget. About a year ago he cut the Pentagon budget six point eight billion dollars. After he fired James Schlesinger, the political heat got so great that he added back about $3 billion. When Ronald Reagan won the Texas primary election, Mr. Ford added back another one and a half billion dollars. Immediately before the Kansas City convention, he added back another one point eight billion dollars in the defense budget. And his own uh – Office of Management and Budget testified that he had a $3 billion cut insurance added to the defense budget – defense budget under the pressure from the Pentagon. Obviously, this is another indication of trying to use the defense budget for political purposes, which he’s trying to do tonight. Now, we went into south Africa late, after Great Britain, Rhodesia, the black nations had been trying to solve this problem for many, many years. We didn’t go in until right before the election, similar to what was taking place in 1972, when Mr. Kissinger announced peace is at hand just before the election at that time. And we have weakened our position in NATO because the other countries in Europe supported the democ- democratic forces in Portugal long before we did; we stuck to the Portugal dictatorships much longer than other democracies did in this world.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Valeriani, a question for Governor Carter.MR. VALERIANI: Governor Carter, much of what the United States does abroad is done in the name of the national interest. What is your concept of the national interest? What should the role of the United States in the world be? And in that connection, considering your limited experience in foreign affairs, and the fact that you take same pride in being a Washington outsider, don’t you think it would be appropriate for you to tell the American voters before the election the people that you would like to have in key positions, such as Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, national security affairs advisor at the White House?MR. CARTER: Well, I’m not gonna name my cabinet before I get elected. I’ve got a little ways to go before I start doing that. But I have uh – an adequate background, I believe. I am a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, the first military graduate since uh – Eisenhower. I’ve served as the Governor of Georgia and have traveled extensively in foreign countries and South America, Central America, Europe, the Middle East and in Japan. I’ve traveled the last twenty-one months among the people of this country. I’ve talked to them and I’ve listened. And I’ve seen at first hand, in a very vivid way, the deep hurt that’s come to this country in the aftermath of Vietnam and Cambodia, Chile, and Pakistan, and Angola, and Watergate, CIA revelations. What we were formerly so proud of – the strength of our country, its uh – moral integrity, the representation in foreign affairs of what our people are, what our Constitution stands for, has been gone. And in the secrecy that has surrounded our foreign policy in the last few years, uh – the American people, the Congress have been excluded. I believe I know what this country ought to be. I’ve uh – been one who’s loved my nation as many Americans do, and I believe that there’s no limit placed on what we can be in the future, if we can harness the tremendous resources – militarily, economically, and the stature of our people, the meaning of the Constitution, in the future. Every time we’ve made a serious mistake in foreign affairs, it’s been because the American people have been excluded from the process. If we can just tap the intelligence and ability, the sound common sense and the good judgment of the American people, we can once again have a foreign policy to make us proud instead of ashamed. And I’m not gonna exclude the American people from that process in the future, as Mr. Ford and Kissinger have done. This is what it takes to have a sound foreign policy strong at home, strong defense, permanent commitments, not betray the principles of our country, and involve the American people and the Congress in the shaping of our foreign policy. Every time Mr. Ford speaks from a position of secrecy in negotiations, in secret – in secret treaties that’ve been uh – pursued and achieved, in supporting dictatorships, in ignoring human rights, we are weak and the rest of the world knows it. So these are the ways that we can restore the strength of our country, and they don’t require long experience in foreign policy. Nobody has that except a president who has served a long time or a secretary of state. But my background, my experience, my knowledge of the people of this country, my commitment to our principles that don’t change – those are the best bases to correct the horrible mistakes of this administration and restore our own country to a position of leadership in the world.MR. VALERIANI: How specifically, uh – Governor, are you going to bring the American people into the decision-making process in foreign policy? What does that mean?MR. CARTER: First of all, I would quit conducting the decision-making process in secret, as has been a characteristic of Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Ford. In many instances we’ve made agreements, like in Vietnam, uh – that have uh – been revealed later on to our uh – embarrassment. Recently Ian Smith, the uh – president of uh – Rhodesia, announced that he had unequivocal commitments from Mr. Kissinger that he could not reveal. The American people don’t know what those commitments are. We’ve seen uh – in the past the destruction of elected governments, like in Chile, and the strong support of military dictatorship there. These kinds of things have hurt us very much. I would restore the concept of the fireside chat, which was an integral part of the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. And I would also restore the involvement of the Congress. When Harry Truman was president he was not afraid to have a strong secretary of defense. Dean Acheson, George Marshall were strong secretaries of uh – state – excuse me – state. But he also made sure that there was a bipartisan support. The members of Congress, Arthur Vandenberg, Walter George, were part of the process, and before our nation made a secret agreement, or before we made a bluffing statement, we were sure that we had the backing not only of the president and the secretary of state, but also of the Congress and the people. This is a responsibility of the president. And I think it’s very damaging to our country for Mr. Ford to have turned over this responsibility to the secretary of state.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford, do you have a response?MR. FORD: Governor Carter again contradicts himself. He complains about secrecy and yet he is quoted as saying that in the attempt to find a solution in the Middle East that he would hold unpublicized meetings with the Soviet Union – I presume for the purpose of an – imposing a settlement on Israel and the Arab nations. But let me talk just a minute about what we’ve done to avoid secrecy in the Ford administration. After the United States took the initiative in working with Israel and with Egypt and achieving the Sinai II agreement – and I’m proud to say that not a single Egyptian or Israeli soldier has lost his life since the signing of the Sinai agreement. But at the time that uh – I submitted the Sinai agreement to the Congress of the United States, I submitted every single document that was applicable to the Sinai II agreement. It was the most complete documentation by any president of any agreement signed by a president on behalf of the United States. Now as far as meeting with the Congress is concerned, during the twenty-four months that I’ve been the president of the United States I have averaged better than one meeting a month with responsible groups or committees of the Congress – both House and Senate. The secretary of state has appeared in the several years that he’s been the secretary before eighty different uh – committee hearings in the House and in the Senate. The secretary of state has made better than fifty speeches all over the United States explaining American foreign policy. I have made myself at least ten uh – speeches in various parts of the country where I have discussed with the American people defense and foreign policy.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Frankel, a question for President Ford.MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, I’d like to explore a little more deeply our relationship with the Russians. They used to brag back in Khrushchev’s day that because of their greater patience and because of our greed for – for business deals that they would sooner or later get the better of us. Is it possible that despite some setbacks in the Middle East, they’ve proved their point? Our allies in France and Italy are now flirting with Communism. We’ve recognized the permanent Communist regime in East Germany. We’ve virtually signed, in Helsinki, an agreement that the Russians have dominance in Eastern Europe. We’ve bailed out Soviet agriculture with our huge grain sales. We’ve given them large loans, access to our best technology and if the Senate hadn’t interfered with the Jackson Amendment, maybe we – you would’ve given them even larger loans. Is that what you call a two-way street of traffic in Europe?MR. FORD: I believe that we have uh – negotiated with the Soviet Union since I’ve been president from a position of strength. And let me cite several examples. Shortly after I became president in uh – December of 1974, I met with uh – General Secretary Brezhnev in Vladivostok and we agreed to a mutual cap on the ballistic missile launchers at a ceiling of twenty-four hundred – which means that the Soviet Union, if that becomes a permanent agreement, will have to make a reduction in their launchers that they now have or plan to have. I’ve negotiated at Vladivostok with uh – Mr. Brezhnev a limitation on the MIRVing of their ballistic missiles at a figure of thirteen-twenty, which is the first time that any president has achieved a cap either on launchers or on MIRVs. It seems to me that we can go from there to uh – the uh – grain sales. The grain sales have been a benefit to American agriculture. We have achieved a five and three quarter year uh – sale of a minimum six million metric tons, which means that they have already bought about four million metric tons this year and are bound to buy another two million metric tons to take the grain and corn and wheat that the American farmers have produced in order to uh – have full production. And these grain sales to the Soviet Union have helped us tremendously in meeting the costs of the additional oil and – the oil that we have bought from overseas. If we turn to Helsinki – I’m glad you raised it, Mr. uh – Frankel. In the case of Helsinki, thirty-five nations signed an agreement, including the secretary of state for the Vatican – I can’t under any circumstances believe that the – His Holiness, the Pope would agree by signing that agreement that the thirty-five nations have turned over to the Warsaw Pact nations the domination of the – Eastern Europe. It just isn’t true. And if Mr. Carter alleges that His Holiness by signing that has done it, he is totally inaccurate. Now, what has been accomplished by the Helsinki agreement? Number one, we have an agreement where they notify us and we notify them of any uh – military maneuvers that are to be be undertaken. They have done it. In both cases where they’ve done so, there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter?MR. FRANKEL: I’m sorry, I – could I just follow – did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying mo- most of the countries there and in – and making sure with their troops that it’s a – that it’s a Communist zone, whereas on our side of the line the Italians and the French are still flirting with the possibility of Communism?MR. FORD: I don’t believe, uh – Mr. Frankel that uh – the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don’t believe that the Rumanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don’t believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous: it has its own territorial integrity and the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Rumania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the United States and the people of the United are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter, may I have your response?MR. CARTER: (chuckle) Well, in the first place, I’m not criticizing His Holiness the Pope. I was talking about Mr. Ford. The uh – fact is that secrecy has surrounded the decisions made by the Ford administration. In the case of the Helsinki agreement – it may have been a good agreement at the beginning, but we have failed to enforce the so-called basket three part, which insures the right of people to migrate, to join their families, to be free, to speak out. The Soviet Union is still jamming Radio Free Europe – Radio – uh- uh – Radio Free Europe is being jammed. We’ve also seen a very serious uh – problem with the so-called Sonnenfeldt document, which apparently Mr. Ford has just endorsed, which said that there’s an organic linkage between the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. And I would like to see Mr. Ford convince the Polish-Americans and the Czech-Americans and the Hungarian-Americans in this country that those countries don’t live under the domination and supervision of the Soviet Union behind the Iron – uh – Curtain. We also have seen Mr. Ford exclude himself from access to the public. He hasn’t had a tough cross-examination-type press conference in over thirty days. One press conference he had without sound. He’s also shown a weakness in yielding to pressure. The Soviet Union, for instance, put pressure on Mr. Ford and he refused to see a symbol of human freedom recognized around the world, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Arabs have put pressure on Mr. Ford, and he’s yielded, and has permitted a boycott by the Arab countries of American businesses who trade with Israel, or who have American Jews owning or taking part in the management of American – companies. His own secretary of commerce had to be subpoenaed by the Congress to reveal the names of businesses who were subject to this boycott. They didn’t volunteer the information. He had to be subpoenaed. And the last thing I’d like to say is this: This grain deal with the Soviet Union in ’72 was terrible, and Mr. Ford made up for it with three embargoes, one against our own ally in Japan. That’s not the way to run our foreign policy, including international trade.MS. FREDERIC: Mr. Trewhitt, a question for Governor Carter.MR. TREWHITT: Governor, I’d like to pick up on that point, actually, and on your appeal for a greater measure of American idealism in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs come home to the American public pretty much in such issues as oil embargoes and grain sales, that sort of thing. Would you be willing to – to risk an oil embargo in order to promote human rights in Iran and Saudi Arabia, withhold arms from Saudi Arabia for the same purpose? Uh – or uh – I think you – matter of fact, you’ve perhaps answered this final part, but would you withhold grain from the Soviet Union in order to promote civil rights in the – in the Serviette Union?MR. CARTER: I would never single out food as a trade embargo item. If I ever decided to impose an embargo because of a crisis in international relationships, it would include all shipments of all equipment. For instance, if the Arab countries ever again declare an embargo against our nation on oil I would consider that not a military but an economic declaration of war, and I would respond instantly and in kind. I would not ship that Arab country anything – no weapons, no spare parts for weapons, no oil-drilling rigs, no oil pipe, no nothing. I wouldn’t single out just food. Another thing that I’d like to say is this: In our international trade, as I said in my op- opening statement, we have become the arms merchant of the world. When this Republican administration came into office we were shipping about $1 billion worth of arms overseas, now ten to twelve billion dollars worth of arms overseas to countries that quite often use these weapons to fight each other. The shift in emphasis has been very disturbing to me, speaking about the Middle East. Under the last Democratic administration 60 percent of all weapons that went into the Middle East were for Israel. Nowadays – 75 percent were for Israel before. Now 60 percent go to the Arab countries, and this does not include Iran. If you include Iran, our present shipment of weapons to the Middle East, only 20 percent goes to Israel. This is a deviation from idealism; it’s a deviation from a commitment to our major ally in the Middle East, which is Israel; it’s a yielding to economic pressure on the part of the Arabs on the oil issue; and it’s also a tremendous indication that under the Ford administration we have not addressed the energy policy adequately. We still have no comprehensive energy policy in this country. And it’s an overall sign of weakness. When we are weak at home economically – high unemployment, high inflation, a confused government, a wasteful defense establishment, this encourages the kind of pressure that’s been put on us successfully. It would’ve been inconceivable ten – fifteen years ago, for us to be brought to our knees with an Arab oil embargo. But it was done three years ago and they’re still putting pressure on us from the Arab countries to our discredit around the world. These are the weaknesses that I see, and I believe it’s not just a matter of idealism. It’s a matter of being tough. It’s a matter of being strong. It’s a matter of being consistent. Our priorities ought to be first of all to meet our own military needs, secondly to meet the needs of our allies and friends, and only then should we ship military equipment to foreign countries. As a matter of fact, Iran is gonna get eighty F-14s before we even meet our own Air Force orders for F-l4s. And the shipment of Spruance-class destroyers to Iran are much more highly sophisticated than the Spruance-class destroyers that are present being delivered to our own Navy. This is ridiculous and it ought to be changed.MR. TREWHITT: Governor, let me pursue that if I may. If I understand you correctly you would in fact to use my examples, withhold arms from Iran and Saudi Arabia even if the risk was an oil embargo and if they should be securing those arms from somewhere else, and then if the embargo came, then you’d respond in kind. Do I have it correctly?MR. CARTER: If – Iran is not an Arab country, as you know, it is a Moslem country – but if Saudi Arabia should declare an oil embargo against us, then I would consider that an economic declaration of war. And I would make sure that the uh – Saudis understood this ahead of time so there would be no doubt in their mind. I think under those circumstances they would refrain from pushing us to our knees as they did in 1973 with their previous oil embargo.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford?MR. FORD: Governor Carter uh – apparently doesn’t realize that since I’ve been president we have sold to the Israelis over $4 billion in military hardware. We have made available to the Israelis over 45 percent of the total economic and military aid since the establishment of Israel twenty-seven years ago. So the Ford administration has done a good job in helping our good ally, Israel, and we’re dedicated to the survival and security of Israel. I believe that Governor Carter doesn’t realize the need and necessity for arms sales to Iran. He indicates he would not make those. Iran is bordered very extensively by the Soviet Union. Iran has Iraq as one of its neighbors. The Soviet Union and the Communist-dominated government of Iraq are neighbors of Iran, and Iran is an ally of the United States. It’s my strong feeling that we ought to sell arms to Iran for its own national security, and as an ally – a strong ally of the United States. The history of our relationship with Iran goes back to the days of President Truman when he decided that it was vitally necessary for our own security as well as that of Iran, that we should help that country, and Iran has been a good ally. In 1973 when there was an oil embargo, Iran did not participate. Iran continued to sell oil to the United States. I believe that it’s in our interest and in the interest of Israel and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, for the United States to sell arms to those countries. It’s for their security as well as ours.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Valeriani, a question for President Ford.MR. VALERIANI: Mr. President, the policy of your administration is to normalize relations with mainland China. And that means establishing at some point full diplomatic relations and obviously doing something about the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. If you are elected, will you move to establish full diplomatic relations with Peking, and will you abrogate the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan? And, as a corollary, would you provide mainland China with military equipment if the Chinese were to ask for it?MR. FORD: Our relationship with the People’s Republic of China is based upon the Shanghai Communique, of 1972, and that communique, calls for the normalization of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic. It doesn’t set a times schedule. It doesn’t uh – make a determination as to how uh – that relationship should be achieved in relationship to our current uhh – diplomatic recognition and obligations to the Taiwanese Government. The Shanghai Communique, does say that the differences between the People’s Republic on the one hand and Taiwan on the other shall be settled by peaceful means. The net result is this administration, and during my time as the president for the next four years, we will continue to move for normalization of relations in the traditional sense, and we will insist that the disputes between Taiwan and the People’s Republic be settled peacefully, as was agreed in the Shanghai Communique, of 1972. The Ford administration will not let down, will not eliminate or forget our obligation to the people of Taiwan. We feel that there must be a continued obligation to the people, the some nineteen or twenty million people in Taiwan. And as we move during the next four years, those will be the policies of this administration.MR. VALERIANI: And sir, the military equipment for the mainland Chinese?MR. FORD: There is no policy of this government to give to the People’s Republic, or to sell to the People’s Republic of China, military equipment. I do not believe that we, the United States, should sell, give or otherwise transfer military hardware to the People’s Republic of China, or any other Communist nation, such as the Soviet Union and the like.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, I’d like to go back just one moment to the previous question, where uh – Mr. Ford, I think, confused the issue by trying to say that we are shipping Israel 40 percent of our aid. As a matter of fact, during this current year uh we are shipping Iran, or have contracted to ship to Iran, about seven and a half billion dollars worth of arms and also to Saudi Arabia, about seven and a half billion dollars worth of arms. Also in 1975, we almost brought Israel to their knees after the uh – Yom Kippur War by the so-called reassessment of our relationship to Israel. We in effect tried to make Israel the scapegoat for the problems in the Middle East. And this weakened our relationships with Israel a great deal and put a cloud on the total commitment that our people feel toward the Israelis. There ought to be a clear, unequivocal commitment without change to Israel. In the Far East I think we need to continue to be uh – strong and uh – I would certainly uh – pursue the uh – normalization of uh – relationships with the People’s Republic of China. We opened a great opportunity in l972, which has pretty well been frittered – frit- frittered away under Mr. Ford, that ought to be a constant uh – inclination toward – uh – toward friendship. But I would never let that friendship with the People’s Republic of China stand in the way of the preservation of the independence and freedom of the people on Taiwan.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Frankel, a question for Governor Carter.MR. FRANKEL: Governor, we always seem in our elections, and maybe in between too, to argue about uh – who can be tougher in the world. Give or take a – a few billion dollars, give or take one weapons systems, our leading politicians, and I think you, too, gentlemen, seem to settle roughly on the same strategy in the world at roughly the same Pentagon budget cost. How bad do things have to get in our own economy, or how much backwardness and hunger would it take in the world to persuade you that our national security and our survival required very drastic cutbacks in arms spending and dramatic new efforts in other directions?MR. CARTER: Well, always in the past we’ve had an ability to have a strong defense and also have – to have a strong uh – domestic economy, and also to be strong in our reputation and influence within the community of nations. These uh – characteristics of our country have been endangered under Mr. Ford. We’re no longer respected in a showdown vote in the United Nations or in – in any other international council we’re lucky to get 20 percent of the other nations to vote with us. Our allies feel that we’ve neglected them. The so-called Nixon shock against Japan had weakened our relationships there. Under this administration we’ve also had an inclination to keep separate the European countries, thinking that if they are separate, then we can dominate them and proceed with our secret, Lone Ranger-type diplomatic efforts. I would uh – also like to point out that we, in this country, have let our economy go down the drain. The worst inflation since the Great Depression. The highest unemployment of any developed nation of the world. We have a higher unemployment rate in this country than Great Britain, and West Germany. Our unemployment rate is twice as high as it is in Italy; it’s three or four times as high as it is – as it is in Japan. And that terrible circumstance in this country is exported overseas. We comprise about 30 percent of the world’s economic trade power influence. And when we’re weak at home – weaker than all our allies – that weakness weakens the whole free world. So strong economy is very important. Another thing that we need to do is to reestablish the good relationships that we ought to have between the United States and our natural allies and friends. They have felt neglected. And using that base of strength, and using the idealism, the honesty, the predictability, the commitment, the integrity of our own country, that’s where our strength lies. And that would permit us to deal with the developing nations in a position of strength. Under this administration we’ve had a continuation of the so-called balance of power politics, where everything is looked on as a struggle between us on the one side, the Soviet Union on the other. Our allies – the smaller countries get trampled in the rush. What we need is to try to seek individualized bilateral relationships with countries, regardless of their size, and to establish world-order politics, which means that we want to preserve peace through strength. We also wanna revert back to the stature and the respect that our country had in previous administrations. Now, I can’t say when this can come. But I can guarantee it will not come if Gerald Ford is reelected and this present policy is continued; it will come if I’m elected.MR. FRANKEL: If I hear you right, sir, you’re saying guns and butter both, but President Johnson also had trouble uh – keeping up both Vietnam and his domestic programs. I was really asking when do the – the needs of the cities and our own needs and those of other backward an- and – and even more needy countries and societies around the world take precedence over some of our military spending? Ever?MR. CARTER: Well let me say very quickly that under President Johnson, in spite of the massive investment in the Vietnam War, he turned over a balanced budget to Mr. Nixon. The unemployment rate was less than 4 percent. The inflation rate under Kennedy and Johnson was about 2 percent – one-third what it is under this administration. So we did have at that time with good management, the ability to do both. I don’t think that anybody can say that Johnson and Kennedy neglected the poor and the destitute people in this country or around the world. But I can say this: The number one responsibility of any president, above all else, is to guarantee the security of our nation – an ability to be free of the threat of attack, or blackmail and to carry out our obligations to our allies and friends, and to carry out a legitimate foreign policy. They must go hand in hand, but the security of this nation has got to come first.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford.MR. FORD: Let me say very categorically you cannot maintain the security of the United States with the kind of defense budget cuts that Governor Carter has indicated. In 1975 he wanted to cut the budget $15 billion. He’s now down to a figure of five to seven billion dollars. Reductions of that kind will not permit the United States to be strong enough to deter aggression and maintain the peace. Governor Carter apparently doesn’t know the facts. As soon as I became president, I initiated a meeting with the NATO heads of state and met with them in Brussels to discuss how we could improve the re- defense relationship in Western Europe. In uh – November of 1975 I met with the leaders of the five industrial nations in France for the purpose of seeing what we could do acting together to meet the problems of uh – the coming recession. In Puerto Rico this year, I met with six of the leading industrial nations’ heads of state to meet the problem of inflation so we would be able to solve it before it got out of hand. I have met with the heads of government bilaterally as well as multilaterally. Our relations with Japan have never been better. I was the first United States president to visit Japan. And we uh – had the emperor of Japan here this uh – past year and the net result is Japan and the United States are working more closely together now than at any time in the history of our relationship. You can go around the world – and let me take Israel for example. Just recently, President Rabin said that our relations were never better.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Trewhitt, a question for President Ford.MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, uh – you referred earlier to your meeting with Mr. Brezhnev at Vladivostok in 1974. At – you agreed on that occasion to try to achieve another strategic arms limitation – SALT – agreement, ah – within the year. Ah – nothing happened in l975, or not very much publicly at least. And those talks are still dragging and things got quieter as the current season approached. Is there – is there a bit of politics involved there, perhaps on both sides? Or perhaps more important are interim weapons developments – and I’m thinking of such things as the cruise missile and the Soviet SS-20, an intermediate-range rocket – making SALT irrelevant, bypassing the SALT negotiations?MR. FORD: First we have to understand that SALT I expires October third 1977. Uh – Mr. Brezhnev and I met in Vladivostok in December of 1974 for the purpose of trying to take the initial step so we could have a SALT II agreement that would go to l985. As I indicated earlier, we did agree on a twenty-four-hundred limitation on uh – uh – launchers of ballistic missiles. Uh – that would mean a cutback in the Soviet program; it would not interfere with our own program. At the same time, we put a limitation of thirteen hundred and twenty on MIRVs. Our technicians have been working since that time in Geneva, trying to put into technical language a – an agreement that can be verified by both parties. In the meantime, there has developed the problem of the Soviet Backfire – their high-performance aircraft which they say is not a long-range aircraft and which some of our people say is a intercontinental aircraft. In the interim, there has been the development on our part primarily, the cruise missiles; cruise missiles that could be launched from land-based mobile installations; cruise missiles that could be launched – launched from high-performance aircraft, like the B-52s or the B-1s, which I hope we proceed with; cruise missiles which could be launched from either surface or submarine uh – naval vessels. Those gray-area weapons systems are creating some problems in a – the agreement for a SALT II negotiation. But I can say that I am dedicated to proceeding, and I met just last week with the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, and he indicated to me that uh – the Soviet Union was interested in narrowing the differences and making a realistic and a sound compromise. I hope and trust, in the best interest of both countries, and in the best interests of all people throughout this globe, that the Soviet Union and the United States can make a mutually beneficial agreement. Because if we do not and SALT I expires on October three, 1977, you will unleash again an all-out nuclear arms race with the potential of a nuclear holocaust of unbelievable dimensions. So it’s the obligation of the president to do just that, and I intend to do so.MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, let me follow that up by – I’ll submit that the cruise missile adds a – a whole new dimension to the – to the arms competition – and then cite a statement by your office to the Arms Control Association a few days ago in which you said the cruise missile might eventually be included in a comprehensive arms limitation agreement but that in the meantime it was an essential of the American strategic arsenal. Now, uh – may I assume that from that you’re tending to exclude the cruise missile from the next SALT agreement, or is it still negotiable in that context?MR. FORD: I believe that the cruise missiles which we are now developing in research and development across the spectrum from air, from the sea, or from the land, uh – can be uh – included within a SALT II agreement. They are a new weapons system that has a great potential, both conventional and nuclear armed. At the same time, we have to make certain that the Soviet Union’s Backfire, which they claim is not an intercontinental aircraft and which some of our people contend is, must also be included if we are to get the kind of agreement which is in the best interest of both countries. And I really believe that it – it’s far better for us and for the Soviet Union, and more importantly for the people around the world, that these two superpowers find an answer for a SALT II agreement before October three, 1977. I think good will on both parts, hard bargaining by both parties and a reasonable compromise will be in the best interests of all parties.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford acts like he’s uh – running for president for the first time. He’s been in office two years, and there has been absolutely no progress made toward a new SALT agreement. He has learned the date of the expiration of SALT I, apparently. We’ve seen, in this world, a development of a tremendous threat to us. As a nuclear engineer myself, I know the limitations and capabilities of atomic power. I also – know that as far as the human beings on this earth are concerned that the nonproliferation of atomic weapons is number one. Only the last few days with the election approaching, has Mr. Ford taken any interest in a nonproliferation movement. I advocated last May in a speech at the United Nations that we move immediately as a nation to declare a complete moratorium on the testing of all nuclear devices, both weapons and peaceful devices; that we not ship any more atomic fuel to a country that refuses to comply with strict controls over the waste which can be reprocessed into explosives. I’ve also advocated that we stop the sale by Germany and France of – processing plants for Pakistan and Brazil. Mr. Ford hasn’t moved on this. We also need to provide an adequate supply of enriched uranium. Mr. Ford, again, under pressure from the atomic energy lobby, has insisted that this reprocessing or rather re-en- enrichment be done by private industry and not by the existing uh – government uh – plants. This kind of confusion and absence of leadership has let us drift now for two years with a constantly increasing threat of atomic weapons throughout the world. We now have five nations that have atomic bombs that we know about. If we continue under Mr. Ford’s policy by 1985 or ’90 we’ll have twenty nations that have the capability of exploding atomic weapons. This has got to be stopped. That is one of the major challenges and major undertakings that I will assume as the next president.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Valeriani, a question for Governor Carter.MR. VALERIANI: Governor Carter, earlier tonight you said America is not strong any more; America is not respected any more. And I feel that I must ask you: Do you really believe that the United States is not the strongest country in the world, do you really believe that the United States is not the most respected country in the world? Or is that just campaign rhetoric?MR. CARTER: No, it’s not just campaign rhetoric. I think that militarily we are as strong as any nation on earth. I think we got to stay that way and continue to increase our capabilities to meet any potential threat. But as far as strength derived from commitment to principles, as far as strength derived from the unity within our country, as far as strength derived from the people, the Congress, the secretary of state, the president, sharing in the evolution and carrying-out of a foreign policy, as far as strength derived from the respect of our own allies and friends, their assurance that we will be staunch in our commitment, that we will not deviate and that we’ll give them adequate attention, as far as – as strength derived from doing what’s right – caring for the poor, providing food, becoming the breadbasket of the world instead of the arms merchant of the world – in those respects, we’re not strong. Also, we’ll never be strong again overseas, unless we’re strong at home. And with our economy in such terrible disarray and getting worse by the month. We’ve got five-hundred thousand more Americans unemployed today than we had three months ago. We’ve got two and a half million more Americans out of work now than we had when Mr. Ford took office. This kind of deterioration in our economic strength is bound to weaken us around the world. And we not only have uh problems at home but we export those problems overseas. So as far as the respect of our own people toward our own government, as far as participating in the shaping of uh – concepts and commitments, as far as the trust of our country among the nations of the world, as far as dependence of our country in meeting the needs and obligations that we’ve expressed to our allies, as far as the respect of our country – even among our potential adversaries – we are weak. Potentially we’re strong. Under this administration that strength has not been realized.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford.MR. FORD: Governor Carter uh – brags about the unemployment during Democratic administrations and condemns the unemployment at the present time. I must remind him that we’re at peace and during the period that he brags about unemployment being low, the United States was at war. Now let me correct one other comment that uh – Governor Carter has made. I have recommended to the Congress that we develop the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, which is a publicly owned – U.S. government facility and have indicated that the private program which would follow on in Alabama is one that may or may not uhh – be constructed. But I am committed to the one at Portsmouth, Ohio. The governor also talks about morality in foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States meets the highest standards of morality. What is more moral than peace, and the United States is at peace today? What is more moral in foreign policy than for the administration to take the lead in the World Food Conference in Rome in 1974 when the United States committed six million metric tons of food – over 60 percent of the food committed for the disadvantaged and underdeveloped nations of the world? The Ford administration wants to eradicate hunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries throughout the world. What is more moral than for the United States under the Ford administration to take the lead in southern Africa, in the Middle East? Those are initiatives in foreign policy which are of the highest moral standard and that is indicative of the foreign policy of this country.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Frankel, a question for President Ford.MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, can we stick with morality? Uh – for a lot of people it seems to cover uh – a bunch of sins. Uh – Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger used to tell us that instead of morality we had to worry in the – in the world about living and letting live all kinds of governments that we really don’t like. North and South Korean dictators, Chilean fascists, uh – Chinese Communists, Iranian emperors and so on. They said the only way to get by in a wicked world was to treat others on the basis of how they treated us and not how they treated their own people. But more recently, uhh – we seemed to’ve taken a different tack. Uhh – we’ve seemed to have decided that it – that it is part of our business to tell the Rhodesians, for instance, that the way they’re treating their own black people is wrong and they’ve got to change their government and we’ve put pressure an them. We were rather liberal in our advice to the Italians as to how to vote. Umm – is this a new Ford foreign policy in the making? Can we expect that you are now going to turn to South Africa and force them to change their governments, to intervene in similar ways to end the bloodshed, as you called it, say, in Chile or Chilean prisons, and throw our weight around for the – for the values that – that we hold dear in the world?MR. FORD: I believe that uh – our foreign policy must express the highest standards of morality. And the initiatives that we took in southern Africa are the best examples of what this administration is doing and will continue to do in the next four years. If the United States had not moved when we did in southern Africa, there’s no doubt there would have been an acceleration of bloodshed in that tragic part of the world. If we had not taken our initiative, it’s very, very possible that uh – the government of Rhodesia would have been overrun and that the Soviet Union and the Cubans would have dominated uh – southern Africa. So the United States, seeking to preserve the principle of self-determination, to eliminate the possibility of bloodshed, to protect the rights of the minority as we insisted upon the rights of the majority, uh – I believe followed the good conscience of the American people in foreign policy. And I believe that we used our skill. Secretary of State Kissinger has done a superb job in working with the black African nations, the so-called front-line nations. He has done a superb job in getting the prime minister of South Africa, Mr. Vorster, to agree that the time had come for a solution to the problem of Rhodesia. Secretary Kissinger, in his meeting with uh – Prime Minister Smith of Rhodesia, was able to convince him that it was in the best interests of whites as well as blacks in Rhodesia to find an answer for a transitional government and then a majority government. This is a perfect example of the kind of leadership that the United States, under this administration, has taken. And I can assure you that this administration will follow that high moral principle in our future efforts in foreign policy, including our efforts in the Middle East where it is vitally important because the Middle East is the crossroads of the world. There’ve been more disputes in its area where there’s more volatility than any other place in the world. But because Arab nations and the Israelis trust the United States, we were able to take the lead in the Sinai II Agreement. And I can assure you that the United States will have the leadership role in moving toward a comprehensive settlement of the Middle Eastern problems, I hope and trust as soon as possible. And we will do it with the highest moral principles.MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, just clarify one paint: There are lots of majorities in the world that feel they’re being pushed around by minority governments. And are you saying they can now expect to look to us for not just good cheer but throwing our weight on their side – in South Africa, or on Taiwan, or in Chile, uh – to help change their governments, as in Rhodesia?MR. FORD: I would hope that as we move to one area of the world from another – and the United States must not spread itself too thinly – that was one of the problems that helped to create the circumstances in Vietnam – but as we as a nation find that we are asked by the various parties, either one nation against another or individuals within a nation, that the United States will take the leadership and try to resolve the differences. Let me take uh – South Korea as an example. I have personally told President Pack that the United States does not condone the kind of repressive measures that he has taken in that country. But I think in all fairness and equity we have to recognize the problem that South Korea has. On the north they have North Korea with five hundred thousand well-trained, well-equipped troops – they are supported by the People’s Republic of China; they are supported by the Soviet Union. South Korea faces a very delicate situation. Now the United States, in this case, this administration, has recommended a year ago and we have reiterated it again this year, that the United States, South Korea, North Korea and the uh – People’s Republic of China sit down at a conference table to resolve the problems of the Korean peninsula. This is a leadership role that the United States under this administration is carrying out, and if we do it, and I think the opportunities and the possibilities are getting better, we will have solved many of the internal domestic problems that exist in South Korea at the present time.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: I notice that Mr. Ford didn’t comment on the uh – prisons in Chile. This is an – a typical example, maybe of many others, where this administration overthrew an elected government and helped to establish a military dictatorship. This has not been an ancient history story. Last year under Mr. Ford, of all the Food for Peace that went to South America, 85 percent went to the military dictatorship in Chile. Another point I wanna make is this. He says we have to move from one area of the world to another. That’s one of the problems with this administration’s so-called shuttle diplomacy. While the secretary of state’s in one country, there are almost a hundred and fifty others that are wondering what we’re gonna do next, what will be the next secret agreement. We don’t have a comprehensive understandable foreign policy that deals with world problems or even regional problems. Another thing that concerned me was what Mr. Ford said about unemployment, that – insinuating that under Johnson and Kennedy that unemployment could only be held down when this country is at war. Karl Marx said that the free enterprise system in a democracy can only continue to exist when they are at war or preparing far war. Karl Marx was the grandfather of Communism. I don’t agree with that statement. I hope Mr. Ford doesn’t either. He has put pressure on the Congress – and I don’t believe Mr. Ford would even deny this – to hold up on nonproliferation legislation until the Congress agreed for an $8 billion program for private industry to start producing enriched uranium. And the last thing I wanna make is this. He talks about peace and I’m thankful for peace. We were peaceful when Mr. Ford went into office. But he and Mr. Kissinger and others tried to start a new Vietnam in Angola, and it was only the outcry of the American people and the Congress when their secret deal was discovered that prevented our involvement in that conflagration which was taking place there.MS. FREDERICK: Gentlemen, I’m sorry we do not have time enough for two complete sequences of questions. We now have only twelve minutes left. Therefore, I would like to ask for shorter questions and shorter answers. And we also will drop the follow-up question. Each candidate may still respond, of course, to the other’s answer. Mr. Trewhitt, a question for Governor Carter.MR. TREWHITT: Governor Carter, before this event the most communications I received concerned Panama. Is – would you as president be prepared to sign a treaty which at a fixed date yielded administrative and economic control of the Canal Zone and shared defense, which, as I understand it, is the position the United States took in 1974?MR. CARTER: Well, here again, uh – the Panamanian question is one that’s been confused by Mr. Ford. Uh – he had directed his uh – diplomatic relation – uh – uh – representative to yield to the Panamanians full sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the end of a certain period of time. When Mr. Reagan raised this uh – question in Florida uh – Mr. Ford not only disavowed his instructions, but he also even dropped, parenthetically, the use of the word “detente.” I would never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone, but I would continue to negotiate with the Panamanians. When the original treaty was signed back in the early 1900s, when Theodore Roosevelt was president, Panama retained sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. We retained control as though we had sovereignty. Now I would be willing to go ahead with negotiations. I believe that we could share more fully responsibilities for the Panama Canal Zone with Panama. I would be willing to continue to raise the payment for shipment of goods through the Panama Canal Zone. I might even be willing to reduce to some degree our military emplacements in the Panama Canal Zane, but I would not relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zane any time in the foreseeable future.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford.MR. FORD: The United States must and will maintain complete access to the Panama Canal. The United States must maintain a defense capability of the Panama Canal. And the United States will maintain our national security interest in the Panama Canal. The negotiations far the Panama Canal started under President Johnson and have continued up to the present time. I believe those negotiations should continue. But there are certain guidelines that must be followed, and I’ve just defined them. Let me take just a minute to comment on something that Governor Carter said. On non – nu- oh – uh – nonproliferation, in May of l975, I called for a conference of uh – nuclear suppliers. That conference has met six times. In May of this year, Governor Carter took the first initiative, approximately twelve months after I had taken my initiative a year ago.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Valeriani, a question for President Ford.MR. VALERIANI: Mr. President, the Government Accounting Office has just put out a report suggesting that you shot from the hip in the Mayaguez rescue mission and that you ignored diplomatic messages saying that a peaceful solution was in prospect. Uh – why didn’t you do more diplomatically at the time; and a related question: Did the White House try to prevent the release of that report?MR. FORD: The White House did not uh – prevent the release of that report. On July twelfth of this year, we gave full permission for the release of that report. I was very disappointed in the fact that the uh – GAO released that report because I think it interjected political partisan politics at the present time. But let me comment on the report. Somebody who sits in Washington, D.C., eighteen months after the Mayaguez incident, can be a very good grandstand quarterback. And let me make another observation. This morning, I got a call from the skipper of the Mayaguez. He was furious because he told me that it was the action of me, President Ford, that saved the lives of the crew of the Mayaguez. And I can assure you that if we had not taken the strong and forceful action that we did, we would have been uh – criticized very, very uh – severely for sitting back and not moving. Captain Miller is thankful. The crew is thankful. We did the right thing. It seems to me that those who sit in Washington eighteen months after the incident are not the best judges of the decision-making process that had to be made by the National Security Council and by myself at the time the incident was developing in the Pacific. Let me assure you that we made every possible overture to the People’s Republic of China and through them to the Cambodian Government. We made uh – diplomatic uh – protests to the Cambodian government through the United Nations. Every possible diplomatic means was utilized. But at the same time, I had a responsibility, and so did the National Security Coun- Council, to meet the problem at hand. And we handled it responsibly and I think Captain Miller’s testimony to that effect is the best evidence.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: Well, I’m reluctant to uh comment on the recent report – I haven’t read it. I think the American people have only one – uh requirement – that the facts about Mayaguez be given to them accurately and completely. Mr. Ford has been there for eighteen months. He had the facts that were released today immediately after the Mayaguez incident. I understand that the report today is accurate. Mr. Ford has said, I believe, that it was accurate, and that the White House made no attempt to block the issuing of that report. I don’t know if that’s exactly accurate or not. I understand that both the – the uh – Department of State and the Defense Department have approved the accuracy of today’s report, or yesterday’s report, and also the National Security Agency. I don’t know what was right, or what was wrong, or what was done. The only thing I believe is that whatever the – the knowledge was that Mr. Ford had should have been given to the American people eighteen months ago, immediately after the Mayaguez uh – incident occurred. This is uh – what the American people want. When something happens that endangers our security, or when something happens that threatens our stature in the world, or when American people are endangered by the actions of a foreign country, uh – just forty uh sailors on the Mayaguez, we obviously have to move aggressively and quickly to rescue them. But then after the immediate action is taken, I believe the president has an obligation to tell the American people the truth and not wait eighteen months later for the report to be issued.MS. FREDERICK: Gentlemen, at this time we have time for only two very short questions. Mr. Frankel, a question for Governor Carter.MR. FRANKEL: Governor Carter, if the price of uh – gaining influence among the Arabs is closing our eyes a little bit to their boycott against Israel, how would you handle that?MR. CARTER: I believe that the boycott of American businesses by the Arab countries because those businesses trade with Israel or because they have American Jews who are owners or directors in the company is an absolute disgrace. This is the first time that I’ve – remember in the history of our country when we’ve let a foreign country circumvent or change our Bill of Rights. I’ll do everything I can as president to stop the boycott of American businesses by the Arab countries. It’s not a matter of diplomacy or trade with me. It’s a matter of morality. And I don’t believe that Arab countries will pursue it when we have a strong president who will protect the integrity of our country, the commitment of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and protect people in this country who happen to be Jews. It may later be Catholics; it may be – later be Baptists who are threatened by some foreign country. But we ought to stand staunch. And I think it’s a disgrace that so far Mr. Ford’s administration has blocked the passage of legislation that would’ve revealed by law every instance of the boycott and it would’ve prevented the boycott from continuing.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford.MR. FORD: Again Governor Carter is inaccurate. The Arab boycott action was first taken in 1952. And in November of 1975 I was the first president to order the executive branch to take action, affirmative action, through the Department of Commerce and other cabinet departments, to make certain that no American businessman or business organization should discriminate against Jews because of an Arab boycott. And I might add that uh – my administration – and I’m very proud of it – is the first administration that has taken an antitrust action against companies in this country that have allegedly cooperated with the Arab boycott. Just on Monday of this week I signed a tax bill that included an amendment that would prevent companies in the United States from taking a tax deduction if they have in any way whatsoever cooperated with the Arab boycott. And last week when we were trying to get the Export Administration Act through the Congress – necessary legislation – my administration went to Capitol Hill and tried to convince the House and the Senate that we should have an amendment on that legislation which would take strong and effective action against those who uh – participate or cooperate with the Arab uh boycott. One other point. Because the Congress failed to act, I am going to announce tomorrow that the Department of Commerce will disclose those companies that have uh – participated in the Arab boycott. This is something that we can do; the Congress failed to do it, and we intend to do it.MS. FREDERICK: Mr. Trewhitt, a very brief question for President Ford.MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, if you get the accounting of missing in action you want from North Vietnam – or from Vietnam, I’m sorry, now would you then be prepared to reopen negotiations for restoration of relations with that country?MR. FORD: Let me restate uh – our policy. As long as Vietnam, North Vietnam, does not give us a full and complete accounting of our missing in action, I will never uh – go along with the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations. If they do give us a bona fide, complete uh – accounting of the eight hundred MIA’s, then I believe that the United States should begin negotiations for the uh – admission of Vietnam to the United Nations. But not until they have given us the full accounting of our MIAs.MS. FREDERICK: Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: One of the uh – most embarrassing uh – failures of the Ford administration, and one that touches specifically on human rights, is his refusal to appoint a presidential commission to go to Vietnam, to go to Laos, to go to Cambodia and try to trade for the release of information about those who are missing in action in those wars. This is what the families of MIAs want. So far, Mr. Ford has not done it. We’ve had several fragmentary efforts by members of the Congress and by – by private citizens. Several months ago the Vietnam government said, “We are ready to sit down and negotiate for release of information on MIAs. So far, Mr. Ford has not responded. I would never normalize relationships with Vietnam, nor permit them to join the United Nations until they’ve taken this action. But that’s not enough. We need to have an active and aggressive action on the part of the president, the leader of his country, to seek out every possible way to get that information which has kept the MIA families in despair and doubt, and Mr. Ford has just not done it.MS. FREDERICK: Thank you Governor Carter. That completes the questioning for this evening. Each candidate now has up to three minutes for a closing statement. It was determined by the toss of a coin that Governor Carter would take the first question, and he now goes first with his closing remarks. Governor Carter.MR. CARTER: The purpose of this debate and the outcome of the election will determine three basic things: Leadership, upholding the principles of our country, and proper priorities and commitments for the future. This election will also determine what kind of world we leave our children. Will it be a nightmare world threatened with the proliferation of atomic bombs, not just in five major countries but dozens of smaller countries that have been permitted to develop atomic weapons because of a failure of our top leadership to stop proliferation? Will we have a world of hunger and – and hatred, and will we be living in an armed camp stripped of our friendship and allies hiding behind a tight defense that’s been drawn in around us because we are fearful of the outside world? Will we have a government of secrecy that excludes the American people from participation in making basic decisions and therefore covers up mistakes and makes it possible for our government – our government – to depart from the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or will we have a world of peace with the threat of atomic weapons eliminated, with full trade, with our people at work, inflation controlled, openness in government, our people proud once again, Congress, citizens, president, secretary of state working in harmony and unity toward a common future? Or world where people have enough to eat and a world where we care about those who don’t? Can we become a breadbasket of the world instead of the arms merchant of the world? I believe we can and we ought to. Now we’ve been hurt in recent years in this country. In the aftermath of Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Pakistan, Angola, Watergate, CIA, we’ve been hurt. Our people feel that we’ve lost something precious. That’s not necessary. I wanna see our nation – return to a posture and an image and a standard to make us proud once again. I remember the world with NATO, and the world of Point Four, and the world of the Marshall Plan, and the world of the Peace Corps. Why can’t we have that once again? We ought to be a beacon for nations who search for peace and who search for freedom, who search for individual liberty, who search for basic human rights. We haven’t been lately. We can be once again. We’ll never have that world leadership until we are strong at home, and we can have that strength if we return to the basic principles. It ought not to be a strength of bombast and threats. It ought to be a quiet strength based on the integrity of our people, the vision of the Constitution, an in- innate strong will and purpose that God’s given us in the greatest nation on earth – the United States.MS. FREDERICK: President Ford.MR. FORD: As we have seen tonight, foreign policy and defense policy are difficult and complex issues. We can debate methods, we can debate one decision or another, but there are two uh things which cannot be debated – experience and results. In the last two years, I have made policy decisions involving – long-range difficulties and policies and made day-to-day judgments not only as president of the United States but as the leader of the free world What is the result of that leadership? America is strong. America is free. America is respected. Not a single young American today is fighting or dying on any foreign battlefield. America is at peace and with freedom. Thank you, and good night.MS. FREDERICK: Thank you, President Ford. Thank you, Governor Carter. I also want to thank our questioners and the audience here this evening. The third and final debate between President Ford and Governor Carter will take place on October the twenty-second at nine-thirty P.M. Eastern daylight time on the campus of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The subject matter will cover all issues. These debates are sponsored by the League of Women Voters Education Fund to help voters become better informed on the issues and to generate greater voter turnout in the November election. Now, from the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco, good night.",
    "id": "023ae9c8-80a5-486b-b8be-b7f3518374c6"
  },
  {
    "year": 2016,
    "date": "September 26, 2016",
    "title": "The First Clinton-Trump Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 26, 2016 Debate TranscriptPresidential Debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New YorkSeptember 26, 2016PARTICIPANTS:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) andBusinessman Donald Trump (R)MODERATOR:Lester Holt (NBC News)HOLT: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I’m Lester Holt, anchor of “NBC Nightly News.” I want to welcome you to the first presidential debate.The participants tonight are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight’s format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns.The 90-minute debate is divided into six segments, each 15 minutes long. We’ll explore three topic areas tonight: Achieving prosperity; America’s direction; and securing America. At the start of each segment, I will ask the same lead-off question to both candidates, and they will each have up to two minutes to respond. From that point until the end of the segment, we’ll have an open discussion.The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns. The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.I will invite you to applaud, however, at this moment, as we welcome the candidates: Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. [applause]CLINTON: How are you, Donald? [applause]HOLT: Good luck to you. [applause]Well, I don’t expect us to cover all the issues of this campaign tonight, but I remind everyone, there are two more presidential debates scheduled. We are going to focus on many of the issues that voters tell us are most important, and we’re going to press for specifics. I am honored to have this role, but this evening belongs to the candidates and, just as important, to the American people.Candidates, we look forward to hearing you articulate your policies and your positions, as well as your visions and your values. So, let’s begin.We’re calling this opening segment “Achieving Prosperity.” And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There’s been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.Beginning with you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American workers?CLINTON: Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to Hofstra for hosting us.The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together. Today is my granddaughter’s second birthday, so I think about this a lot. First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes.I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women’s work.I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work. I’ve heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you’re under. So let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let’s be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college.How are we going to do it? We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.Finally, we tonight are on the stage together, Donald Trump and I. Donald, it’s good to be with you. We’re going to have a debate where we are talking about the important issues facing our country. You have to judge us, who can shoulder the immense, awesome responsibilities of the presidency, who can put into action the plans that will make your life better. I hope that I will be able to earn your vote on November 8th.HOLT: Secretary Clinton, thank you.Mr. Trump, the same question to you. It’s about putting money—more money into the pockets of American workers. You have up to two minutes.TRUMP: Thank you, Lester. Our jobs are fleeing the country. They’re going to Mexico. They’re going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They’re devaluing their currency, and there’s nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they’re using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.So we’re losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what’s happening in Mexico, a friend of mine who builds plants said it’s the eighth wonder of the world. They’re building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much.So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They’re all leaving. And we can’t allow it to happen anymore. As far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that. We probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and what we’re going to do, but perhaps we’ll be talking about that later.But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and, with it, firing all of their people. All you have to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis. They left—fired 1,400 people. They’re going to Mexico. So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this.We cannot let it happen. Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.Companies will come. They will build. They will expand. New companies will start. And I look very, very much forward to doing it. We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs.HOLT: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond?CLINTON: Well, I think that trade is an important issue. Of course, we are 5 percent of the world’s population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals.We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we’ve ever had.I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that’s exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.We just have a different view about what’s best for growing the economy, how we make investments that will actually produce jobs and rising incomes.I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that’s all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there.I don’t buy that. I have a different experience. My father was a small-businessman. He worked really hard. He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going.And so what I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we’ll grow. That’s the kind of economy I want us to see again.HOLT: Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if I can. You’ve talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you’ve promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?TRUMP: Well, for one thing—and before we start on that—my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs.Our country’s in deep trouble. We don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to devaluations and all of these countries all over the world, especially China. They’re the best, the best ever at it. What they’re doing to us is a very, very sad thing.So we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals. And, Lester, they’re taking our jobs, they’re giving incentives, they’re doing things that, frankly, we don’t do.Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in—automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it.Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton—yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me.But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. She’s been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn’t she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact…HOLT: Let me interrupt just a moment, but…TRUMP: Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now, because of the fact that we’ve created a movement. They should have been doing this for years. What’s happened to our jobs and our country and our economy generally is—look, we owe $20 trillion. We cannot do it any longer, Lester.HOLT: Back to the question, though. How do you bring back—specifically bring back jobs, American manufacturers? How do you make them bring the jobs back?TRUMP: Well, the first thing you do is don’t let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them. They’re leaving, and they’re leaving in bigger numbers than ever.And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you’re going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you’re wrong.And once you say you’re going to have to tax them coming in, and our politicians never do this, because they have special interests and the special interests want those companies to leave, because in many cases, they own the companies. So what I’m saying is, we can stop them from leaving. We have to stop them from leaving. And that’s a big, big factor.HOLT: Let me let Secretary Clinton get in here.CLINTON: Well, let’s stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, “Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” Well, it did collapse.TRUMP: That’s called business, by the way.CLINTON: Nine million people—nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we’re now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy, but the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place.Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.TRUMP: I did not. I did not. I do not say that.CLINTON: I think science is real.TRUMP: I do not say that.CLINTON: And I think it’s important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here’s what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new economic activity.So I’ve tried to be very specific about what we can and should do, and I am determined that we’re going to get the economy really moving again, building on the progress we’ve made over the last eight years, but never going back to what got us in trouble in the first place.HOLT: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one.Now, look, I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt. You can’t do what you’re looking to do with $20 trillion in debt.The Obama administration, from the time they’ve come in, is over 230 years’ worth of debt, and he’s topped it. He’s doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact.So I will tell you this. We have to do a much better job at keeping our jobs. And we have to do a much better job at giving companies incentives to build new companies or to expand, because they’re not doing it.And all you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving, they’re gone.And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you’ve been doing it, and now you’re just starting to think of solutions.CLINTON: Well, actually…TRUMP: I will bring—excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can’t bring back jobs.CLINTON: Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.TRUMP: Yeah, for 30 years.CLINTON: And I have—well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again…TRUMP: Well, he approved NAFTA…[crosstalk]CLINTON: … million new jobs, a balanced budget…TRUMP: He approved NAFTA, which is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.CLINTON: Incomes went up for everybody. Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we’re actually going to look at the facts.When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them I voted for. The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals.But let’s not assume that trade is the only challenge we have in the economy. I think it is a part of it, and I’ve said what I’m going to do. I’m going to have a special prosecutor. We’re going to enforce the trade deals we have, and we’re going to hold people accountable.When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs.HOLT: Very quickly…TRUMP: But you haven’t done it in 30 years or 26 years or any number you want to…CLINTON: Well, I’ve been a senator, Donald…TRUMP: You haven’t done it. You haven’t done it.CLINTON: And I have been a secretary of state…TRUMP: Excuse me.CLINTON: And I have done a lot…TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.CLINTON: Well, that’s your opinion. That is your opinion.TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can’t win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in…TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.[crosstalk]TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.CLINTON: No.TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are—I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated…TRUMP: Not.CLINTON: … which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t. I wrote about that in my book…TRUMP: So is it President Obama’s fault?CLINTON: … before you even announced.TRUMP: Is it President Obama’s fault?CLINTON: Look, there are differences…TRUMP: Secretary, is it President Obama’s fault?CLINTON: There are…TRUMP: Because he’s pushing it.CLINTON: There are different views about what’s good for our country, our economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it’s important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That’s why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt.TRUMP: But you have no plan.CLINTON: But in—oh, but I do.TRUMP: Secretary, you have no plan.CLINTON: In fact, I have written a book about it. It’s called “Stronger Together.” You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore…TRUMP: That’s about all you’ve…[crosstalk]HOLT: Folks, we’re going to…CLINTON: … or at an airport near you.HOLT: We’re going to move to…CLINTON: But it’s because I see this—we need to have strong growth, fair growth, sustained growth. We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business.So we have a very robust set of plans. And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3.5 million jobs, and explode the debt which would have a recession.TRUMP: You are going to approve one of the biggest tax cuts in history. You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history. You are going to drive business out. Your regulations are a disaster, and you’re going to increase regulations all over the place.And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I’m very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.When I go around—Lester, I tell you this, I’ve been all over. And when I go around, despite the tax cut, the thing—the things that business as in people like the most is the fact that I’m cutting regulation. You have regulations on top of regulations, and new companies cannot form and old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the regulations and make them even worse.I’m going to cut regulations. I’m going to cut taxes big league, and you’re going to raise taxes big league, end of story.HOLT: Let me get you to pause right there, because we’re going to move into—we’re going to move into the next segment. We’re going to talk taxes…CLINTON: That can’t—that can’t be left to stand.HOLT: Please just take 30 seconds and then we’re going to go on.CLINTON: I kind of assumed that there would be a lot of these charges and claims, and so…TRUMP: Facts.CLINTON: So we have taken the home page of my website, HillaryClinton.com, and we’ve turned it into a fact-checker. So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look. Because what I have proposed…TRUMP: And take a look at mine, also, and you’ll see.CLINTON: … would not add a penny to the debt, and your plans would add $5 trillion to the debt. What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses. What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it’s time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country.HOLT: Well, you just opened the next segment.TRUMP: Well, could I just finish—I think I…[crosstalk]HOLT: I’m going to give you a chance right here…TRUMP: I think I should—you go to her website, and you take a look at her website.HOLT: … with a new 15-minute segment…TRUMP: She’s going to raise taxes $1.3 trillion.HOLT: Mr. Trump, I’m going to…TRUMP: And look at her website. You know what? It’s no difference than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.HOLT: The next segment, we’re continuing…CLINTON: Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS.HOLT: … achieving prosperity…TRUMP: No, no, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do.CLINTON: No, we’re not. No, we’re not.TRUMP: See, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you’ve been fighting—no wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.CLINTON: That’s a—that’s—go to the—please, fact checkers, get to work.HOLT: OK, you are unpacking a lot here. And we’re still on the issue of achieving prosperity. And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy.Secretary Clinton, you’re calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I’d like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Trump.TRUMP: Well, I’m really calling for major jobs, because the wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies. They’re going to do a tremendous job.I’m getting rid of the carried interest provision. And if you really look, it’s not a tax—it’s really not a great thing for the wealthy. It’s a great thing for the middle class. It’s a great thing for companies to expand.And when these people are going to put billions and billions of dollars into companies, and when they’re going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, where they can’t bring the money back, because politicians like Secretary Clinton won’t allow them to bring the money back, because the taxes are so onerous, and the bureaucratic red tape, so what—is so bad.So what they’re doing is they’re leaving our country, and they’re, believe it or not, leaving because taxes are too high and because some of them have lots of money outside of our country. And instead of bringing it back and putting the money to work, because they can’t work out a deal to—and everybody agrees it should be brought back.Instead of that, they’re leaving our country to get their money, because they can’t bring their money back into our country, because of bureaucratic red tape, because they can’t get together. Because we have—we have a president that can’t sit them around a table and get them to approve something.And here’s the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it’s double that. It’s probably $5 trillion that we can’t bring into our country, Lester. And with a little leadership, you’d get it in here very quickly, and it could be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton.HOLT: All right. You have two minutes of the same question to defend tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary Clinton.CLINTON: I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I’m going to be blamed for everything that’s ever happened.TRUMP: Why not?CLINTON: Why not? Yeah, why not? [laughter]You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things. Now, let me say this, it is absolutely the case…TRUMP: There’s nothing crazy about not letting our companies bring their money back into their country.HOLT: This is—this is Secretary Clinton’s two minutes, please.TRUMP: Yes.CLINTON: Yeah, well, let’s start the clock again, Lester. We’ve looked at your tax proposals. I don’t see changes in the corporate tax rates or the kinds of proposals you’re referring to that would cause the repatriation, bringing back of money that’s stranded overseas. I happen to support that.TRUMP: Then you didn’t read it.CLINTON: I happen to—I happen to support that in a way that will actually work to our benefit. But when I look at what you have proposed, you have what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. You’ve proposed an approach that has a…TRUMP: Who gave it that name? The first I’ve—who gave it that name?[crosstalk]HOLT: Mr. Trump, this is Secretary Clinton’s two minutes.CLINTON: … $4 billion tax benefit for your family. And when you look at what you are proposing…TRUMP: How much? How much for my family?CLINTON: … it is…TRUMP: Lester, how much?CLINTON: … as I said, trumped-up trickle-down. Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked.And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class.I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their—their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top.HOLT: Mr. Trump, we’re…TRUMP: Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what’s going on.Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We’re in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that’s going to come crashing down.We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political—by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.HOLT: Mr. Trump, we’re talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to—who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?TRUMP: I don’t mind releasing—I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And—as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income—in fact, the income—I just looked today—the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.But that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs. When we have a country that’s doing so badly, that’s being ripped off by every single country in the world, it’s the kind of thinking that our country needs, because everybody—Lester, we have a trade deficit with all of the countries that we do business with, of almost $800 billion a year. You know what that is? That means, who’s negotiating these trade deals?We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals.HOLT: The IRS says an audit…TRUMP: Excuse me.HOLT: … of your taxes—you’re perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. And so the question, does the public’s right to know outweigh your personal…TRUMP: Well, I told you, I will release them as soon as the audit. Look, I’ve been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year.And in a way, I should be complaining. I’m not even complaining. I don’t mind it. It’s almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don’t.I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns—against my lawyer’s wishes—when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release. [applause]I will release my tax returns. And that’s against—my lawyers, they say, “Don’t do it.” I will tell you this. No—in fact, watching shows, they’re reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don’t release your returns until the audit’s complete. When the audit’s complete, I’ll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails.HOLT: So it’s negotiable?TRUMP: It’s not negotiable, no. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33,000…HOLT: Well, I’ll let her answer that. But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I think you’ve just seen another example of bait-and- switch here. For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. We know the IRS has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you’re under audit.So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be.Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody’s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.TRUMP: That makes me smart.CLINTON: So if he’s paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he’s not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he’s trying to hide.And the financial disclosure statements, they don’t give you the tax rate. They don’t give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that he’s ever going to release his tax returns, because there’s something he’s hiding.And we’ll guess. We’ll keep guessing at what it might be that he’s hiding. But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them.HOLT: He also—he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?CLINTON: I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail.TRUMP: That’s for sure.CLINTON: And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.HOLT: Mr. Trump?TRUMP: That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it’s—really thinks it’s disgraceful, also.As far as my tax returns, you don’t learn that much from tax returns. That I can tell you. You learn a lot from financial disclosure. And you should go down and take a look at that.The other thing, I’m extremely underleveraged. The report that said $650—which, by the way, a lot of friends of mine that know my business say, boy, that’s really not a lot of money. It’s not a lot of money relative to what I had.The buildings that were in question, they said in the same report, which was—actually, it wasn’t even a bad story, to be honest with you, but the buildings are worth $3.9 billion. And the $650 isn’t even on that. But it’s not $650. It’s much less than that.But I could give you a list of banks, I would—if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly.I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It’s because it’s about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.When we have $20 trillion in debt, and our country’s a mess, you know, it’s one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything’s in great shape, our airports. Our airports are like from a third world country.You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible—you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land—we’ve become a third world country.So the worst of all things has happened. We owe $20 trillion, and we’re a mess. We haven’t even started. And we’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, according to a report that I just saw. Whether it’s 6 or 5, but it looks like it’s 6, $6 trillion in the Middle East, we could have rebuilt our country twice.And it’s really a shame. And it’s politicians like Secretary Clinton that have caused this problem. Our country has tremendous problems. We’re a debtor nation. We’re a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don’t have the money, because it’s been squandered on so many of your ideas.HOLT: We’ll let you respond and we’ll move on to the next segment.CLINTON: And maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. [applause]And the other thing I think is important…TRUMP: It would be squandered, too, believe me.CLINTON: … is if your—if your main claim to be president of the United States is your business, then I think we should talk about that. You know, your campaign manager said that you built a lot of businesses on the backs of little guys.And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do.We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use. And you wouldn’t pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do…TRUMP: Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work…CLINTON: Well, to…TRUMP: Which our country should do, too.CLINTON: Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them?I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.And when we talk about your business, you’ve taken business bankruptcy six times. There are a lot of great businesspeople that have never taken bankruptcy once. You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.CLINTON: Well, sometimes there’s not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government.HOLT: Let’s let Mr. Trump…CLINTON: And we need to be very clear about that.TRUMP: So, yeah, I think—I do think it’s time. Look, it’s all words, it’s all sound bites. I built an unbelievable company. Some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, real estate assets anywhere in the world, beyond the United States, in Europe, lots of different places. It’s an unbelievable company.But on occasion, four times, we used certain laws that are there. And when Secretary Clinton talks about people that didn’t get paid, first of all, they did get paid a lot, but taken advantage of the laws of the nation.Now, if you want to change the laws, you’ve been there a long time, change the laws. But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.But what she doesn’t say is that tens of thousands of people that are unbelievably happy and that love me. I’ll give you an example. We’re just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House, so if I don’t get there one way, I’m going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another.But we’re opening the Old Post Office. Under budget, ahead of schedule, saved tremendous money. I’m a year ahead of schedule. And that’s what this country should be doing.We build roads and they cost two and three and four times what they’re supposed to cost. We buy products for our military and they come in at costs that are so far above what they were supposed to be, because we don’t have people that know what they’re doing.When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy. The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country.HOLT: Well, we’re well behind schedule, so I want to move to our next segment. We move into our next segment talking about America’s direction. And let’s start by talking about race.The share of Americans who say race relations are bad in this country is the highest it’s been in decades, much of it amplified by shootings of African-Americans by police, as we’ve seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap.So how do you heal the divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two minutes on this.CLINTON: Well, you’re right. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they’re treated in the criminal justice system. We’ve just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.And we’ve got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they’re well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law.Right now, that’s not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform. I’ve laid out a platform that I think would begin to remedy some of the problems we have in the criminal justice system.But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. And we’ve got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.HOLT: All right, Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide?TRUMP: Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order. And we need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.And when I look at what’s going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what’s going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it’s—I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long—we need law and order in our country.I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just—just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very—I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over—almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.We have to be—we have to know what we’re doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.HOLT: Your two—your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.HOLT: The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.TRUMP: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and that are bad people that shouldn’t have them.These are felons. These are people that are bad people that shouldn’t be—when you have 3,000 shootings in Chicago from January 1st, when you have 4,000 people killed in Chicago by guns, from the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama, his hometown, you have to have stop-and-frisk.You need more police. You need a better community, you know, relation. You don’t have good community relations in Chicago. It’s terrible. I have property there. It’s terrible what’s going on in Chicago.But when you look—and Chicago’s not the only—you go to Ferguson, you go to so many different places. You need better relationships. I agree with Secretary Clinton on this.You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it’s not good.But you look at Dallas, where the relationships were really studied, the relationships were really a beautiful thing, and then five police officers were killed one night very violently. So there’s some bad things going on. Some really bad things.HOLT: Secretary Clinton…TRUMP: But we need—Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what’s happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it’s very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.HOLT: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard—I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.TRUMP: Ugh.CLINTON: You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There’s a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.But we do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25 years of very good cooperation.But there were some problems, some unintended consequences. Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say—we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little.We need to have more second chance programs. I’m glad that we’re ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn’t have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans. So there are some positive ways we can work on this.And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now—and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby—right now, we’ve got too many military-style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.HOLT: Secretary Clinton, last week, you said we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?CLINTON: Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way?But when it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.I’ve met with a group of very distinguished, experienced police chiefs a few weeks ago. They admit it’s an issue. They’ve got a lot of concerns. Mental health is one of the biggest concerns, because now police are having to handle a lot of really difficult mental health problems on the street.They want support, they want more training, they want more assistance. And I think the federal government could be in a position where we would offer and provide that.HOLT: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: I’d like to respond to that.HOLT: Please.TRUMP: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no-fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I’m very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they’re protecting the Second Amendment.But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn’t be on there, we’ll help them, we’ll help them legally, we’ll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth. And that’s a term that I think was a—it’s—it’s been horribly met, as you know. I think you’ve apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say.And when it comes to stop-and-frisk, you know, you’re talking about taking guns away. Well, I’m talking about taking guns away from gangs and people that use them. And I don’t think—I really don’t think you disagree with me on this, if you want to know the truth.I think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it, but I really don’t believe—in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It’s hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good?But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and-frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact.CLINTON: Well, it’s also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor, crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is…TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong.CLINTON: No, I’m not.TRUMP: Murders are up. All right. You check it.CLINTON: New York—New York has done an excellent job. And I give credit—I give credit across the board going back two mayors, two police chiefs, because it has worked. And other communities need to come together to do what will work, as well.Look, one murder is too many. But it is important that we learn about what has been effective. And not go to things that sound good that really did not have the kind of impact that we would want. Who disagrees with keeping neighborhoods safe?But let’s also add, no one should disagree about respecting the rights of young men who live in those neighborhoods. And so we need to do a better job of working, again, with the communities, faith communities, business communities, as well as the police to try to deal with this problem.HOLT: This conversation is about race. And so, Mr. Trump, I have to ask you for five…TRUMP: I’d like to just respond, if I might.HOLT: Please—20 seconds.TRUMP: I’d just like to respond.HOLT: Please respond, then I’ve got a quick follow-up for you.TRUMP: I will. Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, see ya later, I’ll see you in four years.The African-American community—because—look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated. They’ve been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians, because that’s what it is. They’ve controlled these communities for up to 100 years.HOLT: Mr. Trump, let me…[crosstalk]CLINTON: Well, I—I do think…TRUMP: And I will tell you, you look at the inner cities—and I just left Detroit, and I just left Philadelphia, and I just—you know, you’ve seen me, I’ve been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that’s OK. But I will tell you, I’ve been all over. And I’ve met some of the greatest people I’ll ever meet within these communities. And they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.HOLT: Mr. Trump, I…CLINTON: I think—I think—I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing. [applause]HOLT: Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?TRUMP: I’ll tell you very—well, just very simple to say. Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and close—very close friend of Secretary Clinton. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle, went to—during the campaign, her campaign against President Obama, fought very hard. And you can go look it up, and you can check it out.And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate.When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I’m satisfied with it. And I’ll tell you why I’m satisfied with it.HOLT: That was…[crosstalk]TRUMP: Because I want to get on to defeating ISIS, because I want to get on to creating jobs, because I want to get on to having a strong border, because I want to get on to things that are very important to me and that are very important to the country.HOLT: I will let you respond. It’s important. But I just want to get the answer here. The birth certificate was produced in 2011. You’ve continued to tell the story and question the president’s legitimacy in 2012, ’13, ’14, ’15…TRUMP: Yeah.HOLT: …. as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind?TRUMP: Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it. I figured you’d ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job.Secretary Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know—now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, oh, that’s not true. Look, it’s true. Sidney Blumenthal sent a reporter—you just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved. But just like she can’t bring back jobs, she can’t produce.HOLT: I’m sorry. I’m just going to follow up—and I will let you respond to that, because there’s a lot there. But we’re talking about racial healing in this segment. What do you say to Americans, people of color who…[crosstalk]TRUMP: Well, it was very—I say nothing. I say nothing, because I was able to get him to produce it. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing.But let me just tell you. When you talk about healing, I think that I’ve developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community. I think you can see that.And I feel that they really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate.HOLT: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, just listen to what you heard. [laughter]And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.But it can’t be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it.But, remember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department.So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very hurtful one. You know, Barack Obama is a man of great dignity. And I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him.But I like to remember what Michelle Obama said in her amazing speech at our Democratic National Convention: When they go low, we go high. And Barack Obama went high, despite Donald Trump’s best efforts to bring him down.HOLT: Mr. Trump, you can respond and we’re going to move on to the next segment.TRUMP: I would love to respond. First of all, I got to watch in preparing for this some of your debates against Barack Obama. You treated him with terrible disrespect. And I watched the way you talk now about how lovely everything is and how wonderful you are. It doesn’t work that way. You were after him, you were trying to—you even sent out or your campaign sent out pictures of him in a certain garb, very famous pictures. I don’t think you can deny that.But just last week, your campaign manager said it was true. So when you tried to act holier than thou, it really doesn’t work. It really doesn’t.Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father’s company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country—it was a federal lawsuit—were sued. We settled the suit with zero—with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do. But they sued many people.I notice you bring that up a lot. And, you know, I also notice the very nasty commercials that you do on me in so many different ways, which I don’t do on you. Maybe I’m trying to save the money.But, frankly, I look—I look at that, and I say, isn’t that amazing? Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it’s just one of those things.I’ll go one step further. In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it. No discrimination against African-Americans, against Muslims, against anybody. And it’s a tremendously successful club. And I’m so glad I did it. And I have been given great credit for what I did. And I’m very, very proud of it. And that’s the way I feel. That is the true way I feel.HOLT: Our next segment is called “Securing America.” We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?Secretary Clinton, this answer goes to you.CLINTON: Well, I think cyber security, cyber warfare will be one of the biggest challenges facing the next president, because clearly we’re facing at this point two different kinds of adversaries. There are the independent hacking groups that do it mostly for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they then can use to make money.But increasingly, we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really…[crosstalk]…tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee. And we recently have learned that, you know, that this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information. We need to make it very clear—whether it’s Russia, China, Iran or anybody else—the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information.And we’re going to have to make it clear that we don’t want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don’t want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country.And the Russians need to understand that. I think they’ve been treating it as almost a probing, how far would we go, how much would we do. And that’s why I was so—I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable. It’s one of the reasons why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information—in administrations…HOLT: Your two minutes have expired.CLINTON: … have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It’s comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face.HOLT: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes and the same question. Who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?TRUMP: I do want to say that I was just endorsed—and more are coming next week—it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here—admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I’m very proud of it.In addition, I was just endorsed by ICE. They’ve never endorsed anybody before on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE. I was just recently endorsed—16,500 Border Patrol agents.So when Secretary Clinton talks about this, I mean, I’ll take the admirals and I’ll take the generals any day over the political hacks that I see that have led our country so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge. OK? Because look at the mess that we’re in. Look at the mess that we’re in.As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t—maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?You don’t know who broke in to DNC.But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That’s what we learned.Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know, because the truth is, under President Obama we’ve lost control of things that we used to have control over.We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is—it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.HOLT: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I think there are a number of issues that we should be addressing. I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. It does involve going after them online. I think we need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere.But we also have to intensify our air strikes against ISIS and eventually support our Arab and Kurdish partners to be able to actually take out ISIS in Raqqa, end their claim of being a Caliphate.We’re making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we’re hoping that within the year we’ll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they’ve had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons, so we have to make this the top priority.And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was secretary of state, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we’ve got to defeat ISIS, and we’ve got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online.HOLT: You mention ISIS, and we think of ISIS certainly as over there, but there are American citizens who have been inspired to commit acts of terror on American soil, the latest incident, of course, the bombings we just saw in New York and New Jersey, the knife attack at a mall in Minnesota, in the last year, deadly attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. I’ll ask this to both of you. Tell us specifically how you would prevent homegrown attacks by American citizens, Mr. Trump?TRUMP: Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. “We will take out ISIS.” Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out—what, they shouldn’t have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.So she talks about taking them out. She’s been doing it a long time. She’s been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn’t have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn’t have had them.Or, as I’ve been saying for a long time, and I think you’ll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil—and we should have taken the oil—ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil—a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.HOLT: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I hope the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. Donald supported the invasion of Iraq.TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: That is absolutely proved over and over again.TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.CLINTON: He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time.But the larger point—and he says this constantly—is George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.And the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.But let’s talk about the question you asked, Lester. The question you asked is, what do we do here in the United States? That’s the most important part of this. How do we prevent attacks? How do we protect our people?And I think we’ve got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information. I was so proud of law enforcement in New York, in Minnesota, in New Jersey. You know, they responded so quickly, so professionally to the attacks that occurred by Rahami. And they brought him down. And we may find out more information because he is still alive, which may prove to be an intelligence benefit.So we’ve got to do everything we can to vacuum up intelligence from Europe, from the Middle East. That means we’ve got to work more closely with our allies, and that’s something that Donald has been very dismissive of.We’re working with NATO, the longest military alliance in the history of the world, to really turn our attention to terrorism. We’re working with our friends in the Middle East, many of which, as you know, are Muslim majority nations. Donald has consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home, when we need to be cooperating with Muslim nations and with the American Muslim community.They’re on the front lines. They can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else. They need to have close working cooperation with law enforcement in these communities, not be alienated and pushed away as some of Donald’s rhetoric, unfortunately, has led to.HOLT: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: Well, I have to respond.HOLT: Please respond.TRUMP: The secretary said very strongly about working with—we’ve been working with them for many years, and we have the greatest mess anyone’s ever seen. You look at the Middle East, it’s a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent.But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that’s another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they’re going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they’re going.But when you look at NATO, I was asked on a major show, what do you think of NATO? And you have to understand, I’m a businessperson. I did really well. But I have common sense. And I said, well, I’ll tell you. I haven’t given lots of thought to NATO. But two things.Number one, the 28 countries of NATO, many of them aren’t paying their fair share. Number two—and that bothers me, because we should be asking—we’re defending them, and they should at least be paying us what they’re supposed to be paying by treaty and contract.And, number two, I said, and very strongly, NATO could be obsolete, because—and I was very strong on this, and it was actually covered very accurately in the New York Times, which is unusual for the New York Times, to be honest—but I said, they do not focus on terror. And I was very strong. And I said it numerous times.And about four months ago, I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that NATO is opening up a major terror division. And I think that’s great. And I think we should get—because we pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO. It’s a lot of money to protect other people. But I’m all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also.And they’re going to do that. And that was—believe me—I’m sure I’m not going to get credit for it—but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO.I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS, and we have to do it fast, when ISIS formed in this vacuum created by Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton. And believe me, you were the ones that took out the troops. Not only that, you named the day. They couldn’t believe it. They sat back probably and said, I can’t believe it. They said…CLINTON: Lester, we’ve covered…TRUMP: No, wait a minute.CLINTON: We’ve covered this ground.TRUMP: When they formed, when they formed, this is something that never should have happened. It should have never happened. Now, you’re talking about taking out ISIS. But you were there, and you were secretary of state when it was a little infant. Now it’s in over 30 countries. And you’re going to stop them? I don’t think so.HOLT: Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your…TRUMP: I did not support the war in Iraq.HOLT: In 2002…TRUMP: That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by her, because she—frankly, I think the best person in her campaign is mainstream media.HOLT: My question is, since you supported it…TRUMP: Just—would you like to hear…HOLT: … why is your—why is your judgment…TRUMP: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out.HOLT: The record shows otherwise, but why—why was…TRUMP: The record does not show that.HOLT: Why was—is your judgment any…TRUMP: The record shows that I’m right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows? Essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said—and he called me the other day—and I spoke to him about it—he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war.HOLT: Why is your judgment better than…TRUMP: And when he—excuse me. And that was before the war started. Sean Hannity said very strongly to me and other people—he’s willing to say it, but nobody wants to call him. I was against the war. He said, you used to have fights with me, because Sean was in favor of the war.And I understand that side, also, not very much, because we should have never been there. But nobody called Sean Hannity. And then they did an article in a major magazine, shortly after the war started. I think in ’04. But they did an article which had me totally against the war in Iraq.And one of your compatriots said, you know, whether it was before or right after, Trump was definitely—because if you read this article, there’s no doubt. But if somebody—and I’ll ask the press—if somebody would call up Sean Hannity, this was before the war started. He and I used to have arguments about the war. I said, it’s a terrible and a stupid thing. It’s going to destabilize the Middle East. And that’s exactly what it’s done. It’s been a disaster.HOLT: My reference was to what you had said in 2002, and my question was…TRUMP: No, no. You didn’t hear what I said.HOLT: Why is your judgment—why is your judgment any different than Mrs. Clinton’s judgment?TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There’s no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know? [laughter]I have a much better—she spent—let me tell you—she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising—you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names—oh, temperament, let’s go after—I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a…HOLT: Secretary Clinton?TRUMP: Wait. The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don’t know who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton, but you were totally out of control. I said, there’s a person with a temperament that’s got a problem.HOLT: Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Whew, OK. [laughter]Let’s talk about two important issues that were briefly mentioned by Donald, first, NATO. You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it’s ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.With respect to Iran, when I became secretary of state, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities. They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away.And we had sanctioned them. I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. That’s diplomacy. That’s coalition-building. That’s working with other nations.The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I’d blow them out of the water and start another war. That’s not good judgment.TRUMP: That would not start a war.CLINTON: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in-chief, to be taunted. And the worst part…TRUMP: No, they were taunting us.CLINTON: … of what we heard Donald say has been about nuclear weapons. He has said repeatedly that he didn’t care if other nations got nuclear weapons, Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He even said, well, you know, if there were nuclear war in East Asia, well, you know, that’s fine…TRUMP: Wrong.CLINTON: … have a good time, folks.TRUMP: It’s lies.CLINTON: And, in fact, his cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling. That is the number-one threat we face in the world. And it becomes particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands on any nuclear material. So a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.TRUMP: That line’s getting a little bit old, I must say. I would like to…CLINTON: It’s a good one, though. It well describes the problem. [laughter]TRUMP: It’s not an accurate one at all. It’s not an accurate one. So I just want to give a lot of things—and just to respond. I agree with her on one thing. The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your—your president thinks.Nuclear is the single greatest threat. Just to go down the list, we defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us, because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune. That’s why we’re losing—we’re losing—we lose on everything. I say, who makes these—we lose on everything. All I said, that it’s very possible that if they don’t pay a fair share, because this isn’t 40 years ago where we could do what we’re doing. We can’t defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the million…HOLT: We need to move on.TRUMP: Well, wait, but it’s very important. All I said was, they may have to defend themselves or they have to help us out. We’re a country that owes $20 trillion. They have to help us out.HOLT: Our last…TRUMP: As far as the nuclear is concerned, I agree. It is the single greatest threat that this country has.HOLT: Which leads to my next question, as we enter our last segment here on the, still on the subject of securing America. On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy? Mr. Trump, you have two minutes on that.TRUMP: Well, I have to say that, you know, for what Secretary Clinton was saying about nuclear with Russia, she’s very cavalier in the way she talks about various countries. But Russia has been expanding their—they have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from the new standpoint.I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they’re old enough that your father, your grandfather could be flying them. We are not—we are not keeping up with other countries. I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike.I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I’ve ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.And when asked to Secretary Kerry, why didn’t you do that? Why didn’t you add other things into the deal? One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody’s ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way.So you say to yourself, why didn’t they make the right deal? This is one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems. All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don’t have to do much.HOLT: Your two minutes is expired.TRUMP: And they’re going to end up getting nuclear. I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day. Believe me, he’s not a happy camper.HOLT: All right. Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.CLINTON: Well, let me—let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.It is essential that America’s word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and some worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I’ve talked with a number of them. But I want to—on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.It’s also important that we look at the entire global situation. There’s no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I’d rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that.And Donald never tells you what he would do. Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran? If he’s going to criticize a deal that has been very successful in giving us access to Iranian facilities that we never had before, then he should tell us what his alternative would be. But it’s like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it’s a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan.So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That’s what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they’re abroad or at home.We cannot let those who would try to destabilize the world to interfere with American interests and security…HOLT: Your two minutes is…CLINTON: … to be given any opportunities at all.HOLT: … is expired.TRUMP: Lester, one thing I’d like to say.HOLT: Very quickly. Twenty seconds.TRUMP: I will go very quickly. But I will tell you that Hillary will tell you to go to her website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which she could have defeated by never having it, you know, get going in the first place. Right now, it’s getting tougher and tougher to defeat them, because they’re in more and more places, more and more states, more and more nations.HOLT: Mr. Trump…TRUMP: And it’s a big problem. And as far as Japan is concerned, I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world…HOLT: We have just…TRUMP: … where they’re not paying us what we need.HOLT: We have just a few final questions…TRUMP: And she doesn’t say that, because she’s got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, she doesn’t have that. All of the things that she’s talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let’s say, while she had great power. But they weren’t taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won’t be taken care of.HOLT: Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn’t have, quote, “a presidential look.” She’s standing here right now. What did you mean by that?TRUMP: She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the stamina. I said she doesn’t have the stamina. And I don’t believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.HOLT: The quote was, “I just don’t think she has the presidential look.”TRUMP: You have—wait a minute. Wait a minute, Lester. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question?You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals. You have to be able to negotiate, that’s right, with Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine, we’re defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we’re defending them, and they’re not paying? All you have to do is speak to them. Wait. You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don’t believe that Hillary has the stamina.HOLT: Let’s let her respond.CLINTON: Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina. [applause]TRUMP: The world—let me tell you. Let me tell you. Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last—so she’s got experience, that I agree. [applause]But it’s bad, bad experience. Whether it’s the Iran deal that you’re so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it’s the Iran deal, whether it’s anything you can—name—you almost can’t name a good deal. I agree. She’s got experience, but it’s bad experience. And this country can’t afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.HOLT: We are at—we are at the final question. [applause]CLINTON: Well, one thing. One thing, Lester.HOLT: Very quickly, because we’re at the final question now.CLINTON: You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…TRUMP: I never said that.CLINTON: …. women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.TRUMP: I didn’t say that.CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.TRUMP: Where did you find this? Where did you find this?CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.TRUMP: Where did you find this?CLINTON: And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet…TRUMP: Oh, really?CLINTON: … she’s going to vote this November.TRUMP: OK, good. Let me just tell you… [applause]HOLT: Mr. Trump, could we just take 10 seconds and then we ask the final question…TRUMP: You know, Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it’s said in entertainment. Some of it’s said—somebody who’s been very vicious to me, Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.But you want to know the truth? I was going to say something…HOLT: Please very quickly.TRUMP: … extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, “I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. It’s inappropriate. It’s not nice.” But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They’re untrue. And they’re misrepresentations.And I will tell you this, Lester: It’s not nice. And I don’t deserve that.But it’s certainly not a nice thing that she’s done. It’s hundreds of millions of ads. And the only gratifying thing is, I saw the polls come in today, and with all of that money…HOLT: We have to move on to the final question.TRUMP: … $200 million is spent, and I’m either winning or tied, and I’ve spent practically nothing. [applause]HOLT: One of you will not win this election. So my final question to you tonight, are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters? Secretary Clinton?CLINTON: Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election.And I know Donald’s trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election’s really up to you. It’s not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it, because I think it does.HOLT: Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?TRUMP: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We’re losing our jobs. People are pouring into our country.The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don’t even know.HOLT: Will you accept the outcome of the election?TRUMP: Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her. [applause]HOLT: All right. Well, that is going to do it for us. That concludes our debate for this evening, a spirited one. We covered a lot of ground, not everything as I suspected we would.The next presidential debates are scheduled for October 9th at Washington University in St. Louis and October 19th at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The conversation will continue.A reminder. The vice presidential debate is scheduled for October 4th at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. My thanks to Hillary Clinton and to Donald Trump and to Hofstra University for hosting us tonight. Good night, everyone.",
    "id": "d8f689f7-6b48-493a-92c0-33304fb16e41"
  },
  {
    "year": 2004,
    "date": "October 5, 2004",
    "title": "The Cheney-Edwards Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 5, 2004 TranscriptOctober 5, 2004The Cheney-Edwards Vice Presidential DebateVICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATE AT CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, CLEVELAND, OHIOSPEAKERS: RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESU.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEGWEN IFILL, HOST, PBS’S “WASHINGTON WEEK”IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University’s Veale Center here in Cleveland, Ohio.I’m Gwen Ifill of “The NewsHour” and “Washington Week” on PBS, and I welcome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Edwards, the Democratic nominee.These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight’s will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my ability.The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have not been told what they are.The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time’s up. There’s also a back-up buzzer system, if needed.Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed to remain silent throughout.The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney.Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq, especially having to do with the administration’s handling.Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on the ground, or we’ve never had enough troops on the ground.Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved — of a report that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It’s a very important event, and they’ve done a superb job of putting it together.It’s important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terrorists wherever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the development of deadly weapons.Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director’s testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.The effort that we’ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the right thing.IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.EDWARDS: Thank you.Thank you, Gwen, for moderating this debate. Thank you to the folks of Case Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here.Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq — the American people don’t need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June.The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our military has done everything they’ve been asked to do.And it’s not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who have said Iraq is a mess and it’s getting worse. And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration.What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn’t have enough troops to secure the country. They also didn’t have a plan to win the peace. They also didn’t put the alliances together to make this successful.We need a fresh start. We need a president who will speed up the training of the Iraqis, get more staff in for doing that. We need to speed up the reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangible benefit. We need a new president who has the credibility, which John Kerry has, to bring others into this effort.IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: We’ve made significant progress in Iraq. We’ve stood up a new government that’s been in power now only 90 days. The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic government. They’re well on their way to doing that. They will have free elections next January for the first time in history.We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security responsibility.Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They’re well in hand, well under way. And I’m confident that, in fact, we’ll get the job done.IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Senator.EDWARDS: Yes.Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you’ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not.And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection.We need to be straight with the American people.IFILL: Time for a new question but the same topic. And this time to you, Senator Edwards.You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time.Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that Saddam Hussein would still be in power?EDWARDS: Here’s what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That’s why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way.And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn’t take our eye off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there.But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest military in the world on the ground. And what did we do?We turned — this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the administration decide to do?They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam — I mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had been working with Osama bin Laden.Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden.We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for the invasion of Iraq.And these connections — I want the American people to hear this very clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying. Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th — period.The 9/11 Commission has said that’s true. Colin Powell has said it’s true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.And the point is that that’s the place where you’re most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They’ve got a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend America.We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. That’s part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the mid-’80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.It’s a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues.A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues.And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will guarantee that the United States doesn’t again get attacked by the likes of Al Qaida.IFILL: You will respond to that topic, but first I want to ask you for two minutes, Vice President Cheney.Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?CHENEY: Gwen, we’ve never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one. We’ve actively and aggressively pursued him. We’ve captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida in various places around the world and especially in Afghanistan. We’ll continue to very aggressively pursue him, and I’m confident eventually we’ll get him.The key to success in Afghanistan has been, again, to go in and go after the terrorists, which we’ve done, and also take down the Taliban regime which allowed them to function there, in effect sponsors, if you will, of the Al Qaida organization.John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two and a half years later, we’re four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We’ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.That election will put in place a democratically elected government that will take over next December.We’ve made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years ago. He just got it wrong.The fact is, as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We’re standing up Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their own security. We’ll keep U.S. forces there — we have about 16,000 there today — as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of dealing with their security situation. But they’re making significant progress. We have President Karzai, who is in power. They have done wonders writing their own constitution for the first time ever. Schools are open. Young girls are going to school. Women are going to vote. Women are even eligible to run for office. This is major, major progress. There will be democracy in Afghanistan, make no doubt about it. Freedom is the best antidote to terror.IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Someone did get it wrong. But it wasn’t John Kerry and John Edwards. They got it wrong. When we had Osama bin Laden cornered, they left the job to the Afghan warlords. They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large. Now, I want to go back to something the vice president said just a minute ago, because these distortions are continuing.He said that — made mention of this global test. What John Kerry said — and it’s just as clear as day to anybody who was listening — he said: We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people, first.We will keep this country safe. He defended this country as a young man, he will defend this country as president of the United States.He also said very clearly that he will never give any country veto power over the security of the United States of America.Now, I know the vice president would like to pretend that wasn’t said, and the president would too. But the reality is it was said.Here’s what’s actually happened in Afghanistan, regardless of this rosy scenario that they paint on Afghanistan, just like they do with Iraq. What’s actually happened is they’re now providing 75 percent of the world’s opium.Not only are they providing 75 percent of the world’s opium, large-cut parts of the country are under the control of drug lords and warlords. Big parts of the country are still insecure.And the reality is the part of Afghanistan, eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is, is one of the hardest places to control and the most insecure, Gwen.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 30 seconds.CHENEY: Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had — guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress.The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote.And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections.The power of that concept is enormous. And it will apply in Afghanistan, and it will apply as well in Iraq.EDWARDS: The vice president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They’re more dangerous today than they were four years ago.North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.It’s a mistake. We should not only not lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions.IFILL: New question to you, Senator Edwards, but I don’t want to let go of the global test question first, because…EDWARDS: Sure.IFILL: … I want people to understand exactly what it is, as you said, that Senator Kerry did say.He said, “You’ve got to do” — you know, he was asked about preemptive action at the last debate — he said, “You’ve got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” What is a global test if it’s not a global veto?EDWARDS: Well, let me say, first, he said in the same segment — I don’t remember precisely where it was connected with what you just read — but he said, point blank, “We will never give anyone a veto over the security of the United States of America.”What he’s saying is we’re going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last 50 to 75 years.First, we’re going to actually tell the American people the truth. We’re going to tell them the truth about what’s happening.We’re not going to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else when, in fact, they’re not.We’re going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we are using force and what the explanation for it is.And it’s not just the American people. We’re also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth.Because the reality is, for America to lead, for America to do what it’s done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible.It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they can trust what we’re doing, what we say, what we say at the United Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of the world — of other countries.They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good, because they will not follow us without that.And unfortunately, we’re seeing the consequences of that right now.It’s one of the reasons that we’re having so much difficulty getting others involved in the effort in Iraq.You know, we’ve taken 90 percent of the coalition casualties. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We’re at $200 billion and counting.John Kerry will never give up control over the security of the United States of America to any other country. We will not outsource our responsibility to keep this country safe.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they’ve taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.With respect to the cost, it wasn’t $200 billion. You probably weren’t there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it’s for Afghanistan and the global war on terror.The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate. That, plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion we’ve got, but, you know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator.You also have a situation where you talk about credibility.It’s awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor.You’re not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time during the course of the campaign. Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that’s where you’re at. But you’ve not been consistent, and there’s no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror.EDWARDS: May I respond briefly?What the vice president has just said is just a complete distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They don’t need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw.They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe.He laid out his plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there and because they have created a haven for terrorists.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds.CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn’t. And you cannot use “talk tough” during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he’s faced as a public official.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, a new question for you. You have two minutes to respond.When the president says that Senator Kerry is emboldening enemies and you say that we could get hit again if voters make the wrong choice in November, are you saying that it would be a dangerous thing to have John Kerry as president?CHENEY: I’m saying specifically that I don’t believe he has the qualities we need in a commander in chief because I don’t think, based on his record, that he would pursue the kind of aggressive policies that need to be pursued if we’re going to defeat these terrorists. We need to battle them overseas so we don’t have to battle them here at home.I’m not challenging John Kerry’s patriotism. I said in my acceptance speech in New York City at the Republican convention that we respected his service in Vietnam, and I got applause for that.We’ve never criticized his patriotism. What we’ve questioned is his judgment.And his judgment’s flawed, and the record’s there for anybody who wants to look at it.In 1984, when he ran for the Senate he opposed, or called for the elimination of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the Cold War and are important today to our overall forces.When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and ’91, he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein back to Iraq.The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn’t display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.And with respect to this particular operation, we’ve seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed — body armor, spare parts, ammunition — they voted against it.I couldn’t figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.Now if they couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.EDWARDS: Thank you.One thing that’s very clear is that a long resume does not equal good judgment. I mean, we’ve seen over and over and over the misjudgments made by this administration.I want to go back to what the vice president just said, because it’s a continuation of the things he’s been doing, unfortunately, on the campaign trail; it’s a continuation of what he began his first answer with tonight.John Kerry has voted for the biggest military appropriations bill in the country’s history. John Kerry has voted for the biggest intelligence appropriations in the country’s history.This vice president, when he was secretary of defense, cut over 80 weapons systems, including the very ones he’s criticizing John Kerry for voting against. These are weapons systems, a big chunk of which, the vice president himself suggested we get rid of after the Cold War.The reality is that John Kerry has consistently supported the very men that he served with in Vietnam and led.On the $87 billion, it was clear at the time of that vote that they had no plan to win the peace. We’re seeing the consequences of that everyday on the ground right now.We stood up and said: For our troops, we must have a plan to win the peace.We also thought it was wrong to have a $20 billion fund out of which $7.5 billion was going to go to a no-bid contract for Halliburton, the vice president’s former company.It was wrong then. It’s wrong now.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds.CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I think the record speaks for itself. These are two individuals who have been for the war when the headlines were good and against it when their poll ratings were bad.We have not seen the kind of consistency that a commander in chief has to have in order to be a leader in wartime and in order to be able to see the strategy through to victory.If we want to win the war on terror, it seems to me it’s pretty clear the choice is George Bush, not John Kerry.IFILL: And 30 seconds…EDWARDS: John Kerry has been absolutely clear and consistent from the beginning that we must stay focused on the people who attacked us; that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be addressed directly; that the weapons inspectors needed to have time to do their job.Had they had time to do their job, they would have discovered what we now know, that in fact Saddam Hussein had no weapons, that in fact Saddam Hussein has no connection with 9/11, that in fact Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with Al Qaida.IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, and you have two minutes to respond.Part of what you have said and Senator Kerry has said that you are going to do in order to get us out of the problems in Iraq is to internationalize the effort.Yet French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive?EDWARDS: Well, let’s start with what we know. What we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need — dramatically different than the first Gulf War. We know that they haven’t done it, and we know they can’t do it.They didn’t, by the way, just reject the allies going into lead- up to the war. They also rejected them in the effort to do the reconstruction in Iraq, and that has consequences.What we believe is, as part of our entire plan for Iraq — and we have a plan for Iraq.They have a plan for Iraq too: more of the same.We have a plan for success. And that plan includes speeding up the training of the military. We have less than half of the staff that we need there to complete that training.Second, make sure that the reconstruction is sped up in a way that the Iraqis see some tangible benefit for what’s happening.And by the way, if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It’s so dangerous on the ground that they can’t be trained there. We can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training.We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process.That works in conjunction with making sure the elections take place on time.Right now, the United Nations, which is responsible for the elections in January, has about 35 people there. Now, that’s compared with a much smaller country like East Timor, where they had over 200 people on the ground.You need more than 35 people to hold an election in Cleveland, much less in Iraq.And they keep saying the election’s on schedule, this is going to happen.The reality is we need a new president with credibility with the rest of the world and who has a real plan for success. Success breeds contribution, breeds joining the coalition.Not only that, I want to go back to what the vice president said. He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it’s hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there.The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn’t have what they have today if you guys had had your way.You talk about internationalizing the effort. They don’t have a plan. Basically, it’s an echo.You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in ’91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we’ve got 30 today. We’ve got troops beside us.It’s hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process.You end up with a situation in which — talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it’s the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops.Makes no sense at all. It’s totally inconsistent. There isn’t a plan there.Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House.And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility.That is not the way to win friends and allies. You’re never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude. IFILL: Senator Edwards, 30 seconds.EDWARDS: Thank you.The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion.And regardless of what the vice president says, we’re at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.IFILL: Mr. Vice President?CHENEY: Classic example. He won’t count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It’s their country. They’re in the fight. They’re increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They’re doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as…EDWARDS: Oh, I’m not…CHENEY: … as beyond…EDWARDS: I’m not demeaning…CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested…EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not…CHENEY: … somehow they shouldn’t count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you’re not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.We’ll win when they take on responsibility for governance, which they’re doing, and when the take on responsibility for their own security, which they increasingly are doing.IFILL: New question, similar topic, because I want to circle back to a question which I’m not quite certain we got an answer to.But I will direct it to you first, Senator Edwards.EDWARDS: Thanks.IFILL: It’s a question of American intelligence.If this report that we’ve read about today is true, and if Vice President Cheney ordered it and asked about this, do you think that, in the future, that your administration or the Bush administration would have sufficient and accurate enough intelligence to be able to make decisions about where to go next?EDWARDS: Well, let me speak, first of all, to what the vice president just said, and then I’ll answer that question.This, unfortunately — what the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything they see every single day. It’s a continuation of, “Well, there’s a strong connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.”It’s not true. It’s a continuation of at least insinuating that there’s some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It’s not true.It’s saying to the American people, as the president said last Thursday, and the vice president continues to say tonight, that things are going well in Iraq, contrary to what people who have been there have seen, including Republican leaders, contrary to what everyone in America sees on their television every day — Americans being kidnapped, people being beheaded, parts of the country under the control of insurgents, even today, under the control of the insurgents.The vice president has still not said anything about what Mr. Bremer said, about the failure to have adequate troops, the failure to be able to secure the country in the short term.You know, remember “shock and awe”?Look at where we are now. It is a direct result of the failure to plan, the failure to have others involved in this effort. This is not an accident.Now, let me go back to your question.If we want to do the things that need to be done to keep this country safe, we can’t be dragged kicking and screaming to it.One thing that everybody does agree on is that 9/11 did change things.But what’s happened is this administration opposed the creation of a 9/11 Commission to find out why it happened and what we needed to do.They opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and then they were for it.We can’t react that way. We must be more aggressive.With John Kerry as president of the United States, we are committed to immediately implementing all of the reforms suggested by the 9/11 Commission, so that we have the information we need to find terrorists and crush them before they hurt us.IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions as part of my job as vice president. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein.The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi’s people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of ZarqawiBut let’s look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi.We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Khurmal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use.We know he’s still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He’s the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages.He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he’s in Baghdad now after the war.The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we’ve seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that’s exactly what we’ll do.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, “Unilateral sanctions almost never work.”After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the “Axis of Evil,” do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there’s a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don’t have any impact, except to penalize American companies.We’ve got sanctions on Iran now. We may well want to go to the U.N. Security Council and ask for even tougher sanctions if they don’t live up to their obligations under the initial — International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Proliferation Treaty.We dealt with Iran differently than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council.We’re working with the Brits and the Germans and the French, who’ve been negotiating with the Iranians.We recently were actively involved in a meeting with the board of governors in the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there will be a follow-up meeting in November to determine whether or not Iran’s living up to their commitments and obligations.And if they aren’t, my guess is then the board of governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the application of the international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go.We’re addressing North Korea on a similar basis, working with the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese and others to try to bring them around.One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done.This was one of the biggest sources of proliferation in the world today in terms of the threat that was represented by that. The suppliers network that provided that, headed by Mr. A.Q. Khan, has been shut down.We’ve made major progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear proliferation. And we’ll continue to press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well.IFILL: Senator Edwards?EDWARDS: Well, the vice president talks about there being a member, or someone associated with Al Qaida, in Iraq. There are 60 countries who have members of Al Qaida in them.How many of those countries are we going to invade?Not only that, he talks about Iran. The reality about Iran is that Iran has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch. They ceded responsibility to dealing with it to the Europeans.Now, the vice president, as you pointed out, spoke out loudly for lifting the sanctions on Iraq. John Kerry and I believe we need to strengthen the sanctions on Iraq, including closing the loophole that allows companies to use a subsidiary, offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran.I mentioned Halliburton a few minute ago in connection with the $87 billion, and you raised it in this question. This is relevant, because he was pushing for lifting sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton. Here’s why we didn’t think Halliburton should have a no-bid contract.While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay.They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.They’re now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time.Not only that, they’ve gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it’s normally done, because they’re under investigation, they’ve continued to get their money.IFILL: Mr. Vice President?CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it’s going to take more than 30 seconds.IFILL: Well, that’s all you’ve got.(LAUGHTER)CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they’re trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.It’s an effort that they’ve made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there’s no substance to the charges.IFILL: Thirty seconds.EDWARDS: These are the facts.The facts are the vice president’s company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, is under investigation for bribing foreign officials.The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they’re under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they’re getting every dime of their money.I’m happy to let voters make their own decision about this.IFILL: Senator Edwards, as we wrap up the foreign policy part of this, I do want to talk to you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Today, a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks, all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems absent in the peace-making process.What would your administration do?First of all, do you agree that the United States is absent? Maybe you don’t.But what would your administration do to try to resolve that conflict?EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree that we’ve been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years.And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now.First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel.We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?They have not only the right but the obligation to defend themselves.Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, a historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It’s important for America to participate in helping with that process.Now, if Gaza’s being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don’t have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don’t have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11.And it’s important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 90 seconds.CHENEY: Gwen, I want to go back to the last comment, and then I’ll come back to Israel-Palestine.The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that’s not very distinguished. You’ve missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.You’ve missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you “Senator Gone.” You’ve got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session.The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.I personally think one of the reasons that we don’t have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we’ve had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.We’ve been strong supporters of Israel. The president stepped forward and put in place a policy basically that said we will support the establishment of two states. First president ever to say we’ll establish and support a Palestinian state nextdoor to Israelis.But first, there has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with. And we won’t have that, we don’t have it now, in a Yasser Arafat. There has to be reform of the Palestinian system.IFILL: Senator Edwards, it’s your turn to use 30 seconds for a complicated response…EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won’t come as a shock.The vice president, I’m surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.It’s amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry’s.IFILL: Thirty seconds.CHENEY: Oh, I think his record speaks for itself. And frankly, it’s not very distinguished.IFILL: In that case, we’ll move on to domestic matters. And this question, I believe, goes to Senator — to Vice President Cheney.The Census Bureau…CHENEY: I think it goes to Senator Edwards.IFILL: It goes to the Senator. I see you. I just asked him about Israel, even though we didn’t actually talk about it much.CHENEY: I concede the point.(LAUGHTER)EDWARDS: No, I did talk about it, Israel. He’s the one who didn’t talk about it.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, the Census Bureau ranked Cleveland as the biggest poor city in the country, 31 percent jobless rate.You two gentlemen are pretty well off. You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can you tell the people of Cleveland, or people of cities like Cleveland, that your administration will do to better their lives?CHENEY: Well, Gwen, there are several things that I think need to be done and are being done.We’ve, of course, been through a difficult recession, and then the aftermath of 9/11, where we lost over a million jobs after that attack. But we think the key is to address some basic, fundamental issues that the president’s already working on.I think probably the most successful thing we can do with respect to ending poverty is to get people jobs. There’s no better antidote to poverty than a good, well-paying job that allows somebody to take care of their own family.To do that, we have to make America the best place in the world to do business. And that means we’ve got to deal effectively with tax policy. We’ve got to reduce the litigation costs that are built into our society. We’ve got to provide the adequate medical care and make certain that we can, in fact, create the opportunities that are vital to that process.I’d zero in, in particular, on education. I think the most important thing we can do is have a first-class public school system. I’m a product of public schools.And the president, his first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the first piece of legislation we introduced.We got it passed that first summer on a bipartisan basis. We even had Ted Kennedy on board for the effort.And it does several things. It establishes high standards. It, at the same time, sets up a system of testing with respect to our school system, so we can establish accountability to parents and make certain that they understand how well their students are doing. And they have the opportunity to move students out of poorly performing schools to good schools.It strikes me that that is absolutely the heart of what needs to be done from the standpoint of education.It’s also important, as we go forward in the next term, we want to be able to take what we’ve done for elementary education and move it into the secondary education.It’s working. We’ve seen reports now of a reduction in the achievement gap between majority students and minority students. We’re making significant progress.IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Gwen, your question was about jobs?IFILL: It was about jobs, and it was about poverty.EDWARDS: I thought it was about jobs and poverty. I hope we get a chance to talk about education, but that’s what the vice president talked about.Here’s what’s happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it’s had real consequences in places like Cleveland.Cleveland is a wonderful, distinguished city that’s done a lot of great things, but it has the highest poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty.During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty.During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty.And what the most striking and startling thing is, they are the first presidency in 70 years — and I’m talking Democrats, Republican, presidents who led us through World War, through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Cold War — every one of them created jobs until this president.We have to do better. We have a plan. We’re going to get rid of — by the way, they’re for outsourcing jobs. I want to make sure people hear that, the fundamental difference with us. The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We’re against it.We want to get rid of tax cuts for companies sending jobs overseas. We want to balance this budget, get back to fiscal responsibility. And we want to invest in the creative, innovative jobs of the future.IFILL: Mr. Vice President?CHENEY: Gwen, we’ve got 111 million American taxpayers that have benefited from our income tax cuts.We’ve got 33 million students who’ve benefited from No Child Left Behind.We’ve got 40 million seniors who benefited from the reform of the Medicare system. The Democrats promised prescription drug benefits. For years they’ve run on that platform. They never got it done. The president got it done.We also dropped 5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls, so they no longer have to pay any federal income tax at all.So the story, I think, is a good one.And the data he’s using is old data. It’s from 2003. It doesn’t include any of the gains that we’ve made in the last years. We’ve added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.IFILL: Thirty seconds.EDWARDS: The vice president and president like to talk about their experience on the campaign trail. Millions of people have lost their jobs. Millions have fallen into poverty. Family incomes are down, while the cost of everything is going up.Medical costs are up the highest they’ve ever been over the last four years. We have this mess in Iraq.Mr. Vice President, I don’t think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience.IFILL: This next question goes to you, Senator Edwards.Senator Kerry said in a recent interview that he absolutely will not raise taxes on anyone under — who earns under $200,000 a year. How can he guarantee that and also cut the deficit in half, as he’s promised?EDWARDS: Because we will do what they’ve not done. You know, if you look at what’s happened over the last four years, we have gone from a $5 trillion projected surplus when George Bush took office to a $3 trillion projected deficit.They promised they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus aside from Social Security. Not done.Not only that, it’s the biggest fiscal turnaround in American history.And there’s no end in sight. The Washington Post just reported they have several trillion dollars of additional tax cuts and spending, no suggestion of what they’re going to do about it.John Kerry and I believe we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of debt to our children and our grandchildren.So here’s what we’re going to do, to answer your question.To pay for the things that we believe need to be done — and I hope to get the chance to talk about health care and also about education, because we have plans on both of those subjects — what we’re going to do is roll back tax cuts.And I want everyone to hear this, because there have been exaggerations made on the campaign trail: Roll back tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year; we will do that.We want to keep the tax cuts that are in place for people who make less than $200,000 a year and give additional tax cuts to those middle-class families, tax cuts for health care, tax cuts to help families pay for their college tuition, tax cuts for child care.These families are struggling and hurting, and they need more tax relief, not less tax relief.But to help get us back on the path to a balanced budget, we also want to get rid of some of the bureaucratic spending in Washington.One of the amazing things that’s happened is they’ve actually layered on more supervisory people, people at the supervisory level, in this government.We also want to close some corporate loopholes.Now, I want to be honest with people. We can’t eliminate this deficit. People have heard that over and over and over in four years. We cannot do it. We’re in too deep a hole.But we can cut the deficit in half. And if we move, we can move this country back on a path to fiscal responsibility.IFILL: You have 90 seconds, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: Gwen, the Kerry record on taxes is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases — 98 times in the United States Senate.There’s a fundamental philosophical difference here between the president and myself, who believe that we ought to let the American people keep more of what they earn and we ought to empower them to have more control over their own lives — I think the Kerry-Edwards approach basically is to raise taxes and to give government more control over the lives of individual citizens.We think that’s the wrong way to go. There’s a fundamental difference of opinion here.They talk about the top bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket.Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.That’s not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.You do not want to tax them. It’s a bad idea to increase the burden on those folks.The senator himself said, during the course of the primaries, that the Kerry plan would drive us deeper into deficit. Those were the senator’s words about his running-mate.The fact of the matter is, the president and I will go forward to make the tax cuts permanent. That’s good policy. That’s what we ought to do. But with fiscal restraint, we’ll also drive the deficit down 50 percent in the course of the next five years.IFILL: Thirty seconds, Senator Edwards.EDWARDS: We are committed to cutting back anything in our programs that need to be cut back to get us back on a path to fiscal responsibility.John Kerry, Mr. Vice President, has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts for the American people — over 600 times.And there is a philosophical difference between us and them.We are for more tax cuts for the middle class than they’re for, have been for the last four years. But we are not for more tax cuts for multimillionaires. They are.And it is a fundamental difference in what we think needs to be done in this country.IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax credit.Senators Kerry and Edwards weren’t even there to vote for it when it came to final passage.IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family’s experience as a context for your remarks.Can you describe then your administration’s support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?CHENEY: Gwen, you’re right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It’s really no one else’s business.That’s a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.Traditionally, that’s been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.In effect, what’s happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that’s the wrong way to go, as far as he’s concerned.Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they’re making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.Now, they may think that’s right. John Kerry and I do not.We don’t just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state’s marriage.This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it’s wrong.IFILL: New question, but same subject.As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.Are you trying to have it both ways?EDWARDS: No. I think we’ve both said the same thing all along.We both believe that — and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about — we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they’re in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.But we don’t — we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state’s marriage.Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It’s nothing but a political tool. And it’s being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what’s happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that’s solely for political purposes. It’s wrong.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.IFILL: That’s it?CHENEY: That’s it.IFILL: OK, then we’ll move on to the next question.This one is for you, Mr. Vice President. President Bush has derided John Kerry for putting a trial lawyer on the ticket. You yourself have said that lawsuits are partly to blame for higher medical costs. Are you willing to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of the problem?(LAUGHTER)CHENEY: Well, Gwen…IFILL: Mr. Vice President?(LAUGHTER) CHENEY: First of all, I’m not familiar with his cases. My concern is specifically with what’s happened to our medical care system because of rising malpractice insurance rates, because we failed to adequately reform our medical liability structure.I was in New Mexico the other day and met with a group of OB/GYN docs.And they were deeply concerned because they were fearful that there’d be another increase in malpractice insurance rates as a result of what they believe are frivolous lawsuits and that that would put them out of business.And one doctor indicated that her rates have gone up so much that she’s now to the point where she is screening patients. She won’t take high-risk patients anymore because of the danger that that will generate a lawsuit, and a lawsuit will put her out of business.This has had a devastating impact in a lot of communities. My home state of Wyoming, we’ve lost the top insurer of malpractice insurance in the state. The rates for a general practitioner have gone from $40,000 a year to $100,000 a year for an insurance policy.We think this has a devastating impact on the quality of health care.As I say, high risk patients don’t get covered anymore. We’ve lost one out of eleven OB/GYN practitioners in the country. We think it can be fixed, needs to be fixed.Now, specifically, what we need to do is cap non-economic damages, and we also think you need to limit the awards that the trial attorneys take out of all of this. Over 50 percent of the settlements go to the attorneys and for administrating overhead.We passed medical liability reform through the House of Representatives. It’s been blocked in the Senate. Senator Kerry’s voted 10 times against medical liability reform, and I don’t believe Senator Edwards supports it, either, not the kind that would be meaningful.IFILL: Senator Edwards?EDWARDS: Yes. Well let me say, first of all, I’m proud of the work I did on behalf of kids and families against big insurance companies, big drug companies and big HMOs.We do have too many lawsuits. And the reality is there’s something that we can do about it.John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don’t do it; have a three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases.That way we keep the cases out of the system that don’t belong in the system. They talk about frivolous cases. We believe cases that don’t belong in the system should never be in the system.But we don’t believe that we should take away the right of people like Valerie Lakey, who was the young girl who I represented, five years old, severely injured for life, on a defective swimming pool drain cover.It turns out the company knew of 12 other children who had either been killed or severely injured by the same problem. They hid it. They didn’t tell anybody. They could have fixed it with a 2-cent screw. That’s wrong.John Kerry and I are always going to stand with the Valerie Lakeys of the world, and not with the insurance companies.IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, same topic. Do you feel personally attacked when Vice President Cheney talks about liability reform and tort reform and the president talks about having a trial lawyer on the ticket?EDWARDS: Am I personally attacked?I think the truth is that what they’re doing is talking about an issue that really doesn’t have a great deal to do with what’s happening with medical cost in this country, which I think is a very serious issue.And I would be the first to say that what the vice president described a few minutes ago, problems with malpractice premiums, that’s true, it’s real. It’s very real. What doctors talk about is very serious.And they’re getting squeezed from both sides. I mean, because, they have trouble getting reimbursed, first of all, for the care that they provide, you know, from the government or from health-care companies. And, on the flip side, their malpractice costs are going up.That’s very real, which is why we have proposed a plan to keep cases out of the system that don’t belong there.But it’s very important to put this in context. Because, in context, everything they’re proposing, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, amounts to about half of 1 percent of health-care costs in this country — half of 1 percent.We have double-digit inflation in health care costs. We’ve seen the largest rise in medical costs in the last four years in the country’s history: $3,500 nationally. And nobody who’s watching this debate needs me to explain this to them. They know it.Medicare premiums are up 17 percent on their watch. Again, largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare.We think we have a plan to keep cases that don’t belong in the system out, but we also do what they haven’t done.Five million Americans have lost their health care coverage. Medical costs are skyrocketing. We have a serious health care plan to bring down costs for everybody, to cover millions more Americans and to actually stand up to drug companies and insurance companies which this administration has been unwilling to do.IFILL: Mr. Vice President?CHENEY: Gwen, we think lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in this country. We think we badly need tort reform.I was in Minnesota the other day, where I visited an aircraft manufacturing plant. It’s a great success story. This is a company that started 20 years ago with nothing. Today they’re the second- leading producer of piston-driven aircraft in the country.He told me that if it weren’t for the increased cost of his liability insurance, in this case product liability, he could hire 200 more people in his factory. We’ve built into the system enormous costs as a result of our practice with respect to litigation. We have to find ways to get a handle on it.He mentioned Medicare up 17 percent, somehow that that was something we caused. No. The 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums was the direct result of a statute adopted in 1997. John Kerry voted for it.It establishes the formula for Part B of Medicare that says, in effect, it has to cover 25 percent of the cost of the program. And the reason the money had to go into the trust fund was to make certain that we could cover those eligible for benefits.While you were in private practice in law and as a senator, you had the advantage of a special tax loophole, Subchapter S corporation, which you set up so you could avoid paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes that would have gone into the fund.And it’s those kinds of loopholes that necessitate a premium increase under the law that was enacted in 1997, supported by John Kerry.IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond.EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I have paid all the taxes that I owe.When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, they took advantage of every offshore loophole available. They had multiple offshore companies that were avoiding taxes.Those are the kind of things that ought to be closed. They ought to be closed. They ought to be closed for anybody. They ought to be closed whether they’re personal, and they ought to be closed whether they apply to a corporation.But the reality is health care costs are going up every day for the American people, and I hope we’re going to get a chance to talk more about health care.IFILL: Thirty seconds, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: We’ve done a lot to reduce the cost of health care. The Medicare drug benefit that we’ll be providing to seniors beginning in ’06 will provide upwards to $1,300 a year to help them buy prescription drugs.The drug savings — drug discount card that’s now available saves an estimated 15 percent to 30 percent off the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens.So we’re moving in as many areas as we can to make certain we hold down and reduce the health care costs.IFILL: I will talk to you about health care, Mr. Vice President. You have two minutes. But in particular, I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts.What should the government’s role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic?CHENEY: Well, this is a great tragedy, Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic — pandemic, really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing a very bleak future.In some parts of the world, we’ve got the entire, sort of, productive generation has been eliminated as a result of AIDS, all except for old folks and kids — nobody to do the basic work that runs an economy.The president has been deeply concerned about it. He has moved and proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort, to be targeted in those places where we need to do everything we can, through a combination of education as well as providing the kinds of medicines that will help people control the infection.Here in the United States, we’ve made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that it was — that they’re in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection, and I think primarily through a combination of education and public awareness as well as the development, as a result of research, of drugs that allow people to live longer lives even though they are infected — obviously we need to do more of that.IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Well, first, with respect to what’s happening in Africa and Russia and in other places around the world, the vice president spoke about the $15 billion for AIDS. John Kerry and I believe that needs to be doubled.And I might add, on the first year of their commitment, they came up significantly short of what they had promised.And we probably won’t get a chance to talk about Africa. Let me just say a couple of things.The AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is killing millions and millions of people and is a frightening thing not just for the people of Africa but also for the rest of the world, that, combined with the genocide that we’re now seeing in Sudan, are two huge moral issues for the United States of America, which John Kerry spoke about eloquently last Thursday night.Here at home we need to do much more. And the vice president spoke about doing research, making sure we have the drugs available, making sure that we do everything possible to have prevention. But it’s a bigger question than that.You know, we have 5 million Americans who’ve lost their health care coverage in the last four years; 45 million Americans without health care coverage. We have children who don’t have health care coverage.If kids and adults don’t have access to preventative care, if they’re not getting the health care that they need day after day after day, the possibility of not only developing AIDS and having a problem — having a problem — a life-threatening problem, but the problem of developing other life-threatening diseases is there every day of their lives.IFILL: OK, we’ll move on.This goes to you, Senator Edwards, and you have two minutes.Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since 1976 to be vice president. Out of those ten, you have the least governmental experience of any of them.What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away?EDWARDS: The American people want in their president and in their vice president basically three things: They want to know that their president and their vice president will keep them safe. They want to know that they have good judgment. And they want to know that you’ll tell them the truth.John Kerry and I will tell the American people the truth.During the time that I have served on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, traveling to some of the places we’ve talked about tonight — Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Turkey — meeting with the leaders of NATO, I have a very clear idea of what has to be done to keep this country safe.The threats we face: terrorism, killing terrorists and stopping them before they can do damage to us, making sure that we stop the spread of nuclear weapons.I agree with John Kerry from Thursday night, that the danger of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of terrorists is one of the greatest threats that America faces.But the one thing that we know from this administration is — and I — first of all, I don’t claim to have the long political resume that Vice President Cheney has. That’s just the truth, and the American people know that and deserve to know it. But what we know from this administration is that a long resume does not equal good judgment.Here are the judgments I would make: My first priority would be to keep this country safe. I would find terrorists where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us.We would stop the spread of nuclear weapons.And we would also strengthen this military, which means providing the equipment and training that they need.We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families — health care, housing — that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.CHENEY: You want me to answer a question about his qualifications?IFILL: That was the question.CHENEY: I see.Well, I think the important thing in picking a vice president probably varies from president to president. Different presidents approach it in different ways.When George Bush asked me to sign on, it obviously wasn’t because he was worried about carrying Wyoming. We got 70 percent of the vote in Wyoming, although those three electoral votes turned out to be pretty important last time around.What he said he wanted me to do was to sign on because of my experience to be a member of the team, to help him govern, and that’s exactly the way he’s used me.And I think from the perspective of the nation, it’s worked in our relationship, in this administration. I think it’s worked in part because I made it clear that I don’t have any further political aspirations myself. And I think that’s been an advantage.I think it allows the president to know that my only agenda is his agenda. I’m not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008.It’s a very significant responsibility when you consider that at a moment’s notice you may have to take over as president of the United States and make all of those decisions. It’s happened several times in our history.And I think that probably is the most important consideration in picking a vice president, somebody who could take over.IFILL: You have 30 seconds, if you’d like to respond to that.EDWARDS: I think the most important thing I’ve learned from this process is what I now know about John Kerry. I knew him before. I know him better now.He’s the one candidate who’s led troops in battle. He was a prosecutor, putting people behind bars to protect neighborhoods from crime. He fought for 100,000 cops on the street, and went with John McCain to Vietnam to find out what happened to our POWs.And the American people saw for themselves on Thursday night the strength, resolve, and backbone that I, myself, have seen in John Kerry.He is ready to be commander in chief. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds to respond.CHENEY: Well, I clearly believe that George W. Bush would be a better commander in chief. He’s already done it for four years.And he’s demonstrated, without question, the conviction, the vision, the determination to win this war against terror. He understands it’s a global conflict that reaches from the United States all the way around the globe to Jakarta.And those very special qualities are vital in a commander in chief. And I think the president has them, and I’m not at all convinced his opponent does.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, picking up on that, you both just sang the praises of the tops of your ticket.Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are different from your opponent, starting with you, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: Why I am different from John Edwards. Well, in some respects, I think, probably there are more similarities than there are differences in our personal story.I don’t talk about myself very much, but I’ve heard Senator Edwards, and as I listen to him, I find some similarities.I come from relatively modest circumstances. My grandfather never even went to high school. I’m the first in my family to graduate from college.I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for six years. I’ve been laid off, been hospitalized without health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems that people encounter.So I think the personal stories are, in some respects, surprisingly similar.With respect to how we’ve spent our careers, I obviously made a choice for public service. And I’ve been at it for a good long time now, except for those periods when we lost elections. And that goes with the turf, as well, too.I’m absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal with it.I feel very strongly that the significance of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. It forces us to think in new ways about strategy, about national security, about how we structure our forces and about how we use U.S. military power.Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we use force. I would argue we’ve already been attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. And I’m a very strong advocate of a very aggressive policy of going after the terrorists and those who support terror.IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked. But we weren’t attacked by Saddam Hussein. And one thing that John Kerry and I would agree with you about is that it is…IFILL: You just used John Kerry’s name.EDWARDS: Oh, I’m sorry. I broke the rule.One thing that we agree about is the need to be offensive in going after terrorists.The reality is that the best defense is a good offense, which means leading — America returning to its proud tradition of the last 75 years, of once again leading strong coalitions so we can get at these terrorist cells where they are, before they can do damage to us and to the American people.John Kerry made clear on Thursday night that — I’m sorry, I broke the rules. We made clear — we made clear on Thursday night that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively.But there are things that need to be done to keep this country safe that have not yet been done.For example, three years after 9/11, we find out that the administration still does not have a unified terrorist watch list. It’s amazing. Three years. What are we waiting for? You know, we still don’t have one list that everyone can work off of to see if terrorists are entering this country.We’re screening our passengers going onto airplanes, but we don’t screen the cargo.There are so many things that could be done to keep this country safe.You have to be strong, and you have to be aggressive. But we also have to be smart. And there are things that have not been done that need to be done to keep the American people safe.IFILL: Would you like to respond? Thirty seconds.CHENEY: No.IFILL: OK, we’ll move on. This goes to Senator Edwards.Flip-flopping has become a recurring theme in this campaign, you may have noticed.Senator Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the president to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about whether a homeland security department was a good idea or a 9/11 Commission was a good idea.What’s wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?EDWARDS: Well, first of all, let me say that John Kerry has — I can use his name now?IFILL: Yes.EDWARDS: OK. John Kerry has been, as have I, been completely consistent about Iraq. We’ve made very clear from the beginning — and not an afterthought; we said it at the time — that we had to confront Saddam Hussein and that we had to have a coalition and a plan to be successful.And the vice president didn’t say much about it in your earlier question, but Paul Bremer has now made clear that they didn’t have enough troops and they didn’t have a plan.And the American people are seeing the results of that every single day, in spite of the proud and courageous service of our men and women in uniform.Now, flip-flops: They should know something about flip-flops. They’ve seen a lot of it during their administration.They were first against the 9/11 Commission; then they were for it. They were for a department of homeland security — I mean, they were against the Department of Homeland Security; then they were for it.They said they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus when they came into office aside to protect Social Security; then they changed their minds. They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.They said that they were going to do something about health care in this country. And they’ve done something: They’ve made it worse.They said that they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today.Over and over, this administration has said one thing and done another.This president said — I listened to him the other night at his 2000 debate saying: I’m for a national patients’ bill of rights.I know something about this. John McCain and Senator Kennedy and I wrote it, got it passed in the Senate. We don’t have a patients’ bill of rights because of one man today, the president of the United States. They’ve gone back and forth.IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I can think of a lot of words to describe Senator Kerry’s position on Iraq; “consistent” is not one of them.I think if you look at the record from voting for sending the troops then voting against the resources they needed when they got there, then saying I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it, saying in response to a question knowing everything I know now, yes, I would have cast exactly the same vote and then shortly after that saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, consistency doesn’t come to mind as I consider that record.The question of troops is an interesting and important one. We have looked to our commanders on the ground in Iraq for guidance on what they think they need. If they need more troops, they’ll ask us.But the key here is not to try to solve the problems in Iraq by putting in more American troops. The key is to get the Iraqis to take on the responsibility for their own security. That’s exactly what we’re doing.If you put American troops in there in larger number and don’t get the Iraqis into the fight, you’ll postpone the day when you can in fact bring our boys home. It’s vital that we deal with any need for additional troops by putting Iraqis into the effort.Forty-nine percent increase in funding for elementary and secondary education under No Child Left Behind; that’s a lot of money even by Massachusetts’ standards.IFILL: You have 30 seconds if you choose.EDWARDS: Yes, but they didn’t fund the mandates that they put on the schools all over this country. That’s the reason 800 teachers — one of the reasons — 800 teachers have been laid off, right here in Cleveland. One-third of our public schools are failing under this administration. Half of African-Americans are dropping out of high school. Half of Hispanic-American are dropping out of high school.John and I have — and I don’t have the time now — but we have a clear plan to improve our public schools that starts with getting our best teachers into the schools where we need them the most by creating incentives for them to go there.IFILL: Mr. Vice President?CHENEY: Gwen, No Child Left Behind, they were for it; now they’re against it. They voted for it; now they’re opposed to it.We are making significant progress there. We are closing the achievement gap. The results coming in from a number of studies show, without question, that on math and reading, that in fact our minority students, our Hispanic and African-American students are doing better, and that gap between them and the majority population is, in fact, closing.So we are doing exactly the right thing. They’re the ones who have been for the Patriot Act and against it, for No Child Left Behind and then against it.IFILL: Mr. Vice President, our final — I’m sorry, you have 30 seconds, Senator Edwards.EDWARDS: Are you sure — yes, he started. Yes, 30 seconds, please, yes.We are for accountability, and we are for high standards. John and I voted for No Child Left Behind because we thought that accountability and standards were the right thing to do.But they make — did you figure out you were wrong?IFILL: I did figure out I was wrong.EDWARDS: Well, in fairness, if you feel like you need to go to him, we’ll — I’ll stop. IFILL: Well, I do, because we’re actually on the final question. I apologize for giving you an extra 15 seconds there. I go now to Vice President Cheney.Whichever one of you is elected in November — you mentioned those three electoral votes in Wyoming and how critical they’ve turned out to be.But what they’re a sign of also is that you’re going to inherit a very deeply divided electorate, economically, politically, you name it.How will you set out, Mr. Vice President, in a way that you weren’t able to in these past four years, to bridge that divide?CHENEY: Well, I must say it’s one of the disappointments of the last four years, is that we’ve not been able to do what the president did in Texas, for example, when he was able to reach across the aisle and bring Democrats along on major issues of the day.We had some success early on, I think, in No Child Left Behind, when we, in fact, had broad, bipartisan support.We had a lot of support for the Patriot Act, when we passed that on a bipartisan basis. Now we’re seeing objection to that by the other side. All I know is to continue to try to work it.It’s a disappointment, in a sense, that I remember from my earlier service when things worked much differently, when, in fact, some of my best friends in the Congress were people I worked with, like Tom Foley, who was a majority leader and later speaker of the House. One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.We used to be able to do more together on a bipartisan basis than seems possible these days. I’m not sure exactly why. I think, in part, it may be the change in the majority-minority status in the Senate has been difficult for both sides to adjust to.And the Senate, of course, has been very evenly divided, 50-50, then 51-49, then 49-51 the other way.We’ll keep working at it.I think it’s important for us to try. I believe that it is essential for us to do everything we can to garner as much support from the other side of the aisle as possible. We’ve had support — we had our keynote address at our convention was delivered by Zell Miller. So there are some Democrats who agree with our approach.And hopefully in a second term, we’ll see an improvement along those lines.IFILL: Senator, there’s 90 seconds.EDWARDS: Thank you.The president said that he would unite this country, that he was a uniter, not a divider.Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided?The reality is it is not an accident. It’s the direct result of the choices they’ve made and their efforts that have created division in America. We can do better than that in this country.Now I want to go back to the whole issue of health care, because we touched it, but I think the American people deserve to know what we would do different.I mean, 5 million people losing their health care — everyone who’s watching this knows health insurance premiums are through the roof.We need to talk about what we will do that they haven’t done.First, we’re going to make the same health care that’s available to members of Congress available to all Americans. We’re going to cover all kids.Not only that, we’re going to bring down costs by pooling the catastrophic costs so we bring down premiums.And we’re going to give tax breaks directly to families, save them up to $1,000 a year, and to businesses — the vice president talked about that a few minutes ago — so that they can provide health care to their employees.And we’re also going to finally do something about the cost of prescription drugs.They’ve blocked allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada. We’re going to allow it.They would not allow the government to use its negotiating power to get discounts for seniors. We’re going to allow it.We’re also going to stand up to the drug companies and do something about these drug company ads on television which are out of control.IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond to that, Mr. Vice President.CHENEY: Well, Gwen — I’m sorry, it’s hard to know where to start.The fact of the matter is, the most important and significant change in health care in the last several years was the Medicare reform bill this year. It’s the most sweeping change in 40 years.Medicare used to pay for heart bypass surgery but didn’t pay for the prescription drugs that might allow you to avoid it.The fact is that when that came up, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted against it. It’ll provide prescription drug benefits to 40 million senior citizens. It’s a very, very significant piece of legislation.IFILL: Thirty seconds.EDWARDS: They had a choice on allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada, of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.They had a choice on negotiating discounts in the Medicare prescription drug bill of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.They had a choice on the patients’ bill of rights, allowing people to make their own health care decisions and not having insurance companies make them, be with the American people, be with the big insurance companies.They’re with the insurance companies.John Kerry and I will always fight for the American people.IFILL: As previously agreed, we’ll go to closing statements now, two minutes each.Coin toss, Senator Edwards, you begin.EDWARDS: Thank you.Thank you, Gwen.Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for being here.You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow of the television.And I’d see my father sitting at a table. He wasn’t paying bills, and he wasn’t doing paperwork from work.What he was doing was learning math on television.Now, he didn’t have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I’m still proud of him.And I was also hopeful, because I knew that I lived in a country where I could get a college education.Here’s the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today.Now, I know that the vice president and the president don’t see it, but you do.You see it when your incomes are going down and the cost of everything — college tuition, health care — is going through the roof. You see it when you sit at your table each night and there’s an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. What they’re going to give you is four more years of the same.John Kerry and I believe that we can do better. We believe in a strong middle-class in this country. That’s why we have a plan to create jobs, getting rid of tax cuts for companies outsourcing your jobs; give tax cuts to companies that’ll keep jobs here in America.That’s why we have a health care plan. That’s why we have a plan to keep you safe and to fix this mess in Iraq.The truth is that every four years you get to decide. You have the ability to decide where America’s going to go. John Kerry and I are asking you to give us the power to fight for you, to fight to keep that dream in America, that I saw as a young man, alive for every parent sitting at that kitchen table.IFILL: Vice President Cheney?CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you.It’s been a privilege to serve as your vice president these last four years and to work alongside President Bush to put our economy on an upward path.We’ve cut taxes, added 1.7 million new jobs in the last year, and we’ll continue to provide opportunities for business and for workers.We won’t be happy until every American who wants to work can find a job.We believe that all Americans ought to have access to available — to medical care and that they ought to have access to the finest schools in the world.We’ll do everything we can to preserve Social Security and to make certain that it’s there for future generations.I’ve worked for four presidents and watched two others up close, and I know that there’s no such thing as a routine day in the Oval Office.We saw on 9/11 that the next president — next decision a president has to make can affect the lives of all of us.Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we’ve ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities.That threat — and the presidential leadership needed to deal with it — is placing a special responsibility on all of you who will decide on November 2nd who will be our commander in chief.The only viable option for winning the war on terrorism is the one the president has chosen, to use the power of the United States to aggressively go after the terrorists wherever we find them and also to hold to account states that sponsor terror.Now that we’ve captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida and taken down the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, it’s important that we stand up democratically elected governments as the only guarantee that they’ll never again revert to terrorism or the production of deadly weapons.This is the task of our generation. And I know firsthand the strength the president brings to it.The overall outcome will depend upon the ability of the American people and the strong leadership of the president to meet all the challenges that we’ll face in the days and years ahead.I’m confident we can do it.IFILL: And with that, we come to the end of tonight’s debate.On behalf of the commission and the candidates, I’d like to extend a special thank you to the students and administration here at Case Western Reserve University.A reminder: The second presidential debate takes place this coming Friday at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Charles Gibson of ABC News will serve as moderator of that encounter, where the candidates will field questions from an audience.Then, on October 13th, from Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, Bob Schieffer of CBS News will moderate a debate on domestic issues.For now, thank you, Vice President Cheney, Senator Edwards.From Cleveland, Ohio, I’m Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and goodnight.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "cfeb18b6-c957-4360-9af5-16d8c8c8c742"
  },
  {
    "year": 2008,
    "date": "October 7, 2008",
    "title": "The Second McCain-Obama Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 7, 2008 Debate TranscriptOctober 7, 2008The Second McCain-Obama Presidential DebateSENS. MCCAIN AND OBAMA PARTICIPATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE, BELMONT UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEESPEAKERS:U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (AZ)REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEU. S. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (IL)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEETOM BROKAW, MODERATOR[*] BROKAW: Good evening from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m Tom Brokaw of NBC News. And welcome to this second presidential debate, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.Tonight’s debate is the only one with a town hall format. The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates.From all of these questions — and from tens of thousands submitted online — I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy.Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won’t be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.Each candidate will have two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a one-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite, and attentive, no cheering or outbursts. Those of you at home, of course, are not so constrained.The only exception in the hall is right now, as it is my privilege to introduce the candidates, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator John McCain of Arizona.Gentlemen?(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, we want to get underway immediately, if we can. Since you last met at Ole Miss 12 days ago, the world has changed a great deal, and not for the better. We still don’t know where the bottom is at this time.As you might expect, many of the questions that we have from here in the hall tonight and from online have to do with the American economy and, in fact, with global economic conditions.I understand that you flipped a coin.And, Senator Obama, you will begin tonight. And we’re going to have our first question from over here in Section A from Alan Schaefer (ph).Alan (ph)?QUESTION: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?OBAMA: Well, Alan (ph), thank you very much for the question. I want to first, obviously, thank Belmont University, Tom, thank you, and to all of you who are participating tonight and those of you who sent e-mail questions in.I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college.And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.It hasn’t worked out that way. And so now we’ve got to take some decisive action.OBAMA: Now, step one was a rescue package that was passed last week. We’ve got to make sure that works properly. And that means strong oversight, making sure that investors, taxpayers are getting their money back and treated as investors.It means that we are cracking down on CEOs and making sure that they’re not getting bonuses or golden parachutes as a consequence of this package. And, in fact, we just found out that AIG, a company that got a bailout, just a week after they got help went on a $400,000 junket.And I’ll tell you what, the Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired. But that’s only step one. The middle-class need a rescue package. And that means tax cuts for the middle-class.It means help for homeowners so that they can stay in their homes. It means that we are helping state and local governments set up road projects and bridge projects that keep people in their jobs.And then long-term we’ve got to fix our health care system, we’ve got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. You need somebody working for you and you’ve got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Tom. Thank you, Belmont University. And Senator Obama, it’s good to be with you at a town hall meeting.And, Alan (ph), thank you for your question. You go to the heart of America’s worries tonight. Americans are angry, they’re upset, and they’re a little fearful. It’s our job to fix the problem.Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t want us very — like us very much. We have to keep Americans’ taxes low. All Americans’ taxes low. Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today.We obviously have to stop this spending spree that’s going on in Washington. Do you know that we’ve laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China? We’ve got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we’re going to have to do something about home values.You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.I know how the do that, my friends. And it’s my proposal, it’s not Senator Obama’s proposal, it’s not President Bush’s proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you.BROKAW: Senator, we have one minute for a discussion here. Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won’t stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Not you, Tom.(LAUGHTER)BROKAW: No, with good reason.MCCAIN: You know, that’s a tough question and there’s a lot of qualified Americans. But I think the first criteria, Tom, would have to be somebody who immediately Americans identify with, immediately say, we can trust that individual.A supporter of Senator Obama’s is Warren Buffett. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.I like Meg Whitman, she knows what it’s like to be out there in the marketplace. She knows how to create jobs. Meg Whitman was CEO of a company that started with 12 people and is now 1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay. Maybe somebody here has done a little business with them.But the point is it’s going to have to be somebody who inspires trust and confidence. Because the problem in America today to a large extent, Tom, is that we don’t have trust and confidence in our institutions because of the corruption on Wall Street and the greed and excess and the cronyism in Washington, D.C.BROKAW: All right. Senator McCain — Senator Obama, who do you have in mind for treasury secretary?OBAMA: Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice — Warren Buffett, and I’m pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it’s not enough just to help those at the top.Prosperity is not just going to trickle down. We’ve got to help the middle class.OBAMA: And we’ve — you know, Senator McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Senator McCain’s statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.Part of the problem here is that for many of you, wages and incomes have flat-lined. For many of you, it is getting harder and harder to save, harder and harder to retire.And that’s why, for example, on tax policy, what I want to do is provide a middle class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, those who are working two jobs, people who are not spending enough time with their kids, because they are struggling to make ends meet.Senator McCain is right that we’ve got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That’s something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.BROKAW: Senator Obama, thank you very much.May I remind both of you, if I can, that we’re operating under rules that you signed off on and when we have a discussion, it really is to be confined within about a minute or so.We’re going to go now, Senator McCain, to the next question from you from the hall here, and it comes from Oliver Clark (ph), who is over here in section F.Oliver?QUESTION: Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that’s going to actually help those people out.MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Oliver, and that’s an excellent question, because as you just described it, bailout, when I believe that it’s rescue, because — because of the greed and excess in Washington and Wall Street, Main Street was paying a very heavy price, and we know that.I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good oversight, in the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our economy recovers — and it will recover — and a number of other measures.But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I’ll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.But you know, they’re the ones that, with the encouragement of Senator Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we’ve got to enact legislation to fix this. We’ve got to stop this greed and excess.Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some — and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Senator Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history — in history.So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it’s not enough. That’s why we’re going to have to go out into the housing market and we’re going to have to buy up these bad loans and we’re going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.But Fannie and Freddie were the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire. There were some of us — there were some of us that stood up against it. There were others who took a hike.BROKAW: Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what’s in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can’t get loans.If they can’t get a loan, that means that they can’t make payroll. If they can’t make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country.So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that’s why we had to take action. But we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.Now, I’ve got to correct a little bit of Senator McCain’s history, not surprisingly. Let’s, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system. Senator McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we’ve got a sub-prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we’ve got to reregulate, and nothing happened.OBAMA: And Senator McCain during that period said that we should keep on deregulating because that’s how the free enterprise system works.Now, with respect to Fannie Mae, what Senator McCain didn’t mention is the fact that this bill that he talked about wasn’t his own bill. He jumped on it a year after it had been introduced and it never got passed.And I never promoted Fannie Mae. In fact, Senator McCain’s campaign chairman’s firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae, not me.So — but, look, you’re not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers. What you’re interested in is trying to figure out, how is this going to impact you?This is not the end of the process; this is the beginning of the process. And that’s why it’s going to be so important for us to work with homeowners to make sure that they can stay in their homes.The secretary already has the power to do that in the rescue package, but it hasn’t been exercised yet. And the next president has to make sure that the next Treasury secretary is thinking about how to strengthen you as a home buyer, you as a homeowner, and not simply think about bailing out banks on Wall Street.BROKAW: Senator Obama, time for a discussion. I’m going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?OBAMA: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We’re going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.But most importantly, we’re going to have to help ordinary families be able to stay in their homes, make sure that they can pay their bills, deal with critical issues like health care and energy, and we’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process and your voices aren’t being drowned out.BROKAW: Senator McCain, in all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?MCCAIN: I think it depends on what we do. I think if we act effectively, if we stabilize the housing market — which I believe we can, if we go out and buy up these bad loans, so that people can have a new mortgage at the new value of their home — I think if we get rid of the cronyism and special interest influence in Washington so we can act more effectively.My friend, I’d like you to see the letter that a group of senators and I wrote warning exactly of this crisis. Senator Obama’s name was not on that letter.The point is — the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans’ workers are the best in the world. They’re the fundamental aspect of America’s economy.They’re the most innovative. They’re the best — they’re most — have best — we’re the best exporters. We’re the best importers. They’re most effective. They are the best workers in the world.And we’ve got to give them a chance. They’ve got — we’ve got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.BROKAW: Thank you, Senator McCain.We’re going to continue over in Section F, as it turns out.Senator Obama, this is a question from you from Theresa Finch (ph).Theresa (ph)?QUESTION: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got — got us into this global economic crisis?OBAMA: Well, look, I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you’ve been carrying out your responsibilities — most of the people here, you’ve got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don’t go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car.That’s not what happens in Washington. And you’re right. There is a lot of blame to go around.But I think it’s important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.When George Bush came into office, our debt — national debt was around $5 trillion. It’s now over $10 trillion. We’ve almost doubled it. And so while it’s true that nobody’s completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Senator McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.So here’s what I would do. I’m going to spend some money on the key issues that we’ve got to work on.OBAMA: You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We’ve got to reform health care to help you and your budget.We are going to have to deal with energy because we can’t keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We’ve got to have a different energy plan.We’ve got to invest in college affordability. So we’re going to have to make some investments, but we’ve also got to make spending cuts. And what I’ve proposed, you’ll hear Senator McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.The key is whether or not we’ve got priorities that are working for you as opposed to those who have been dictating the policy in Washington lately, and that’s mostly lobbyists and special interests. We’ve got to put an end to that.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, Theresa (ph), thank you. And I can see why you feel that cynicism and mistrust, because the system in Washington is broken. And I have been a consistent reformer.I have advocated and taken on the special interests, whether they be the big money people by reaching across the aisle and working with Senator Feingold on campaign finance reform, whether it being a variety of other issues, working with Senator Lieberman on trying to address climate change.I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Senator Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform.And so let’s look at our records as well as our rhetoric. That’s really part of your mistrust here. And now I suggest that maybe you go to some of these organizations that are the watchdogs of what we do, like the Citizens Against Government Waste or the National Taxpayers Union or these other organizations that watch us all the time.I don’t expect you to watch every vote. And you know what you’ll find? This is the most liberal big-spending record in the United States Senate. I have fought against excessive spending and outrages. I have fought to reduce the earmarks and eliminate them. Do you know that Senator Obama has voted for — is proposing $860 billion of new spending now? New spending. Do you know that he voted for every increase in spending that I saw come across the floor of the United States Senate while we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks?He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?I think you have to look at my record and you have to look at his. Then you have to look at our proposals for our economy, not $860 billion in new spending, but for the kinds of reforms that keep people in their jobs, get middle-income Americans working again, and getting our economy moving again.You’re going to be examining our proposals tonight and in the future, and energy independence is a way to do that, is one of them. And drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements of that. And I’ve been supporting those and I know how to fix this economy, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $700 billion a year overseas.BROKAW: We’ve run out of time. We have this one-minute discussion period going on here.There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?Senator McCain?MCCAIN: The three priorities were health…BROKAW: The three — health care, energy, and entitlement reform: Social Security and Medicare. In what order would you put them in terms of priorities?MCCAIN: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom. I think it’s very important that we reform our entitlement programs.My friends, we are not going to be able to provide the same benefit for present-day workers that we are going — that present-day retirees have today. We’re going to have to sit down across the table, Republican and Democrat, as we did in 1983 between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill.I know how to do that. I have a clear record of reaching across the aisle, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy or others. That’s my clear record.We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs. We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology. All of these things we can do as Americans and we can take on this mission and we can overcome it.MCCAIN: My friends, some of this $700 billion ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.As far as health care is concerned, obviously, everyone is struggling to make sure that they can afford their premiums and that they can have affordable and available health care. That’s the next issue.But we can do them all at once. There’s no — and we have to do them all at once. All three you mentioned are compelling national security requirements.BROKAW: I’m trying to play by the rules that you all established. One minute for discussion.Senator Obama, if you would give us your list of priorities, there are some real questions about whether everything can be done at once.OBAMA: We’re going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I’ve listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list.Energy we have to deal with today, because you’re paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it’s a strain on your family budget, but it’s also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.So we’ve got to deal with that right away. That’s why I’ve called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year’s time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we’re going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one.Health care is priority number two, because that broken health care system is bad not only for families, but it’s making our businesses less competitive.And, number three, we’ve got to deal with education so that our young people are competitive in a global economy.But just one point I want to make, Tom. Senator McCain mentioned looking at our records. We do need to look at our records.Senator McCain likes to talk about earmarks a lot. And that’s important. I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.But understand this: We also have to look at where some of our tax revenues are going. So when Senator McCain proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he’s going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth, that’s money out of the system.And so we’ve got to prioritize both our spending side and our tax policies to make sure that they’re working for you. That’s what I’m going to do as president of the United States.BROKAW: All right, gentlemen, I want to just remind you one more time about time. We’re going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don’t get this under control here before too long.(LAUGHTER)Senator McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora (ph) from Chicago.Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices — sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in?MCCAIN: Well, Fiora (ph), I’m going to ask the American people to understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate.I first proposed a long time ago that we would have to examine every agency and every bureaucracy of government. And we’re going to have to eliminate those that aren’t working.I know a lot of them that aren’t working. One of them is in defense spending, because I’ve taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion.I believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. And sometimes those projects, not — not the overhead projector that Senator Obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have — will have to be eliminated, as well.And they’ll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others.So we’re going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that — except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we’ll just have to have across-the-board freeze.And some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full transparency, with full knowledge of the American people, and full consultation, not done behind closed doors and shoving earmarks in the middle of the night into programs that we don’t even — sometimes we don’t even know about until months later.And, by the way, I want to go back a second.MCCAIN: Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We’re not — we’re not — we’re not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.Frankly, I’m not going to tell that person without health insurance that, “I’m sorry, you’ll have to wait.” I’m going to tell you Americans we’ll get to work right away and we’ll get to work together, and we can get them all done, because that’s what America has been doing.BROKAW: Senator McCain, thank you very much.Senator Obama?OBAMA: You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, “Go out and shop.”That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.And so it’s important to understand that the — I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.And let’s take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.I believe in the need for increased oil production. We’re going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they’re not using, that either you use them or you lose them.We’re going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy.But each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings. And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we’re providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that’s made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient.And that’s going to require effort from each and every one of us.And the last point I just want to make. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America.That’s something that all of us have to be involved with and that requires some leadership from Washington.BROKAW: Senator Obama, as we begin, very quickly, our discussion period, President Bush, you’ll remember, last summer, said that “Wall Street got drunk.”A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk.How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?OBAMA: Well, I think it starts with Washington. We’ve got to show that we’ve got good habits, because if we’re running up trillion dollar debts that we’re passing on to the next generation, then a lot of people are going to think, “Well, you know what? There’s easy money out there.”It means — and I have to, again, repeat this. It means looking (ph) at the spending side, but also at the revenue side. I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that’s good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.Now, when Senator McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that’s not sharing a burden.And so part of the problem, I think, for a lot of people who are listening here tonight is they don’t feel as if they are sharing the burden with other folks.I mean, you know, it’s tough to ask a teacher who’s making $30,000 or $35,000 a year to tighten her belt when people who are making much more than her are living pretty high on the hog.And that’s why I think it’s important for the president to set a tone that says all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to make sacrifices, and it means that, yes, we may have to cut some spending, although I disagree with Senator McCain about an across-the- board freeze.That’s an example of an unfair burden sharing. That’s using a hatchet to cut the federal budget.OBAMA: I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us, like myself and Senator McCain, who don’t need help, aren’t getting it.That’s how we make sure that everybody is willing to make a few sacrifices.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, you know, nailing down Senator Obama’s various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. There has been five or six of them and if you wait long enough, there will probably be another one.But he wants to raise taxes. My friends, the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I’m sure we’ll get to at some point.You know, last year up to this time, we’ve lost 700,000 jobs in America. The only bright spot is that over 300,000 jobs have been created by small businesses. Senator Obama’s secret that you don’t know is that his tax increases will increase taxes on 50 percent of small business revenue.Small businesses across America will have to cut jobs and will have their taxes increase and won’t be able to hire because of Senator Obama’s tax policies. You know, he said some time ago, he said he would forgo his tax increases if the economy was bad.I’ve got some news, Senator Obama, the news is bad. So let’s not raise anybody’s taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000.To giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Senator Obama’s plan calls for. And let’s create jobs and let’s get our economy going again. And let’s not raise anybody’s taxes.BROKAW: Senator Obama, we have another question from the Internet.OBAMA: Tom, can I respond to this briefly? Because…BROKAW: Well, look, guys, the rules were established by the two campaigns, we worked very hard on this. This will address, I think, the next question.OBAMA: The tax issue, because I think it’s very important. Go ahead.BROKAW: There are lots of issues that we are going to be dealing with here tonight. And we have a question from Langdon (ph) in Ballston Spa, New York, and that’s about huge unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs that will soon eat up all of the revenue that’s in place and then go into a deficit position.Since the rules are pretty loose here, I’m going to add my own to this one. Instead of having a discussion, let me ask you as a coda to that. Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that’s a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.OBAMA: Well, Tom, we’re going to have to take on entitlements and I think we’ve got to do it quickly. We’re going to have a lot of work to do, so I can’t guarantee that we’re going to do it in the next two years, but I’d like to do in the my first term as president.But I think it’s important to understand, we’re not going to solve Social Security and Medicare unless we understand the rest of our tax policies. And you know, Senator McCain, I think the “Straight Talk Express” lost a wheel on that one.So let’s be clear about my tax plan and Senator McCain’s, because we’re not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent.If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.Now, Senator McCain talks about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan.And we provide a 50 percent tax credit so that they can buy health insurance for their workers, because there are an awful lot of small businesses that I meet across America that want to do right by their workers but they just can’t afford it. Some small business owners, a lot of them, can’t even afford health insurance for themselves.Now, in contrast, Senator McCain wants to give a $300 billion tax cut, $200 billion of it to the largest corporations and a hundred thousand of it — a hundred billion of it going to people like CEOs on Wall Street. He wants to give average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts. That is not fair. And it doesn’t work.OBAMA: Now, if we get our tax policies right so that they’re good for the middle class, if we reverse the policies of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place and that Senator McCain supported, then we are going to be in a position to deal with Social Security and deal with Medicare, because we will have a health care plan that actually works for you, reduces spending and costs over the long term, and Social Security that is stable and solvent for all Americans and not just some.BROKAW: Senator McCain, two years for a reform of entitlement programs?MCCAIN: Sure. Hey, I’ll answer the question. Look — look, it’s not that hard to fix Social Security, Tom. It’s just…BROKAW: And Medicare.MCCAIN: … tough decisions. I want to get to Medicare in a second.Social Security is not that tough. We know what the problems are, my friends, and we know what the fixes are. We’ve got to sit down together across the table. It’s been done before.I saw it done with our — our wonderful Ronald Reagan, a conservative from California, and the liberal Democrat Tip O’Neill from Massachusetts. That’s what we need more of, and that’s what I’ve done in Washington.Senator Obama has never taken on his party leaders on a single major issue. I’ve taken them on. I’m not too popular sometimes with my own party, much less his.So Medicare, it’s going to be a little tougher. It’s going to be a little tougher because we’re talking about very complex and difficult issues.My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is have a commission, have the smartest people in America come together, come up with recommendations, and then, like the base-closing commission idea we had, then we should have Congress vote up or down.Let’s not let them fool with it anymore. There’s too much special interests and too many lobbyists working there. So let’s have — and let’s have the American people say, “Fix it for us.” Now, just back on this — on this tax, you know, again, it’s back to our first question here about rhetoric and record. Senator Obama has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts. That’s his record.When he ran for the United States Senate from Illinois, he said he would have a middle-income tax cut. You know he came to the Senate and never once proposed legislation to do that?So let’s look at our record. I’ve fought higher taxes. I have fought excess spending. I have fought to reform government.Let’s look at our records, my friends, and then listen to my vision for the future of America. And we’ll get our economy going again. And our best days are ahead of us.BROKAW: Senator McCain, thank you very much. I’m going to stick by my part of the pact and not ask a follow-up here.The next question does come from the hall for Senator McCain. It comes from Section C over here, and it’s from Ingrid Jackson (ph).Ingrid (ph)?QUESTION: Senator McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?MCCAIN: Well, thank you. Look, we are in tough economic times; we all know that. And let’s keep — never forget the struggle that Americans are in today.But when we can — when we have an issue that we may hand our children and our grandchildren a damaged planet, I have disagreed strongly with the Bush administration on this issue. I traveled all over the world looking at the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, Joe Lieberman and I.And I introduced the first legislation, and we forced votes on it. That’s the good news, my friends. The bad news is we lost. But we kept the debate going, and we kept this issue to — to posing to Americans the danger that climate change opposes.Now, how — what’s — what’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.Look, I — I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it’s clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.And — and I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Senator Obama has opposed that. We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternate — alternative energies for — for hybrid, for hydrogen, for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs.We can do that, we as Americans, because we’re the best innovators, we’re the best producers, and 95 percent of the people who are our market live outside of the United States of America.BROKAW: Senator Obama?OBAMA: This is one of the biggest challenges of our times.OBAMA: And it is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades.And we can do it, but we’re going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we’ve got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.And that’s why we’ve got to make some investments and I’ve called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal. Contrary to what Senator McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.But this is another example where I think it is important to look at the record. Senator McCain and I actually agree on something. He said a while back that the big problem with energy is that for 30 years, politicians in Washington haven’t done anything.What Senator McCain doesn’t mention is he’s been there 26 of them. And during that time, he voted 23 times against alternative fuels, 23 times.So it’s easy to talk about this stuff during a campaign, but it’s important for us to understand that it requires a sustained effort from the next president.One last point I want to make on energy. Senator McCain talks a lot about drilling, and that’s important, but we have three percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.So what that means is that we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem. And we’re not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming.We’re going to have to come up with alternatives, and that means that the United States government is working with the private sector to fund the kind of innovation that we can then export to countries like China that also need energy and are setting up one coal power plant a week.We’ve got to make sure that we’re giving them the energy that they need or helping them to create the energy that they need.BROKAW: Gentlemen, you may not have noticed, but we have lights around here. They have red and green and yellow and they are to signal…OBAMA: I’m just trying to keep up with John.MCCAIN: Tom, wave like that and I’ll look at you.BROKAW: All right, Senator.Here’s a follow-up to that, one-minute discussion. It’s a simple question.MCCAIN: Sure.BROKAW: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?MCCAIN: I think pure research and development investment on the part of the United States government is certainly appropriate. I think once it gets into productive stages, that we ought to, obviously, turn it over to the private sector.By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel — these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.I vote against them, my friends. I vote against them. But the point is, also, on oil drilling, oil drilling offshore now is vital so that we can bridge the gap. We can bridge the gap between imported oil, which is a national security issue, as well as any other, and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil, because when people know there’s a greater supply, then the cost of that will go down.That’s fundamental economics. We’ve got to drill offshore, my friends, and we’ve got to do it now, and we can do it.And as far as nuclear power is concerned, again, look at the record. Senator Obama has approved storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.And I’ll stop, Tom, and you didn’t even wave. Thanks.BROKAW: Thank you very much, Senator.Next question for you, Senator Obama, and it comes from the E section over here and it’s from Lindsey Trellow (ph).Lindsey?QUESTION: Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry.Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?OBAMA: Well, you know, as I travel around the country, this is one of the single most frequently asked issues that I get, is the issue of health care. It is breaking family budgets. I can’t tell you how many people I meet who don’t have health insurance.If you’ve got health insurance, most of you have seen your premiums double over the last eight years. And your co-payments and deductibles have gone up 30 percent just in the last year alone. If you’re a small business, it’s a crushing burden.So one of the things that I have said from the start of this campaign is that we have a moral commitment as well as an economic imperative to do something about the health care crisis that so many families are facing.So here’s what I would do. If you’ve got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We’re going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.And we’re going to do it by investing in prevention. We’re going to do it by making sure that we use information technology so that medical records are actually on computers instead of you filling forms out in triplicate when you go to the hospital. That will reduce medical errors and reduce costs.If you don’t have health insurance, you’re going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Senator McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there’s a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem.Now, Senator McCain has a different kind of approach. He says that he’s going to give you a $5,000 tax credit. What he doesn’t tell you is that he is going to tax your employer-based health care benefits for the first time ever.So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away. He would also strip away the ability of states to provide some of the regulations on insurance companies to make sure you’re not excluded for pre-existing conditions or your mammograms are covered or your maternity is covered. And that is fundamentally the wrong way to go.In fact, just today business organizations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which generally are pretty supportive of Republicans, said that this would lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system.That, I don’t think, is the kind of change that we need. We’ve got to have somebody who is fighting for patients and making sure that you get decent, affordable health care. And that’s something that I’m committed to doing as president.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, thank you for the question. You really identified one of the really major challenges that America faces. Co-payments go up, costs go up, skyrocketing costs, which make people less and less able to afford health insurance in America.And we need to do all of the things that are necessary to make it more efficient. Let’s put health records online, that will reduce medical errors, as they call them. Let’s have community health centers. Let’s have walk-in clinics. Let’s do a lot of things to impose efficiencies.But what is at stake here in this health care issue is the fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. As you notice, he starts talking about government. He starts saying, government will do this and government will do that, and then government will, and he’ll impose mandates.If you’re a small business person and you don’t insure your employees, Senator Obama will fine you. Will fine you. That’s remarkable. If you’re a parent and you’re struggling to get health insurance for your children, Senator Obama will fine you.I want to give every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit. They can take it anywhere, across state lines. Why not? Don’t we go across state lines when we purchase other things in America? Of course it’s OK to go across state lines because in Arizona they may offer a better plan that suits you best than it does here in Tennessee.And if you do the math, those people who have employer-based health benefits, if you put the tax on it and you have what’s left over and you add $5,000 that you’re going to get as a refundable tax credit, do the math, 95 percent of the American people will have increased funds to go out and buy the insurance of their choice and to shop around and to get — all of those people will be covered except for those who have these gold-plated Cadillac kinds of policies.You know, like hair transplants, I might need one of those myself. But the point is that we have got to give people choice in America and not mandate things on them and give them the ability. Every parent I know would acquire health insurance for their children if they could.Obviously small business people want to give their employees health insurance. Of course they all want to do that. We’ve got to give them the wherewithal to do it. We can do it by giving them, as a start, a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go around and get the health insurance policy of their choice.BROKAW: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?Senator McCain?MCCAIN: I think it’s a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that — that I have, that will do that.But government mandates I — I’m always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small-business people and others, and they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that.But they certainly are a little nervous when Senator Obama says, if you don’t get the health care policy that I think you should have, then you’re going to get fined. And, by the way, Senator Obama has never mentioned how much that fine might be. Perhaps we might find that out tonight.OBAMA: Well, why don’t — why don’t — let’s talk about this, Tom, because there was just a lot of stuff out there.BROKAW: Privilege, right or responsibility. Let’s start with that.OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills — for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.So let me — let me just talk about this fundamental difference. And, Tom, I know that we’re under time constraints, but Senator McCain through a lot of stuff out there.Number one, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor. There’s no mandate involved.Small businesses are not going to have a mandate. What we’re going to give you is a 50 percent tax credit to help provide health care for those that you need.Now, it’s true that I say that you are going to have to make sure that your child has health care, because children are relatively cheap to insure and we don’t want them going to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma.And when Senator McCain says that he wants to provide children health care, what he doesn’t mention is he voted against the expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program that is responsible for making sure that so many children who didn’t have previously health insurance have it now.Now, the final point I’ll make on this whole issue of government intrusion and mandates — it is absolutely true that I think it is important for government to crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers, that don’t give you the fine print, so you end up thinking that you’re paying for something and, when you finally get sick and you need it, you’re not getting it.And the reason that it’s a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state — maybe Arizona, maybe another state — where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.That’s how in banking it works. Everybody goes to Delaware, because they’ve got very — pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards.And in that situation, what happens is, is that the protections you have, the consumer protections that you need, you’re not going to have available to you.That is a fundamental difference that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That’s what we’ve been going through for the last eight years. It hasn’t worked, and we need fundamental change.BROKAW: Senator, we want to move on now. If we’d come back to the hall here, we’re going to shift gears here a little bit and we’re going to go to foreign policy and international matters, if we can…MCCAIN: I don’t believe that — did we hear the size of the fine?BROKAW: Phil Elliott (ph) is over here in this section, and Phil Elliott (ph) has a question for Senator McCain.Phil?QUESTION: Yes. Senator McCain, how will all the recent economic stress affect our nation’s ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?MCCAIN: Well, I thank you for that question, because there’s no doubt that history shows us that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy, as well. And that is one of the challenges that America faces.But having said that, America — and we’ll hear a lot of criticism. I’ve heard a lot of criticism about America, and our national security policy, and all that, and much of that criticism is justified.But the fact is, America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. My friends, we have gone to all four corners of the Earth and shed American blood in defense, usually, of somebody else’s freedom and our own.MCCAIN: So we are peacemakers and we’re peacekeepers. But the challenge is to know when the United States of American can beneficially effect the outcome of a crisis, when to go in and when not, when American military power is worth the expenditure of our most precious treasure.And that question can only be answered by someone with the knowledge and experience and the judgment, the judgment to know when our national security is not only at risk, but where the United States of America can make a difference in preventing genocide, in preventing the spread of terrorism, in doing the things that the United States has done, not always well, but we’ve done because we’re a nation of good.And I am convinced that my record, going back to my opposition from sending the Marines to Lebanon, to supporting our efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia and the first Gulf War, and my judgment, I think, is something that I’m — a record that I’m willing to stand on.Senator Obama was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges.We don’t have time for on-the-job training, my friends.BROKAW: Senator Obama, the economic constraints on the U.S. military action around the world.OBAMA: Well, you know, Senator McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don’t understand. It’s true. There are some things I don’t understand.I don’t understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us.That was Senator McCain’s judgment and it was the wrong judgment.When Senator McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we’d be greeted as liberators.That was the wrong judgment, and it’s been costly to us. So one of the difficulties with Iraq is that it has put an enormous strain, first of all, on our troops, obviously, and they have performed heroically and honorably and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude.But it’s also put an enormous strain on our budget. We’ve spent, so far, close to $700 billion and if we continue on the path that we’re on, as Senator McCain is suggesting, it’s going to go well over $1 trillion.We’re spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion.And we need that $10 billion a month here in the United States to put people back to work, to do all these wonderful things that Senator McCain suggested we should be doing, but has not yet explained how he would pay for.Now, Senator McCain and I do agree, this is the greatest nation on earth. We are a force of good in the world. But there has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw its economy decline and maintained its military superiority.And the strains that have been placed on our alliances around the world and the respect that’s been diminished over the last eight years has constrained us being able to act on something like the genocide in Darfur, because we don’t have the resources or the allies to do everything that we should be doing.That’s going to change when I’m president, but we can’t change it unless we fundamentally change Senator McCain’s and George Bush’s foreign policy. It has not worked for America.BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if — let’s see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake?OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.Let’s take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there’s a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that’s what I intend to do when I’m president.BROKAW: Senator McCain, the McCain Doctrine, if you will.MCCAIN: Well, let me just follow up, my friends. If we had done what Senator Obama wanted done in Iraq, and that was set a date for withdrawal, which General Petraeus, our chief — chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff said would be a very dangerous course to take for America, then we would have had a wider war, we would have been back, Iranian influence would have increased, al Qaeda would have re- established a base.There was a lot at stake there, my friends. And I can tell you right now that Senator Obama would have brought our troops home in defeat. I’ll bring them home with victory and with honor and that is a fundamental difference.The United States of America, Tom, is the greatest force for good, as I said. And we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide, whatever we can to prevent these terrible calamities that we have said never again.But it also has to be tempered with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. That requires a cool hand at the tiller. This requires a person who understands what our — the limits of our capability are.We went in to Somalia as a peacemaking organization, we ended up trying to be — excuse me, as a peacekeeping organization, we ended up trying to be peacemakers and we ended up having to withdraw in humiliation.In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said, if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation? And said we shouldn’t. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed.So you have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you’re sending America’s most precious asset, American blood, into harm’s way. And, again, I know those situations.I’ve been in them all my life. And I can tell you right now the security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority right after our nation’s security.And I may have to make those tough decisions. But I won’t take them lightly. And I understand that we have to say never again to a Holocaust and never again to Rwanda. But we had also better be darn sure we don’t leave and make the situation worse, thereby exacerbating our reputation and our ability to address crises in other parts of the world.BROKAW: Senator McCain, thank you very much.Next question for Senator Obama, it comes from the F section and is from Katie Hamm (ph). Katie?QUESTION: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?OBAMA: Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism.They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end. So part of the reason I think it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that’s funding terrorism.But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.OBAMA: What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly.In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with — the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaida, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaida and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.OBAMA: Tom, just a…BROKAW: Senator McCain…OBAMA: … just a quick follow-up on this. I think…MCCAIN: If we’re going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it…MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me. It’d be fine with me.BROKAW: … if I can, with this question.OBAMA: Then let’s have one.BROKAW: All right, let’s have a follow-up.MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me.OBAMA: Just — just — just a quick follow-up, because I think — I think this is important.BROKAW: I’m just the hired help here, so, I mean…(LAUGHTER)OBAMA: You’re doing a great job, Tom.Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Senator McCain continues to repeat this.What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.Now, Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.MCCAIN: Thank you very much.OBAMA: Senator McCain, this is the guy who sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of “speaking softly.”This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, “Next up, Baghdad.”So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan — the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I’m president.MCCAIN: And, Tom, if — if we’re going to go back and forth, I then — I’d like to have equal time to go — to respond to…BROKAW: Yes, you get the…MCCAIN: … to — to — to…BROKAW: … last word here, and then we have to move on.MCCAIN: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn’t think so.I understand what it’s like to send young American’s in harm’s way. I say — I was joking with a veteran — I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Senator Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I’ll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I’ll get him. I know how to get him.I’ll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.BROKAW: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we’re failing in Afghanistan.The commander said we cannot win there. We’ve got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan’s strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.OBAMA: I’ll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we’re going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.General McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan — Taliban offenses. We’re also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, “You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that’s necessary.”I don’t think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it’s just not responsive right now.BROKAW: Senator McCain, briefly.MCCAIN: General Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.And I’ve had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Senator Obama is correct on.We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Senator Obama said wouldn’t work, couldn’t work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that’s the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that’s happening in Iraq today.So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.BROKAW: Senator McCain, this question is for you from the Internet. It’s from Alden (ph) in Hewitt, Texas.How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?MCCAIN: First of all, as I say, I don’t think that — we’re not going to have another Cold War with Russia.But have no doubt that Russia’s behavior is certainly outside the norms of behavior that we would expect for nations which are very wealthy, as Russia has become, because of their petro dollars.Now, long ago, I warned about Vladimir Putin. I said I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B. He has surrounded himself with former KGB apparatchiks. He has gradually repressed most of the liberties that we would expect for nations to observe, and he has exhibited most aggressive behavior, obviously, in Georgia.I said before, watch Ukraine. Ukraine, right now, is in the sights of Vladimir Putin, those that want to reassemble the old Soviet Union.We’ve got to show moral support for Georgia.MCCAIN: We’ve got to show moral support for Ukraine. We’ve got to advocate for their membership in NATO.We have to make the Russians understand that there are penalties for these this kind of behavior, this kind of naked aggression into Georgia, a tiny country and a tiny democracy.And so, of course we want to bring international pressures to bear on Russia in hopes that that will modify and eventually change their behavior. Now, the G-8 is one of those, but there are many others.But the Russians must understand that these kinds of actions and activities are not acceptable and hopefully we will use the leverage, economic, diplomatic and others united with our allies, with our allies and friends in Europe who are equally disturbed as we are about their recent behaviors.BROKAW: Senator Obama.MCCAIN: It will not be a re-ignition of the Cold War, but Russia is a challenge.BROKAW: Senator Obama? We’re winding down, so if we can keep track of the time.OBAMA: Well, the resurgence of Russia is one of the central issues that we’re going to have to deal with in the next presidency. And for the most part I agree with Senator McCain on many of the steps that have to be taken.But we can’t just provide moral support. We’ve got to provide moral support to the Poles and Estonia and Latvia and all of the nations that were former Soviet satellites. But we’ve also got to provide them with financial and concrete assistance to help rebuild their economies. Georgia in particular is now on the brink of enormous economic challenges. And some say that that’s what Putin intended in the first place.The other thing we have to do, though, is we’ve got to see around the corners. We’ve got to anticipate some of these problems ahead of time. You know, back in April, I put out a statement saying that the situation in Georgia was unsustainable because you had Russian peacekeepers in these territories that were under dispute.And you knew that if the Russians themselves were trying to obtain some of these territories or push back against Georgia, that that was not a stable situation. So part of the job of the next commander-in-chief, in keeping all of you safe, is making sure that we can see some of the 21st Century challenges and anticipate them before they happen.We haven’t been doing enough of that. We tend to be reactive. That’s what we’ve been doing over the last eight years and that has actually made us more safe. That’s part of what happened in Afghanistan, where we rushed into Iraq and Senator McCain and President Bush suggested that it wasn’t that important to catch bin Laden right now and that we could muddle through, and that has cost us dearly.We’ve got to be much more strategic if we’re going to be able to deal with all of the challenges that we face out there.And one last point I want to make about Russia. Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia.BROKAW: This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?OBAMA: I think they’ve engaged in an evil behavior and I think that it is important that we understand they’re not the old Soviet Union but they still have nationalist impulses that I think are very dangerous.BROKAW: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Maybe.(LAUGHTER)BROKAW: Maybe.MCCAIN: Depends on how we respond to Russia and it depends on a lot of things. If I say yes, then that means that we’re reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.Obviously energy is going to be a big, big factor. And Georgia and Ukraine are both major gateways of energy into Europe. And that’s one of the reasons why it’s in our interest.But the Russians, I think we can deal with them but they’ve got to understand that they’re facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world.BROKAW: All right. We’re going to try to get in two more questions, if we can. So we have to move along. Over in section A, Terry Chary (ph) — do I have that right, Terry? QUESTION: Senator, as a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel.QUESTION: If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Terry (ph). And thank you for your service to the country.I want to say, everything I ever learned about leadership I learned from a chief petty officer. And I thank you, and I thank you, my friend. Thanks for serving.Let — let — let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles.And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it’s a great threat. It’s not just a threat — threat to the state of Israel. It’s a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East.If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all the other countries will acquire them, too. The tensions will be ratcheted up.What would you do if you were the Israelis and the president of a country says that they are — they are determined to wipe you off the map, calls your country a stinking corpse?Now, Senator Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That’s what he stated, again, a matter of record.I want to make sure that the Iranians are put enough — that we put enough pressure on the Iranians by joining with our allies, imposing significant, tough sanctions to modify their behavior. And I think we can do that.I think, joining with our allies and friends in a league of democracies, that we can effectively abridge their behavior, and hopefully they would abandon this quest that they are on for nuclear weapons.But, at the end of the day, my friend, I have to tell you again, and you know what it’s like to serve, and you know what it’s like to sacrifice, but we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.BROKAW: Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, Terry, first of all, we honor your service, and we’re grateful for it.We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it.And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests.It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we’ve got to make those kinds of choices.And that’s why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it’s an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks — not just with our friends, but also with our enemies — to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations.Now, it may not work. But one of the things we’ve learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it’s in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.When President Bush decided we’re not going to talk to Iran, we’re not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000. North Korea quadrupled its nuclear capability.We’ve got to try to have talks, understanding that we’re not taking military options off the table.BROKAW: All right, gentlemen, we’ve come to the last question.And you’ll both be interested to know this comes from the Internet and it’s from a state that you’re strongly contesting, both of you. It’s from Peggy (ph) in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I’ll give you a fair warning.She says, “What don’t you know and how will you learn it?”(LAUGHTER)Senator Obama, you get first crack at that.OBAMA: My wife, Michelle, is there and she could give you a much longer list than I do. And most of the time, I learn it by asking her.But, look, the nature of the challenges that we’re going to face are immense and one of the things that we know about the presidency is that it’s never the challenges that you expect. It’s the challenges that you don’t that end up consuming most of your time.But here’s what I do know. I know that I wouldn’t be standing here if it weren’t for the fact that this country gave me opportunity. I came from very modest means. I had a single mom and my grandparents raised me and it was because of the help of scholarships and my grandmother scrimping on things that she might have wanted to purchase and my mom, at one point, getting food stamps in order for us to put food on the table.Despite all that, I was able to go to the best schools on earth and I was able to succeed in a way that I could not have succeeded anywhere else in this country.The same is true for Michelle and I’m sure the same is true for a lot of you.And the question in this election is: are we going to pass on that same American dream to the next generation? Over the last eight years, we’ve seen that dream diminish.Wages and incomes have gone down. People have lost their health care or are going bankrupt because they get sick. We’ve got young people who have got the grades and the will and the drive to go to college, but they just don’t have the money.And we can’t expect that if we do the same things that we’ve been doing over the last eight years, that somehow we are going to have a different outcome.We need fundamental change. That’s what’s at stake in this election. That’s the reason I decided to run for president, and I’m hopeful that all of you are prepared to continue this extraordinary journey that we call America.But we’re going to have to have the courage and the sacrifice, the nerve to move in a new direction.Thank you. BROKAW: Senator McCain, you get the last word. Senator Obama had the opening. You’re last up.MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Tom. And I think what I don’t know is what all of us don’t know, and that’s what’s going to happen both here at home and abroad.The challenges that we face are unprecedented. Americans are hurting tonight in a way they have not in our generation.There are challenges around the world that are new and different and there will be different — we will be talking about countries sometime in the future that we hardly know where they are on the map, some Americans.So what I don’t know is what the unexpected will be. But I have spent my whole life serving this country. I grew up in a family where my father was gone most of the time because he was at sea and doing our country’s business. My mother basically raised our family.I know what it’s like in dark times. I know what it’s like to have to fight to keep one’s hope going through difficult times. I know what it’s like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times.I know what it’s like to have your comrades reach out to you and your neighbors and your fellow citizens and pick you up and put you back in the fight.That’s what America’s all about. I believe in this country. I believe in its future. I believe in its greatness. It’s been my great honor to serve it for many, many years.And I’m asking the American people to give me another opportunity and I’ll rest on my record, but I’ll also tell you, when times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller and the great honor of my life was to always put my country first.Thank you, Tom.BROKAW: Thank you very much, Senator McCain.That concludes tonight’s debate from here in Nashville. We want to thank our hosts here at Belmont University in Nashville and the Commission on Presidential Debates. And you’re in my way of my script there, if you will move.(APPLAUSE)In addition to everything else, there is one more presidential debate on Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in New York, moderated by my friend, Bob Schieffer of “CBS News.”Thank you, Senator McCain. Thank you, Senator Obama. Good night, everyone, from Nashville.ENDTranscription by: CQ Transcriptions/Morningside",
    "id": "309374f3-c131-4559-8716-407a7dd32343"
  },
  {
    "year": 1996,
    "date": "October 6, 1996",
    "title": "The First Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 6, 1996 Debate TranscriptOctober 6, 1996The First Clinton-Dole Presidential DebateLEHRER: Good evening from the Bushnell Theatre in Hartford, Connecticut. I’m Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. Welcome to the first of the 1996 Presidential debates between President Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Senator Bob Dole, the Republican nominee. This event is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It will last 90 minutes following a format and rules worked out by the two campaigns.There will be two-minute opening and closing statements. In between, a series of questions, each having three parts. A 90-second answer, a 60-second rebuttal, and a 30-second response. I will assist the candidates in adhering to those time limits with the help of a series of lights visible to both.Under their rules, the candidates are not allowed to question each other directly. I will ask the questions. There are no limitations on the subjects.The order for everything tonight was determined by coin toss. Now, to the opening statements and to President Clinton. Mr. President.CLINTON: Thank you, Jim. And thank you to the people of Hartford, our hosts.I want to begin by saying again how much I respect Senator Dole and his record of public service and how hard I will try to make this campaign and this debate one of ideas, not insults.Four years ago I ran for president at a time of high unemployment and rising frustration. I wanted to turn this country around with a program of opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and an American community where everybody has a role to play. I wanted a government that was smaller and less bureaucratic to help people make the most of their own lives. Four years ago you took me on faith. Now there’s a record: Ten and a half million more jobs, rising incomes, falling crime rates and welfare rolls, a strong America at peace.We are better off than we were four years ago. Let’s keep it going. We cut the deficit by 60 percent. Now, let’s balance the budget and protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. We cut taxes for 15 million working Americans. Now let’s pass the tax cuts for education and child rearing, help with medical emergencies, and buying a home.We passed family and medical leave. Now let’s expand it so more people can succeed as parents and in the work force. We passed 100,000 police, the assault weapons ban, the Brady Bill. Now let’s keep going by finishing the work of putting the police on the street and tackling juvenile gangs.We passed welfare reform. Now let’s move a million people from welfare to work. And most important, let’s make education our highest priority so that every eight-year-old will be able to read, every 12-year-old can log onto the Internet, every 18-year-old can go to college. We can build that bridge to the 21st Century. And I look forward to discussing exactly how we’re going to do it.LEHRER: Senator Dole, two minutes.DOLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, for those kind words. Thank the people of Hartford, the Commission, and all those out here who may be listening or watching.It’s a great honor for me to be here standing here as the Republican nominee. I’m very proud to be the Republican nominee reaching out to Democrats and Independents.I have three very special people with me tonight: My wife, Elizabeth; my daughter, Robin, who has never let me down, and a fellow named Frank Carafa from New York, along with Ollie Manninen who helped me out in the mountains of Italy a few years back.I’ve learned from them that people do have tough times. And sometimes you can’t go it alone. And that’s what America is all about.I remember getting my future back from doctors and nurses and a doctor in Chicago named Dr. Kalikian . And ever since that time, I’ve tried to give something back to my country, to the people who are watching us tonight.America is the greatest place on the face of the earth. Now, I know millions of you still have anxieties. You work harder and harder to make ends meet and put food on the table. You worry about the quality and the safety of your children, and the quality of education. But even more importantly, you worry about the future and will they have the same opportunities that you and I have had.And Jack Kemp and I want to share with you some ideas tonight. Jack Kemp is my running mate, doing an outstanding job. Now, I’m a plain-speaking man and I learned long ago that your word was your bond. And I promise you tonight that I’ll try to address your concerns and not try to exploit them. It’s a tall order, but I’ve been running against the odds for a long time and, again, I’m honored to be here this evening.LEHRER: Mr. President, first question. There is a major difference in your view of the role of the Federal government and that of Senator Dole. How would you define the difference?CLINTON: Well, Jim, I believe that the Federal government should give people the tools and try to establish the conditions in which they can make the most of their own lives. That, to me, is the key. And that leads me to some different conclusions from Senator Dole.For example, we have reduced the size of the Federal government to its smallest size in 30 years. We reduced more regulations, eliminated more programs than my two Republican predecessors. But I have worked hard for things like the Family and Medical Leave Law, the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, the program to put 100,000 police on the street. All of these are programs that Senator Dole opposed that I supported, because I felt they were a legitimate effort to help people make the most of their own lives. I’ve worked hard to help families impart values to their own children. I supported the V-chip so that parents would be able to control what their kids watch on television when they’re young, along with the ratings systems for television and educational television. I supported strong action against the tobacco companies to stop the marketing, advertising, and sale of tobacco to young people. I supported a big increase in the safe and drug-free schools program. These were areas on which Senator Dole and I differed, but I believed they were the right areas for America to be acting together as one country to help individuals and families make the most of their own lives and raise their kids with good values and a good future.LEHRER: Senator Dole, one minute.DOLE: I think the basic difference is, and I have had some experience in this, I think the basic difference, I trust the people. The President trusts the government. We go back and look at the healthcare plan that he wanted to impose on the American people. One seventh the total economy, 17 new taxes, price controls, 35 to 50 new bureaucracies that cost $1.5 trillion. Don’t forget that, that happened in 1993. A tax increase, a tax on everybody in America. Not just the rich. If you made 25,000 as the original proposal, you got your Social Security taxes increased. We had a BTU tax we turned into a $35 million gas tax, a $265 billion tax increase.I guess I rely more on the individual. I carry a little card in my pocket called the Tenth Amendment. Where possible, I want to give power back to the states and back to the people. That’s my difference with the President. We’ll have specific differences later. He noted a few, but there are others.LEHRER: Mr. President, 30 seconds.CLINTON: I trust the people. We’ve done a lot to give the people more powers to make their own decisions over their own lives. But I do think we are right when we try to, for example, give mothers and newborns 48 hours before they can be kicked out of the hospital, ending these drive-by deliveries.I think we were right to pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, which says you can’t lose your health insurance just because you change jobs or because someone in your family’s been sick. Our government is smaller and less bureaucratic and has given more authority to the states than its two predecessors under Republican presidents. But I do believe we have to help our people get ready to succeed in the 21st Century.LEHRER: Senator Dole, the President said in his opening statement we are better off today than we were four years ago. Do you agree?DOLE: Well, he’s better off than he was four years ago.CLINTON: I agree with that. That’s right.DOLE: And I may be better off four years from now, but I don’t know. I looked at the slowest growth in the century. He inherited a growth of 4.7 4.8 percent, now it’s down to about 2.4 percent. We’re going to pass a million bankruptcies this year for the first time in history. We’ve got stagnant wages. In fact, women’s wages have dropped 2.2 percent. Men’s wages haven’t gone up, gone down. So we have stagnation.We have the highest foreign debt in history. And it seems to me that if you take a look, are you better off? Well, I guess some may be better off. Saddam Hussein is probably better off than he was four years ago. Renee Proval (ph) is probably better off than he was four years ago. But are the American people? They’re working harder and higher and harder paying more taxes. For the first time in history, you pay about 40 percent of what you earn. More than you spend for food, clothing and shelter combined for taxes under this administration. So some may be better off.They talk about family income being up. That’s not true in Connecticut, family income is down. And it’s up in some cases because both parents are working. One works for the family, and one works to pay taxes for the government. We’re going to give them tax cuts so they can spend more time with their children, maybe even take a vacation. That’s what America is all about.LEHRER: One minute, Mr. President.CLINTON: Well, let me say, first of all, in February Senator Dole acknowledged that the American economy was in the best shape it’s been in in 30 years. We have ten and a half million more jobs, a faster job growth rate than under any Republican administration since the 1920s. Wages are goings up for the first time in a decade. We have record numbers of new small businesses. We have the biggest drop in the number of people in poverty in 27 years. All groups of people are growing. We had the biggest drop in income inequality in 27 years in 1995.The average family’s income has gone up over $1600 just since our economic plan passed. So I think it’s clear that we’re better off than we were four years ago. Now we need to focus on what do we need to do to be better off still. How can we help people as we are to get their retirements when they work for small businesses, to be able to afford health insurance, to be able to educate their children. That’s what I want to focus on. But we are clearly better off than we were four years ago, as Senator Dole acknowledged this year.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: I doubt that I acknowledged that this year. But in any event, I think we just look at the facts. We ask the people that are viewing tonight, are you better off than you were four years ago. It’s not whether we’re better off, it’s whether they’re better off.Are you working harder to put food on the table, feed your children. Are your children getting a better education. Drug use has doubled the past 44 months all across America. Crime has gone down but it’s because the mayors like Rudy Giuliani where one third of the drop happened in one city, New York City.So, yes, some may be better off. But of the people listening tonight, the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they’ll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president.LEHRER: Mr. President, Senator Dole has come pretty close in the last few days to accusing you of lying about his position on Medicare reform. Have you done so?CLINTON: Absolutely not. Let’s look at the position. First of all, remember that in this campaign season, since Senator Dole’s been a candidate, he has bragged about the fact that he voted against Medicare in the beginning, in 1965, one of only 12 members. He said he did the right thing then, he knew it wouldn’t work at the time. That’s what he said.Then his budget that he passed along with Speaker Gingrich cut Medicare $270 billion, more than was necessary to repair the Medicare trust fund. It would have charged seniors more for out-of-pocket costs as well as more in premiums because doctors could have charged them more. The American Medical, Hospital Association, the Nurses Association, the Catholic Hospital Association all said hundreds of hospitals could close and people would be hurt badly under the Dole-Gingrich Medicare plan that I vetoed.And now with this risky $550 billion tax scheme of Senator Dole’s, even his own friends, his campaign co-chair, Senator D’Amato, says that they can’t possibly pay for it without cutting Medicare more and cutting Social Security as well, according to him.Now, my balanced budget plan adds ten years to the life of the Medicare trust fund, ten years. And we’ll have time to deal with the long-term problems of the baby boomers. But it was simply wrong to finance their last scheme to cut Medicare $270 billion to run the risk of it withering on the vine. We always had to reform it over the years, but we need somebody who believes it in to reform it.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, I must say, I look back at the vote on Medicare in 1965, we had a program called Eldercare that also provided drugs and means tests to people who needed medical attention received it. I thought it was a good program. But I’ve supported Medicare ever since.In fact, I used to go home, my mother would tell me, Bob, all I’ve got is my Social Security and my Medicare, don’t cut it. I wouldn’t violate anything my mother said. In fact, we had a conversation about our mothers one day, a very poignant conversation in the White House. I’m concerned about healthcare. I’ve had the best healthcare from government hospitals, Army hospitals and I know its importance, but we’ve got to fix it. It’s his trustees, the President’s trustees, not mine, who says it’s going to go broke. He doesn’t fix it for ten years. We ought to appoint a commission, just as we did in Social Security in 1983, when we rescued Social Security, and I was proud to be on that commission, along with Claude Pepper, the champion of senior citizens from Florida. And we can do it again, if we take politics out of it. Stop scaring the seniors, Mr. President. You’ve already spent $45 million scaring seniors and tearing me apart. I think it’s time to have a truce.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Well, let me say, first of all, I’d be happy to have a commission deal with this and I appreciate what Senator Dole did on the ’83 Social Security commission. But it won’t be possible to do, if his tax scheme passes because even his own campaign co-chair, Senator D’Amato, says he’ll have to cut Medicare even more than was cut in the bill that I vetoed. I vetoed that bill because it cut more Medicare and and basically ran the risk of breaking up the system. My balanced budget plan puts ten years on the Medicare. We ought to do that, then we can have a commission. But Senator Dole’s plans are not good for the country.LEHRER: Senator Dole, speaking of your tax plan, do you still think that’s a good idea, the 15 percent across the board tax cut?DOLE: Oh, yes. And you’ll be eligible.CLINTON: Me too?DOLE: And so will the former President, yes.CLINTON: I need it.DOLE: Well, the people need it, that’s the point. This is not a Wall Street tax cut. This is a family tax cut. This is a Main Street tax cut, 15 percent across — let’s take a family making $30,000 a year, that’s $1261. Now, maybe to some in this Bushnell Memorial that it’s not a lot of money, but people watching tonight with a couple of kids, a working family, that’s four or five months of day care, maybe a personal computer; it’s may be three or four months of mortgage payments. This economic package is about families but it’s a six-point package. First of all, it’s a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which President Clinton defeated. He twisted arms and got six Democrats to vote the other way, but we lost by one vote. It’s balancing a budget by the year 2002. It’s a tax cut, cutting capital gains 50 percent. So you can go out and create more jobs and more opportunities. It’s a state tax relief. It’s a $500 per child tax credit. It’s about litigation reforms.Now that the President gets millions of dollars from the trial lawyers, he probably doesn’t like this provision. In fact, when I fell off the podium in Chico, before I lit the ground, hit the ground I had call on my cell phone from a trial lawyer saying I think we’ve got a case here. And it’s also regulatory reform. It’s a good package, Mr. President. We’d like to have your support.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Well, here’s the problem with it: It sounds very good, but there’s a reason that 500 economists, including seven Nobel prize winners and business periodicals like Business Week, and even Senator Dole’s friends, Senator Warren Rudman, former Republican senator from New Hampshire, says it’s not a practical program. It’s a $550 billion tax scheme that will cause a big hole in the deficit which will raise interest rates and slow down the economy and cause people to pay more for home mortgages, car payments, credit card payments, college loans, and small business loans. It’s not good to raise the deficit. We worked too hard to lower it. It will actually raise taxes on nine million people and, in addition to that, it will force bigger cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment than the ones that he and Mr. Gingrich passed that I vetoed last year. So it sounds great, but our targeted tax cut for education, child rearing, healthcare and home buying, which is paid for in my balanced budget plan, something that he has not done, certified by the Congressional budget office, that’s the right way to go.DOLE: The President wants to increase spending 20 percent over the next six years. I want to increase spending 14 percent, that’s how simple it is. I want the government to pinch pennies for a change instead of the American families. We’re talking about six percentage points over six years, and with that money you give it back to the working people. You also provide opportunity scholarships so low income parents will have the same choice that others have in sending their children to better schools. It will work, and when it does work, Mr. President, I know you’ll congratulate me.LEHRER: Mr. President, the Senator mentioned trial lawyers and campaign, that means campaign financing. How do you personally avoid being unduly influenced by people who give you money or give you services in your campaigns?CLINTON: Well, I try to articulate my positions as clearly as possible, tell people what I stand for and let them decide whether they’re going to support me or not.The Senator mentioned the trial lawyers. In the case of the product liability bill, which they passed and I vetoed, I think that’s what he’s talking about, I actually wanted to sign that bill. And I told the people exactly what the Congress exactly what kind of bill I would sign. Now, a lot of the trial lawyers didn’t want me to sign any bill at all, but I had thought we ought to do what we could to cut frivolous lawsuits, but they wouldn’t make some of the changes that I thought should be made.Now, let me just give you an example. I had a person in the Oval Office who lost a child in a school bus accident where a drunk driver caused the accident directly, but there were problems with the school bus. The drunk driver had no money. Under the new bill, if I had signed it, a person like that could never have had any recovery. I thought that was wrong. So I gave four or five specific examples to the Congress and said, prove to me that these people could recover but we’re going to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, I’ll sign the bill. But generally I believe that a president has to be willing to do what he thinks is right. I’ve done a lot of things that were controversial. My economic plan, my trade position, Bosnia, Haiti, taking on the NRA for the first time, taking on the tobacco companies for the first time. Sometimes you just have to do that because you know it’s right for the country over the long run. That’s what I’ve tried to do and that’s what I will continue to do as president.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: How does he avoid conflict? Well, I don’t know in the case of the trial lawyers. I look at the trial lawyers, and when you’re a few million short, you run out to Hollywood and pick up two to four million and organized labor comes to Washington, D.C. and puts 35 million into the pot. Now, if these aren’t special interests, I’ve got a lot to learn. I was there for a while before I left on June the 11th. The trial lawyers and I don’t — you know, my wife’s a lawyer. We’re the only two lawyers in Washington that trust each other. But we’re lawyers, I like lawyers. I don’t dislike trial lawyers. But it seemed to me there’s got to be some end to the frivolous lawsuits and there’s got to be some cap on punitive damage. You’re putting a lot of business people out of business. Small businessmen and businesswomen who paid 70 percent of your ninteen , your$265 billion tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of America. I said that one day and Pat Moynihan, a Democrat, say, no, he said, in the history of the world. So I modified it, the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And it seems to me that there is a problem there, Mr. President. And I will address you as Mr. President. You didn’t do that with Mr. with President Bush in 1992.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, I signed a tort reform bill that dealt with civilian aviation a couple of years ago. I proved that I will sign reasonable tort reform. Secondly, Senator Dole had some pretty harsh comments about special interest money, but it wasn’t me who opposed what we tried to do to save the lives of children who were subject to tobacco and then went to the tobacco growers and bragged about standing up for the Federal government when we tried to stop the advertising, marketing, and sales of tobacco to children. And it wasn’t me that let the polluters actually come into the halls of Congress, into the rooms, and rewrite the environmental laws. That’s what Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole did, not me.DOLE: That’s not true.CLINTON: So I believe that we should take a different approach to this and talk about how we stand on the issues instead of trying to characterize each other’s motivations. I think Senator Dole and I just honestly disagree.LEHRER: Well, Senator Dole, let me ask you the same question I asked the President: How do you avoid being influenced by people who contribute money and services to your campaigns?DOLE: I think it’s very difficult. Let’s be honest about it. That’s why we need campaign finance reform. That’s why I reach out to the Perot voters. We’ve done about all, we are the reform party, the Republican Party. And the Perot voters that are looking for a home ought to take a look at the Republican record. Whatever it is, whatever the checklist was in ’92, it’s all done with campaign finance reform. I worked with Senator Mitchell, who played me, I guess, in the debate warmup. We tried six or eight years ago. He appointed three people, I appointed three people to get campaign finance reform. We couldn’t get it done, because I wasn’t enforceable.You’ve suggested a commission, Newt Gingrich did, I suggested that at least four or five years ago. We have a commission on campaign finance reform. They send it to Congress, and we have to vote it up or down. That’s how it works. We are never going to fix it by the parties, because Democrats want a better advantage for themselves, we want a better advantage as Republicans, and that’s not how it’s going to work.But I want to touch on this is tobacco thing. I know the President’s been puffing a lot on that. But I want to go back to 1965. That was my first vote against tobacco companies when I said we ought to label cigarettes. And I’ve had a consistent record ever since 1965. We passed a bill in 1992 that encouraged the states to adopt programs to stop kids from smoking. All 50 states did it. It took three and a half years. It wasn’t until election year, Mr. President, that you ever thought about stopping smoking.What about drugs that have increased, doubled in the last 44 months? Cocaine is up 141 percent — marijuana, cocaine up 166 percent. It seems to me that you have a selective memory. You know, mine doesn’t work that way. So I just want to try to correct it as we go along.CLINTON: Mr. Lehrer, I hope we’ll have a chance to discuss drugs later in the program. But let me respond to what you said. I agree that too many incumbent politicians in Washington in both parties have consistently opposed campaign finance reform. That was certainly the case from the minute I got there. So after Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole took over the Congress, I went to New Hampshire and a man suggested — a gentleman that unfortunately just passed away a couple of days ago, suggested that we appoint a commission. And I shook hands with him on it and I appointed my members, and the commission never met. And then Senator Dole’s ardent supporters, Senator McCain, who’s out there today, along with Senator Feingold, supported, sponsored a campaign finance reform proposal. I strongly supported it. And members of Senator Dole’s own party in the Senate killed it. And he was not out there urging them to vote for the McCain-Feingold bill. So I think the American people, including the Perot supporters, know that I have had a consistent record in favor of campaign finance reform, and I will continue to have. And I hope we can finally get it in the next session of Congress, because we need it badly.LEHRER: Senator Dole, 30 seconds.DOLE: Well, on campaign reform itself, we’re going to get it when we have a bipartisan commission, take it out of politics. Get people who don’t have any interest in politics but understand the issue and let them make the recommendation to Congress. Now, we’re now kidding anybody, Mr. President. These are sophisticated people watching tonight. Millions and millions of Americans. They know the Republican Party hasn’t done it. They know the Democratic party won’t do it. We ought to agree that somebody else should do it. And we have to vote it up or down, Mr. President.LEHRER: Mr. President, the Senator mentioned drugs. He suggested that you are — you bear some responsibility for the rise in drug use of teenagers in the United States. Is he right?CLINTON: Well, Jim, I think every American in any position of responsibility should be concerned about what’s happened. I am. But let’s look at the overall record. Overall in America cocaine use has dropped 30 percent in the last four years, casual drug use down 13 percent. The tragedy is that our young people are still increasing their use of drugs up to about 11 percent total with marijuana, and I regret it. Let me tell you what I tried to do about it. I appointed a four-star general who led our efforts south of the border to keep drugs from coming into the country as our nation’s drug czar. The most heavily directed, decorated solder in uniform when he retired. We submitted the biggest drug budget ever. We have dramatically increased control and enforcement at the border. We supported a a crime bill that had 60 death penalties including, including the death penalty for drug kingpins. And I supported a big expansion in safe and drug-free schools program to support things like the DARE program because I thought all those things were very important. Do I think that I bear some responsibility for the fact that too many of our children still don’t understand drugs are wrong, drugs can kill you. Even though I have consistently opposed the legalization of drugs all my public life and worked hard against them. I think we all do. And I hope we can do better. I don’t think this issue should be politicized because my record is clear and I don’t think Senator Dole supports using using drugs. I think we just have to continue to work on this until those who think it isn’t dangerous and won’t kill them and won’t destroy their lives, get the message and change.LEHRER: Senator.DOLE: Again, well it’s, you are very selective, Mr. President. You don’t want to politicize drugs, but it’s already politicized Medicare, go out and scare senior citizens and other vulnerable groups, veterans and people who get Pell Grants and things like this. I mean, you say we’ve done all these bad things, which isn’t the case. But it seems to me the record is clear. The record is pretty clear in Arkansas, when you were governor. Drug use doubled. You resisted the appointment of a drug czar there because you thought it might interfere with treatment. But here you cut the drug czar’s office 83 percent. You cut interdiction substantially. I mean that’s what, I want to stop it from coming across the border. And in my administration, we’re going to train the National Guard to stop it from coming across the border. This is a invasion of drugs from all over the world. And we have a responsibility. You had a surgeon — or before General McCaffrey (ph) you had a lady who said we ought to consider legalizing drugs. Is that the kind of leadership we need? And I won’t comment on other things that happened in your administration or your past about drugs. But it seems to me the kids ought to — if they’ve started, they ought to stop and just don’t do it.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Let me say again, we did have a drug czar in Arkansas, but he answered to the governor, just like this one answers to the President. That’s what I thought we ought to do.Secondly, Senator Dole, you voted against the crime bill that had the death penalty for drug kingpins in it. And you voted to cut services to 23 million school children under the safe and drug-free schools act. I don’t think that means you’re soft on drugs. We just have a different approach. But let me remind you, my family has suffered from drug abuse. I know what it’s like to see somebody you love nearly lose their lives, and I hate drugs, Senator. We need to do this together and we can.LEHRER: Senator Dole, on the government, continuing to talk about the government’s role. If elected President, would you seek to repeal the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons?DOLE: Not if I didn’t have a better idea. But I’ve got a better idea. It’s something I’ve worked on for 15 years. It’s called the automated check or the instant check. It’s being used in 17 states right now. States like Florida, Colorado, Virginia, and other states. You don’t buy any gun. You don’t get any gun. We’ve got 20 million names on a computer in Washington, D.C. of people who should not have guns. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And, there are eight other categories that should not have guns. I’ve been working on this for a long, long time. You walk in, you put your little card in there. If it says tilt, you don’t get any gun. You don’t get a hand gun, you don’t get a rifle, you don’t get a shot gun, you get zippo.If we’re going to protect American children and American families and people who live as prisoners in their own home, we’ve got to stop guns from being dumped on the street.The administration says they support the instant check. They’ve appropriated about $200 million, but only spent about $3 million to get it underway. In our administration, in my administration, we will expedite. This keeps up with technology. It keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns. That is the bottom line. And I believe it’s a good idea, has strong bipartisan support. And perhaps that’s another thing we can depoliticize.You talk about the Brady Bill. There has only been one prosecution under the Brady — only one under the assault weapon ban and only seven under the Brady Bill that you talk about all the time. And on the assault weapon ban, out of 17 weapons that were banned, only six banned now because eleven have been modified and are back on the street. Let’s get together on this instant check because that will really make a difference.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, Senator Dole has gone back and forth about whether he’d be for repealing the Brady Bill or repealing the assault weapons ban. And I think his present position is he would not do so, and if that’s true I’m grateful for it. But let’s look at the facts here. The Brady Bill has kept at least 60,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers from getting hand guns. Senator Dole led the fight against the Brady Bill. He tried to keep it from coming to my desk. He didn’t succeed and I signed it and I’m glad I did.Then when we had the assault weapons ban in the Senate, Senator Dole fought it bitterly and opposed the entire crime bill and almost brought the entire crime bill down because the National Rifle Association didn’t want the assault weapons ban, just like they didn’t want the Brady Bill. But two years later nobody’s lost their handguns. I mean, their rifles. We’ve expanded the Brady Bill to cover people who beat up their spouses and their kids. And this is a safer country. So I’m glad I took on that fight and I believe, with all respect, I was right and he was wrong.DOLE: Well, the President doesn’t have it quite right. I mean, it seemed to me at the time the assault weapon ban was not effective. But that’s history. I told the NRA that’s history. You’re not going to worry about it anymore. I’m not going to worry about it anymore. Let’s do something better. Let’s stop, you know, playing the political game, Mr. President. Talking about this and this. You add all the states that’ve used the instant check and how many weapons they keep, kept out of the hands of criminals. It would far surpass the numbers you mentioned. So in my view, if you want to be protected, you ought to vote for Bob Dole and we’ll get the instant check passed and we’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals.LEHRER: Mr. President, Senator Dole said the other day that you practiced a photo-op foreign policy that has lessened the credibility of the United States throughout the world. Is he wrong about that?CLINTON: If he, that’s what he said, he’s not right about that. Look at where we are today. The United States is still the indispensable nation in the aftermath of the Cold War and on the brink of the 21st Century. I have worked to support our country as the world’s strongest force for peace and freedom, prosperity and security.We have done the following things: Number one, we’ve managed the aftermath of the Cold War, supporting a big drop in nuclear weapons in Russia. The removal of Russian troops from the Baltics. The integration of Central and Eastern European democracies into a new partnership with NATO. And, I might add, with the democratic Russia.There are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of the United States tonight and have not been in our administration for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.We have worked hard for peace and freedom. When I took office, Haiti was governed by a dictator that had defied the United States. When I took office, the worst war in Europe was waging in Bosnia. Now there is a the democratically elected president in Haiti. Peace in Bosnia. We just had the election there. We’ve made progress in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East. We’ve also stood up to the new threats of terrorism. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, and we have worked hard to expand America’s economic presence around the world with the biggest increase in trade with the largest new number of trade agreements in history And that’s one of the reasons America is number one in auto production again.LEHRER: Senator.DOLE: Well, I have a different view. Again, I’ve supported the President on Bosnia, and I think we were told the troops would be out in a year. Now I understand it’s been extended ’til some time next year. But, let’s start with Somalia, where they dragged Americans through the streets, and where 18 Americans were killed one day, because they didn’t have, they were pinned down for eight hours, the rangers. They didn’t have the weapons, they didn’t have the tanks. They asked for the tanks. They didn’t get the tanks from this administration because we were nation building. It’s called mission creep. We turn it over to the United Nations. The President didn’t have much to do about it. You look at Haiti, where we spend about three billion dollars and we got an alarm call there about two weeks ago. You got to send down some more people, because the president’s found out there are death squads on his on his, in his own property. So we need more protection from America. Bosnia, Northern Ireland. There’s no ceasefire in Bosnia. I think there are still lot of problems in Bosnia. We agreed to train and arm the Muslims so they could defend themselves, the policy you had when you ran in 1992. We haven’t done that. We’re way behind, which means Americans can’t come home. Americans shouldn’t have gone there in the first place, had we let them defend themselves, as they have a right to do under Article 57 of the United Nations charter.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: First of all, I take full responsibility for what happened in Somalia, but the American people must remember that those soldiers were under an American commander when that happened. I believe they did the best they could under the circumstances, and let’s not forget that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved there.Secondly, in Haiti, political violence is much, much smaller than it was. Thirdly, in Bosnia it’s a virtual miracle that there has been no return to war and at least there has now been an election. And institutions are beginning to function.In Northern Ireland, in the Middle East we are better off than we were four years ago. There will always be problems in this whole world. But if we’re moving in the right direction and America is leading, we’re better off.LEHRER: Senator Dole, if elected president, what criteria would you use to decide when to send U.S. troops into harm’s way.DOLE: Well it, after World War I, we had, you know, a policy of disengagement. Then from World War I to World War II we had sort of a compulsory engagement policy. Now I think we have a selective engagement policy. We have to determine when our interests are involved, not the United Nations’ interests. And many of the things the President talked about, he turned over to the United Nations. They decided.He’s deployed more troops than any president in history around the world. It’s cost us billions and billions of dollars for peace-keeping operations. Look these are facts. And it seems to me that when you make a decision, the decision is made by the President of the United States, by the Commander-in-Chief. He makes that decision when he commits young men or young women who are going to go round and defend our liberty and our freedom. That would be my position.Then I’m going to have a top down review at the Pentagon, not a bottom up review. We all fight over how much money is there. I want a top down review to determine what our priorities are and what we should do in defense, and then follow that policy instead of this bottom up review with all the services fighting for the money. You know, the President said he was going to cut defense $60 billion, he cut defense $112 billion. Devastated states like California and others. And I think now we’ve got a problem. We’ve got to go back and look. It’s just like you said in Texas one day, you know raised taxes too much, and you did, and you cut defense too much, Mr. President, and you did. You may have said that, too.But the bottom line is, we are the strongest nation in the world. We provide the leadership and we’re going to have to continue to provide the leadership, but let’s do it on our terms when our interests are involved and not when somebody blows the whistle at the United Nations.CLINTON: Our military is the strongest military in the world. It is the strongest, best prepared, best equipped it has ever been. There is very little difference in the budget that I proposed and the Republican budget over the next six-year period. We are spending a lot of money to modernize our weapons system. I have proposed a lot of new investments to improve the quality of life for our soldiers, for our men and women in uniform, for their families, for their training. That is my solemn obligation.You ask when do you decide to deploy them. The interests of the American people must be at stake. Our values must be at stake. We have to be able to make a difference. And frankly we have to consider what the risks are to our young men and women in uniform. But I believe the evidence is that our deployments have been successful, in Haiti, in Bosnia, when we moved to Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein’s threatened invasion of Kuwait. When I have sent the fleet into the Taiwan straits. When we’ve worked hard to end the Northern Korean nuclear threat.I believe the United States is at peace tonight in part because of the disciplined, careful, effective deployment of our military resources.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well I failed to mention North Korea and Cuba, a while ago. You look at North Korea where they have enough plutonium to build six nuclear bombs. We’ve sort of distanced ourselves from our ally, South Korea. They lost about a million people in the war, the Korean War, the forgotten war. We lost 53,000 Americans.We shouldn’t be doing any favors for North Korea. It’s a closed society. We don’t have any inspection. We don’t know whether it’s going to work or not, but we keep giving the incentives. Someone called them something else. Incentives. We don’t know what’s going to happen. Here we have Cuba 90 miles from our shores, and what have we done, we passed the law that gave people a right to sue and the President postponed it for six months. And it seemed to me if you want to send a signal, you’ve got to send a signal, Mr. President. The sooner the better off we’ll be, if you put tougher sanctions on Castro, not try to make it easier for him.LEHRER: Mr. President, what is your attitude toward Cuba and how Cuba should be treated?CLINTON: Well, first of all, for the last four years we have worked had to put more and more pressure on the Castro government to bring about more openness and move toward democracy. In 1992, before I became President, the Congress passed the Cuba Democracy Act and I enforced it vigorously. We made the embargo tougher but we increased contacts people to people with the Cubans, including direct telephone service, which was largely supported by the Cuban-American community. Then Cuba shot down two of our planes and murdered four people in international air space. They were completely beyond the pale of the law, and I signed the Helms-Burton legislation. Senator Dole is correct. I did give about six months before the effective date of the act before lawsuits can actually be filed, even though they’re effective now, and can be legally binding, because I want to change Cuba. And the United States needs help from other countries.Nobody in the world agrees with our policy on Cuba now. But this law can be used as leverage to get other countries to help us to move Cuba to democracy. Every single country in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean is a democracy tonight but Cuba. And if we stay firm and strong, we will be able to bring Cuba around as well.DOLE: That’s the point I made. We have to be firm and strong. And I hope that will happen. It will happen starting next January and maybe it can happen the balance of this year. We have not been firm and strong. You look at the poor people who still live in Cuba. It’s a haven for drug smugglers and we don’t have a firm policy when it comes to Fidel Castro. In my view, the policy has failed.So Congress passes the law, the President signs it, like he does a lot of things. But he, like welfare reform, I’m going to sign it but I’m going to try to change it next year. A lot of these election-year conversions, the President talks about the drug money, and all the other things, all this antismoking campaign all happened in 1996.And I think the people viewing out there ought to go back and take a look at the record when he fought a balanced budget amendment. When he gave you that biggest tax increase in history; when he tried to take over your healthcare system. When he fought regulatory reform that cost the average family 6 to $7,000 a year. This is a serious business. It’s about your family; it’s about your business, and in this case it’s about a firmer policy with Cuba.CLINTON: There were several off-the-subject quaffers in that litany. Let me just mention, Senator Dole voted for $900 billion in tax increases. His running mate Jack Kemp once said that Bob Dole never met a tax he didn’t hike. And everybody knows, including the Wall Street Journal, hardly a friend of the Democratic party of this administration, that the ’82 tax increase he sponsored in inflation-adjusted dollars was the biggest tax increase in American history. So we ought to at least get the facts out here on the table so we can know where to go from here.LEHRER: Senator Dole, you mentioned health reform several times. What do you think should be done about the healthcare system?DOLE: Let me first answer that question about the 1982 tax cut. We were closing loopholes, we were going after big corporations. I know you probably would oppose it, Mr. President, but I think we should have a fairer system and a flatter system, and we’ll have a fairer and flatter system and we’re going to make the economic package work. Healthcare. Well, we finally passed the Kassebaum bill. The President was opposed to it in 1993. He wanted to give us this big system, that took over about one-seventh of the economy, that put on price controls, created all these state alliances, and would cost $1.5 trillion and force people into managed care, whether they wanted it or not. Most people want to see their own doctor. They’re going to see their own doctor when Bob Dole is president. We won’t threaten anybody.So we passed the Kassebaum-Kennedy, the Kennedy Kassebaum bill that will cover about 20 to 25 million people. We’ve been for that for four, five, six years. The President held it up. And even when it finally got near passage, Senator Kennedy held it up for 100 days, because he wasn’t satisfied with one provision. But it will cover preexisting conditions. If you change your job, you’re going to be covered. So there are a lot of good things in this bill we should have done instead of trying this massive, massive takeover by the Federal government. But then of course we had a Democratic Congress and they didn’t want to do that. Until we got a Republican Congress, we finally got action, I’m proud of my colleagues in the Republican Party for getting that done. It means a lot to a lot of people watching us tonight.CLINTON: Well, that sounds very good, but it’s very wrong. Senator Dole remembers well that we actually offered not to even put in a healthcare bill in 1994, uh ’93, but instead to work with the Senate Republicans and write a joint bill. And they said no because they got a memo from one of their political advisers saying that instead they should characterize whatever we did as big government and make sure nothing was done to aid healthcare before the ’94 elections so they could make that claim. Well, maybe we bit off more than we could chew, but we’re pursuing a step-by-step reform now. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that I signed will make it possible for 25 million people to keep their health insurance when they change jobs or when somebody in their family’s been sick. I signed a bill to stop these drive-by deliveries when insurance companies can force people out of the hospital after 24 hours and I vetoed Senator Dole’s Medicare plan that would have forced a lot of seniors into managed care and taken a lot more money out of their pockets and led to Medicare withering on the vine.DOLE: Well, many of the provisions in the Kassebaum bill were provisions that — my provisions, like deductions for long-term care, making certain that self-employed people that are watching tonight can deduct not 30 percent but 80 percent of you pay for premiums. You can also deduct long-term care now, so it’s a good it’s a good start. I think there’s enough — we’re even looking at our tax cut proposal, our economic package. There may be a way of reaching out to the uninsured, because there are a lot of uninsured people in the country, particularly children, that should be covered. Another way you can do is to expand Medicaid. In America no one will go without healthcare, no one will go without food.LEHRER: Senator, go ahead and finish your sentence.DOLE: All right. Food.LEHRER: Back to foreign affairs for a moment, Mr. President. Are you satisfied with the way you handled this last Iraq crisis and the end result?CLINTON: Well, I believe that we did the appropriate thing under the circumstances. Saddam Hussein is under a U.N. resolution not to threaten his neighbors or threaten his own, repress his own citizens. Unfortunately, a lot of people, have never been as concerned about the Kurds as the United States has tried to be, and we’ve been flying an operation to protect them out of Turkey for many years now. What happened was one of the Turkish, one of the Kurdish leaders invited him to go up north, but we felt since the whole world community had told him not to do it, that once he did it we had to do something. We did not feel that I could commit. I certainly didn’t feel I should commit American troops to throw him out of where he had gone, and that was the only way to do that. So the appropriate thing strategically to do was to reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors. We did that by expanding what’s called the no-fly zone by increasing our allies’ control of the air space now from the Kuwait border to the suburbs of Baghdad. Was it the right thing to do? I believe it was. Is it fully effective? Did it make him withdraw from the north? Well, he does , he has a little bit, and I hope he will continue. We have learned that you give him an inch he’ll take a mile. We had to do something, and even though not all of our allies supported it at first, I think most of them now believe that what we did was an appropriate thing to do.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, the president’s own CIA director says Saddam is stronger now than he was. I don’t understand extending the no-fly zone in the south when the trouble was in the north. And what we’ve done during the Bush administration, the Kurds were at the State Department, negotiating, trying to work their differences out. Now we’ve got all thousands and thousands of refugees. We’re even shipping 3,000 Kurds to Guam. It involves Turkey. It’s a real problem. Saddam is probably about as strong as he ever was. We shot, what, 44 cruise missiles, worth about a million-two a piece, and hit some radar, that repaired in a couple, three days. Did we inflict any damage? No. Did we have any allies helping? Well, we have Great Britain. They’re always very loyal to us, and I appreciate that. And of course Kuwait. Even though they had to find out they had 5,000 troops coming, they didn’t even understand that. We had to get their permission. The bottom line is, we went in there alone. We are supposed to be operating under a U.N. resolution. We did it without any of our allies that helped in the Gulf.CLINTON: Senator Dole has two or three times before tonight criticized me for working with the U.N. Now I’m being criticized for not working with the U.N.DOLE: It’s not the U.N.CLINTON: Sometimes the United States has to act alone or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy. I could not send soldiers into the north of Iraq, that would have been wrong. It could reduce Saddam Hussein’s abilities to threaten Kuwait and his other neighbors again. That’s what I did. I still believe it was the right thing to do.LEHRER: Senator Dole, on your photo-op foreign policy charge against the President —DOLE: Not mine.LEHRER: Oh, No, no. I mean your charge against the President, that he has a photo-op foreign policy. Does the Middle East summit last week fall into that category?DOLE: Well, there were some good pictures, but does it fall into that category? I don’t know. I want to be very serious. I’ve supported the President when I thought he was right on Bosnia. I supported him on NAFTA and GATT. So it’s not that we always disagree. Others disagreed with us.The Mideast is very difficult. But it seemed to me just as an observer that you know before you’d call somebody to America, you’d have some notion what the end result might be. Now maybe it’s better just to get together and sit down and talk. Maybe that was the purpose. And I know talks have started again today. But again it’s almost like an ad hoc foreign policy. It’s ad hoc, it’s sort of we get up in the morning and read the papers, what country’s in trouble, we’ll have a meeting.Now, to me that’s not the strategy that I think people expect from America. I think we have lost credibility, and I say this very honestly without any partisanship. We’ve lost credibility around the world. Our allies know, — they’re not certain what we’re going to do, what our reaction, what our response is going to be. Nobody suggested sending troops to Iraq, if that was the hint there from the President. But I do think that Saddam Hussein is stronger than he was. And I do believe that we didn’t gain a great deal in the Mideast by bringing three of the four leaders, one refused to come, to Washington D.C.CLINTON: We have a very consistent policy in the Middle East: It is to support the peace process; to support the security of Israel; and to support those who are prepared to take risks for peace. It is a very difficult environment. The feelings are very strong. There are extremists in all parts of the Middle East who want to kill that peace process. Prime Minister Rabin gave his life because someone in his own country literally hated him for trying to bring peace. I would like to have had a big, organized summit, but those people were killing each other, rapidly, innocent Arab children, innocent Israeli people, they were dying. And there is ,so much trust has broken down in the aftermath of the change of government. I felt that if I could just get the parties together to say let’s stop the violence, start talking, commit to the negotiations, that would be a plus.Now today the Secretary of State is in the Middle East and they’ve started negotiations and all those leaders promised me they would not quit until they resolved the issues between them and got the peace process going forward again.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, I was disappointed. The President has not called for an unconditional end to the violence. It seemed to me the violence stopped when these leaders came to America. The killing and tragedies had taken place. And it is unfortunate, it is a difficult area, no doubt about it. It shouldn’t be politicized in any way by the President or by his opponent. And I don’t intend to politicize it. I hope they talked and I hope they’ve reached some result and that the killing will end.CLINTON: Thank you.LEHRER: Mr. President, in your acceptance speech in Chicago, you said the real choice in this race is, quote, whether we build a bridge to the future or a bridge to the past; about whether we believe our best days are still out there or our best days are behind us; about whether we want a country of people all working together or one where you’re on your own, end quote. Are you saying that you believe Senator Dole is a man of the past and if elected president he would lead the country backward?CLINTON: Well, I’m saying that Senator Dole said in his fine speech in San Diego that he wanted to build a bridge to the past. And I think I know what he meant by that. He’s troubled, as I am, by some of the things that go on today. But I believe America is the greatest country in human history because we have maintained freedom and increasing prosperity by relentlessly pushing the barriers of knowledge, the barriers of the present, always moving into the future. That’s why when I became President I was determined to kind of move beyond this whole stale debate that had gone on in Washington for too long to get this country moving again. And that’s why we’ve got a country with ten and a half million more jobs, and record numbers of new businesses, and rising incomes, and falling crime rates, and welfare roll rates. That’s why we’re moving in the right direction. And I’m trying to emphasize that what I want to do is to continue to do that. That’s why my balanced budget plan will still invest and grow this economy. That’s why I want a tax cut for education and child rearing, but it’s got to be paid for. That’s why I want to continue the work we have done over partisan opposition, to work with communities to bring that crime rate down until our streets are all safe again. These are my commitments. I am very oriented toward the future. I think this election has to be geared toward the future. I think America’s best days are still ahead, but we’ve got to build the right bridge.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: You know, the President reminds me sometimes of my brother Kenny, who is no longer alive. But Kenny was a great talker. And he used to tell me things that I knew were not quite accurate. So we always had a rule, we divided by six. Maybe in your case maybe just two. But 11 million new jobs and everything, I mean the President can’t take credit for everything that governors are doing, whether that’s happening in New York City when it comes to the murder rate and then not be responsible for the bad things that happen, whether it’s drug use or something else in America. So it seems to me that we can talk about what we call Kenny, the great exaggerator. He just liked to make it sound exager, a little better, made him feel better.When it comes to bridges, I want a bridge to the future. I also want a bridge to the truth. We have to tell the truth. We’ve got people watching tonight and listening tonight trying to find the truth. And the truth is, there is a lot wrong with America. We need a strong economic package; we need a tax cut; we need the $500 child credit, and we’ll have that soon.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: I do not for a moment think I’m entitled to all the credit for all the good things that have happened in America. But where I have moved to work with the American people to help them have the tools to make the most of their own lives, I think I should get some credit for that.I also personally took responsibility tonight when Senator Dole asked me about the drug problem. But, you know, I think my ideas are better for the future.Senator Dole voted against student loans, against Headstart, against creating the Department of Education. If he gets elected president, we’ll start the new century without anyone in the cabinet of the President representing education in our children. I personally don’t think that’s the right kind of future for America, and I think we ought to take a different tack.LEHRER: Senator Dole, do you still favor eliminating the Department of Education.DOLE: Yes. I didn’t favor it when it was in, started. I voted against it. It was a tribute after President Carter’s election to the National Education Association who send a lot of delegates to the Democratic convention, who gives 99.5 percent of their money, Democrat Democrats, and the President, and a lot of the teachers send their kids to private schools or better public schools. So what we want to do is called opportunity scholarships. Now, some say, oh, you’re a Republican, you can’t be reaching out to these people. I’ve reached out to people all my life. I’ve worked on the food stamp program, proudly. And the WIC program, and the school lunch program with senators like George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and others, to name a few of my Democratic friends.I’m not some extremist out here. I care about people. I have my own little foundation that’s raised about $10 million for the disabled. I don’t advertise it. Just did, haven’t before. And I try to do a lot of things that I think might be helpful to people.So it seems to me that we ought to take that money we can save from the Department of Education, put it into opportunity scholarships and tell little Landale Shakespeare out in Cleveland, Ohio, and tell your mother and father, you’re going to get to go to school because we’re going to match what the state puts up, and you’re going to go to the school of your choice. I don’t fault the President or the vice president for sending their children to private schools or better schools. I applaud them for it, I don’t criticize them. But why shouldn’t everybody have that choice. Why shouldn’t low income Americans and low middle income Americans. I’m excited about it. It’s going to be a big, big opportunity for a lot of people.CLINTON: Let me say first of all, I’m all for students having more choices. We’ve worked hard to expand public school choice in my balanced budget bill. There’s funds for 3,000 new schools created by teachers and parents, sometimes by business people, called charter schools that have no rules, they’re free of bureaucracy and can only stay in existence if they perform and teach children. The ones that are out there are doing well.What I’m against is Senator Dole’s plan to take money away from all the children we now help with limited Federal funds and help far fewer. If we’re going to have a private voucher plan, that ought to be done at the local level or the state level. But Senator Dole has consistently opposed Federal help to education. He voted against student loans; he voted against my improved student loan plan; he voted against the National Service bill, against the HeadStart bill; he voted against our efforts in safe and drug-free schools. He voted against these programs, he does not believe it. That’s the issue. 90 percent of our kids are out there in those public schools and we need to lift their standards and move them forward with the programs like those I’ve outlined in this campaign.DOLE: I’d better correct the President. I don’t know what time it is, but it’s probably getting late. I want to correct, the all these things I voted against, they were probably part of some big package that had a lot of pork in it or a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had and we probably voted no. I’ve supported all the education programs. I’ve supported Headstart, I think we ought to look at it. So I don’t want anybody out there to think we’ve just been voting no, no, no. Let’s give low income parents the same right that people of power and prestige have in America and let them go to better schools. Let’s not, let’s help, let’s turn the schools back to the teachers and back to the parents and take it away from the National Education Association.LEHRER: Mr. President, what is wrong with the school choice proposal?CLINTON: I support school choice. I support school choice. I have advocated expansions of public school choice alternatives and I said the creation of 3,000 new schools that we are going to help the states to finance. But if you’re going to have a private voucher plan, that ought to be determined by states in localities where they’re raising and spending most of the money.I simply think it’s wrong to take money away from programs that are helping build basic skills for kids, 90 percent of them are in the public schools; to take money away from programs that are helping fund the school lunch program, that are helping to fund the other programs, that are helping our schools to improve their standards. Our schools are getting better, and our schools can be made to be even better still with the right kind of community leadership and partnership at the school level.I have been a strong force for reform. And, Senator, I remind you that a few years ago when I supported teacher testing while in my home state I was pretty well lambasted by the teachers association. I just don’t believe we ought to be out there running down teachers and attacking them the way you did at the Republican convention. I think we ought to be lifting them up and moving our children forward.And let me just say that budget that you passed that I vetoed would have cut 50,000 kids out of Headstart. It would have eliminated the AmeriCorps plan and it would have cut back on student loans and scholarships. Now, it would have. That’s a fact. That’s one of the big reasons I vetoed it. We need to be doing more in education, not less.DOLE: Well, the AmeriCorps program, I must say, if that’s one of your successes, I wouldn’t speak about it too loudly. It costs about $27,000 to pay people to volunteer. We’ve got four million young people volunteering every year, the number hasn’t gone down. And you pick out 20,000, whether they need the money or not, and they get paid for volunteering. I like young people. I like teachers. I’m a product of a public school. You attended a private school for some time in your life. I like teachers. You’re not for school choice, you can’t be for school choice, because this is that special interest money again. When you get 99.5 percent of the money, we don’t know what happened to the other .5 percent, we’re looking for it, somebody got it, but it all went to Democrats. And this is part of that liberal establishment, one of those liberal things that you just can’t do. You’re for school uniforms and curfews and you’re opposed to truancy. Now that’s not reform, Mr. President. Why can’t Landale Shakespeare in Cleveland or Pilar Gonzales in Milwaukee give their children an opportunity to go to a better school. Some schools aren’t safe. Some schools aren’t even safe. Your choice is nothing. Let’s give them a real choice, the kind of choice you had, and the kind of choice a lot of people have in America. If we want to stop crime and teenage pregnancy, let’s start with education.CLINTON: First of all, Senator Dole, let’s set the record straight. I was able for two years when I was in, a very young boy to go to a Catholic school, but I basically went to public schools all my life. And I’ve worked hard for a long time to make them better, 90 percent of our kids are there. You, it’s amazing to me, you are all for having more responsibility at the local level for everything except schools. Where we don’t have very much money at the Federal level to spend on education, we ought to spend it helping the 90 percent of the kids that we can help. If a local school district in Cleveland or anyplace else wants to have a private choice plan like Milwaukee did, let them have at it. I might say the results are highly ambiguous. But I want to get out there and give a better education opportunity to all of our children and that’s why I vetoed the budget you passed with $30 billion in education cuts. It was wrong, and my plan for the future is better.LEHRER: Senator Dole, at the Republican convention you said the following and I quote, it is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton Administration a core of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered, and never learned should have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes, end quote. Whom precisely and what precisely did you have in mind?DOLE: I had precisely in mind a lot of the people that were in the White House and other agencies who’ve never been had any experience, who came to Washington without any experience, they all were very liberal, of course, or they wouldn’t be in the administration. And their idea was that they knew what was best for the American people.Now, I feel very strongly about a lot of things. I feel strongly about education. I want to help young people have an education, just as I had an education after World War II with the GI bill of Rights. We’ve had millions of young men and women in subsequent subsequent wars change the face of the nation because the government helped with their education.Now the reason they don’t have, The reason the President can’t support this is pretty obvious. It’s not taking anything away from schools, it’s new money. It’s not being taken away from anybody else, except we’ll downsize the Department of Education. But this is a very liberal administration. This is an administration that gave you the big tax cut. This administration tried to take over healthcare and impose a governmental system. This is the administration that fought regulatory reform that is putting a lot of small businessmen and small businesswomen out of business. This is the administration that fought the balanced budget amendment and vetoed a balanced budget and vetoed welfare reform twice, and the list goes on and on and on, that’s what I had in mind.I want people in my administration and will have people in my administration who understand America. There won’t be 10 millionaires and 14 lawyers in the cabinet. There will be people with experience and people who understand America and people who’ve made it and know the hard knocks in life.CLINTON: When Senator Dole made that remark about all the elitists, all the young elitists in the administration, one of the young men who works for me who grew up in a house trailer looked at me and said, Mr. President, I know how you grew up, who is he talking about. And you know this liberal charge, that’s what their party always drags out when they get in a tight race. It’s sort of their golden oldie, you know. It’s a record they think they can play that everybody loves to hear. And I just don’t think that dog will hunt this time.The American people should make up their own mind. Here’s the record: We cut deficit four years in a row for the first time before the Civil War — I mean, before World War II, and maybe before the Civil War, too. We’ve got ten and a half million new jobs; we’ve got record numbers of those new small businesses. We’ve made every one of them eligible for a tax cut. We’ve got declining crime rates, two million fewer people on welfare rolls before welfare reform passed, and a 50 percent increase in child support and a crime bill with 60 death penalties and 100,000 police and the assault weapons ban. The American people can make up their mind about whether that’s a liberal record or a record that’s good for America. Liberal, conservative, you put whatever label you want on it.DOLE: Well, I think it’s pretty liberal, I’ll put that label on it. You take a look at all the programs you’ve advocated, Mr. President. Thank goodness we had a Republican Congress there. The first thing you did when you came into office was set up the stimulus package, said we’ve got a little pork we want to scatter around America, $16 billion. And even some in your own party couldn’t buy that.I remember talking by the telephone. I’m not even certain you were too excited about that. I won’t, I never repeat what I’ve talked to the President about. In any event, we saved the taxpayers $16 billion. And then came some other program, and then came healthcare, and then came the tax increase and a lot of these things stopped in 1994 because then the Congress changed, and I think we’ve done a good job.LEHRER: Mr. President, if you’re not a liberal, describe your political philosophy.CLINTON: I believe that the purpose of politics is to give people the tools to make the most of their own lives; to reinforce the values of opportunity and responsibility, and to build a sense of community so we’re all working together. I don’t believe in discrimination. I believe you can protect the environment and grow the economy. I believe that we have to do these things with a government that’s smaller and less bureaucratic, but that we have to do them nonetheless.It’s inconvenient for Senator Dole, but the truth is I’ve reduced the size of government more than my Republican predecessors. And I did stop them, I admit that. I sure stopped their budget. Their budget cut enforcement for the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. It cut funds to clean up toxic waste dumps with 10 million of our kids still living within four miles of a toxic waste dump, by a third. It ended the principle that the polluters should pay for those toxic waste dumps unless it was very recent. Their budget weakened our support for education. $30 billion, even cut funds for scholarships and college loans. Their budget cut $270 billion in Medicare and, finally, their budget withdrew the national guarantee of healthcare to poor children, families with children with handicaps, the elderly in nursing homes, poor pregnant women. It was wrong for the country and calling it conservative won’t make it right. It was a bad decision for America and would have been bad for our future if I hadn’t stopped it.DOLE: Well, the President can define himself in any way he wants, but I think we have to look at the record. Go back to the time he was, what, Texas director for George McGovern. George McGovern is a friend of mine, so I don’t mean, but he was a liberal, proud liberal. I’ve just finished reading a book, I think it’s called — what is it called, what is it, The Demise of the Democratic Party by Ronald Cardash (ph) or something talking about all the liberal influences in the administration. Whether it’s organized labor or whether it’s the Hollywood elite or whether some of the media elite or whether it’s the labor unions or whatever. And so I think you take a look at it. The bottom line is this: I think the American people, thought he’d recite all these bills and all these things, they want to know what’s going to happen to them. They’ve all got a lot of anxieties out there. Did anybody complain when you raised taxes? Did anybody go out and ask the people, how are you going to pay the extra money? That’s why we want an economic package. We want the government to pinch their pennies for a change instead of the people pinching their pennies. That’s what our message is to the people watching. Not all this back and forth, you voted this way, you voted that way, we want a better America as we go into the next century.CLINTON: The way you get a better America is to balance the budget and protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment; to give a targeted tax cut — and let me talk about the education tax cut — to let people have a $10,000 deduction for the cost of college tuition in any year, any kind of college tuition; to give families a tax credit, a dollar for dollar reduction in their taxes for the cost of a typical community college so we can open that to everybody. And then to let people save in an IRA and withdraw from it without a tax penalty for education, home buying or medical expenses, that’s the right way to go into the 21st Century, balance the budget and cut taxes, not balloon with this $550 billion tax scheme.LEHRER: Senator Dole, we’ve talked mostly now about differences between the two of you that relate to policy issues and that sort of thing. Are there also significant differences in the more personal area that are relevant to this election?DOLE: Let me say first, on the President’s promise for another tax cut. I mean, I’ve told people as I’ve traveled around, all of you that got the tax cut he promised last time, vote for him in ’96 and not many hands go up. So the question is, would you buy a used election promise from my opponent. The people want economic reform. They’re having a hard time making ends meet. You’ve got one parent working for the government, the other parent working for the family. This is important business. This is about getting the economy moving again. This is about American jobs and opportunities. It’s about the government, as I said before, pinching its pennies for a change instead of the poor taxpayer. When they raise your taxes nobody runs around asking people where are you going to get the extra money. I think the government can do better. Are there personal differences?LEHRER: That are relevant to this.DOLE: Well, my blood pressure is lower, my weight, my cholesterol, but I will not make health an issue in this campaign. So I think he’s a bit taller than I am. But I think there are personal differences. I mean, I’m not I don’t like to get into personal matters. As far as I’m concerned, this is a campaign about issues. It’s about my vision for America and about his liberal vision for America. And not about personal things. You know, I think his liberal vision is a thing of the past. I know he wants to disown it. I wouldn’t want to be a liberal either, Mr. President, but you’re stuck with it because that’s your record, that’s your record in Arkansas: The biggest tax increase in history. The biggest crime increase in history, the biggest drug increase in history in Arkansas.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Well, just for the record, when I was governor we had the lowest — second lowest tax burden of any state in the country, the highest job growth rate of any state when I ran for president and were widely recognized for a lot of other advances.But the important thing is, what are we going to do now. I think a targeted tax cut is better for our future, targeted to education and child rearing, with the rest of the education plan, hooking up all of our classrooms to the Internet by the year 2000. Making sure we’ve got an army of reading volunteers, trained people to teach with parents and teachers so that our eight year olds can learn to read. Investing in our environment. Cleaning up two-thirds of the worst toxic waste dumps. Those plans are better than this $550 billion tax scheme.Now, remember, folks, even Senator Dole’s campaign co-chair here, Senator D’Amato, says he’s got to cut Medicare to pay for this. Everybody who’s looked at it, 500 economists, seven Nobel prize winners, say it’s bad for the economy. It’s going to blow a hole in the deficit It’s going to raise taxes on nine million people and require bigger cuts than the one I vetoed. Our plan is better, it will take us into the future with a growing economy and healthier families.DOLE: Well, I’m really encouraged to know of your renewed friendship with Al D’Amato, and I know he appreciates it. You didn’t even have tax cuts in your budget, Mr. President, the first two years you were president. It wasn’t until we had a Republican Congress you even thought about, you talked about tax cuts. Getting back to personal differences, I think, Jim, if you are a little more specific, but I think the President could clarify one thing tonight and that’s the question of pardons. I know you talked about it on the Jim, with Jim Lehrer on the PBS show. And I’ve never discussed Whitewater, as I’ve told you personally. I’m not discussing Whitewater now. But I am discussing the power the President has to grant pardons. And hopefully in the next segment you could lay that to rest.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: Well, first of all, you know, he made that remark about Senator D’Amato. He’s arranged for me to spend a lot more time with Senator D’Amato in the last couple years so I’m more familiar with his comments than I used to be. Let me say what I’ve said already about this pardon issue. This is an issue they’ve brought up. It’s under, there’s been no consideration of it, no discussion of it. I will tell you this: I will not give anyone special treatment and I will strictly adhere to the law. And that is what every president has done, as far as I know, in the past but what every other president’s has done. This is something I take seriously and that’s my position.DOLE: But it seems to me the president shouldn’t have any comment at all. Particularly where it’s someone where you’ve had business dealings. I mean, you may be sending a signal. I don’t know, I’m not questioning anybody.But as a President of the United States, when somebody asks you about pardons, you say no comment, period. And I think he made a mistake. And I think when you make a mistake, you say I made a mistake. But apparently his position hasn’t changed. If there are other specific areas, but beyond that I haven’t gotten into any of these things, as the President knows. We’ve had that discussion. And again I know Senator D’Amato I think may have had a hearing or two on Whitewater, I can’t remember, but he’s not my general chairman, he’s a friend of mine. And so is Senator Kennedy a friend of yours.CLINTON: You bet.DOLE: I remember one day on the floor I said now, gentlemen, let me tax your memories, and Kennedy jumped up and said, why haven’t we thought of that before. You know, so one of your liberal friends.CLINTON: Thank you.LEHRER: Mr. President, 30 seconds.CLINTON: No comment.DOLE: What’s the subject matter?LEHRER: Senator Dole, if you could single out one thing that you would like for the voters to have in their mind about President Clinton on a policy matter or a personal matter, what would it be? Something to know about him, understand it and appreciate it.DOLE: See, if I say anything it’s going to be misconstrued. I don’t think there is even a race between the two, it’s about our vision for America.I happen to like President Clinton personally. I’m addressing him all evening as Mr. President. I said in 1992 he didn’t extend that courtesy to President Bush. But I respect the presidency. I’ve served under a number of presidents. They all have their strengths and they all have their weaknesses. So I’d rather talk about my strengths. And I think I have my strengths and I think the best thing going for Bob Dole is that Bob Dole keeps his word. It’s a question between trust and fear, and I would say, I think, Mr. President, about all you’ve got going in this campaign is fear.You’re spending millions and millions of dollars in negative ads frightening senior citizens. I know this to be a fact because I had one tell me last week, Senator don’t cut my Medicare. I’m trying to save your Medicare, just as I rescued Social Security with a bipartisan commission. I have relatives on Medicare. I used to sign welfare checks for my grandparents. I know all about poverty and all about need and all about taking care of people, and that’s been my career in the United States Senate.And I’ll keep my word on the economic package. If I couldn’t cut taxes and balance the budget the same time, I wouldn’t look at you in the eye in your living room or wherever you might be and say that this is good for America. People will tell you who served with Bob Dole, agree or disagree, he kept his word. That’s what this race is all about.CLINTON: I’d like the American people to know that I have worked very hard to be on their side. And to move this country forward and we’re better off than we were four years ago. But the most important thing is my plan for the 21st Century is a better plan. A targeted tax cut, a real commitment to educational reform. A deep commitment to making welfare reform work with incentives to the private sector to move people from welfare to work. Now we have to create those jobs, now that we’re requiring people to go do work.A commitment to continuing step-by-step healthcare reform with the next step helping people who are between jobs to access healthcare and not lose it just because they are out of work for a while. A commitment to grow the economy while protecting the environment. That’s what I’d like them to know about me; that I’ve gotten up every day and worked for the American people and worked so that their children could have their dreams come true.And I believe we’ve got the results to show we’re on the right track. The most important thing is, I believe we’ve got the right ideas for the future. And I like, I like Senator Dole, you can probably tell we like each other. We just see the world in different ways. And you folks out there are going to have to choose who you think is right.DOLE: Well, I’d say the first homeless bill in the Senate was the Dole-Byrd Byrd-Dole bill, I can’t remember who was in control then. I remember working with Senator Ribicoff from Connecticut on the Hospice program. We now have 2500 hospices. As I said, I’ve worked all my life when I was in the Congress. I left on June 11th because I wanted the American people to know that I was willing to give up something.President Clinton ran for governor in 1990 and said he’s going to fill out his term, but he didn’t. He’s president so I guess it’s a little better deal. But I wanted the American people to know I was willing to give up something. I wasn’t just getting more power and more power. So I rolled the dice, I put my career on the line because I really believe the future of America is on the line.We can give you all these numbers, they don’t mean a thing. If you are out of work, you have nothing to eat or you can’t have medical care, or you’re holding a crack baby in your arms right now, what do you do next? You know, America’s best days are ahead of us. I’ve seen the tough times, I know they can be better and I’ll lead America to a brighter future.LEHRER: Mr. President, what do you say to Senator Dole’s point that this election is about keeping one’s word?CLINTON: Let’s look at that. When I ran for president, I said we’d cut the deficit in half in four years; we cut it by 60 percent. I said that our economic plan would produce eight million jobs, we have ten and a half million new jobs. We’re number one in autos again, record numbers of new small businesses. I said we’d put, pass a crime bill that would put 100,000 police on the street, ban assault weapons, and deal with the problems that ought to be dealt with with capital punishment, including capital punishment for drug kingpins, and we did that.I said we would change the way welfare works, and even before the bill passed we’d moved nearly two million people from welfare to work, working with states and communities. I said we’d get tougher with child support and child support enforcement’s up 50 percent. I said that I would work for tax relief for middle class Americans. The deficit was bigger than I thought it was going to be. I think they’re better off, all of us are, that we got the interest rates down and the deficit down.Republicans talk about it, but we’re the first the first administration in anybody’s lifetime looking at this program to bring that deficit down four years in a row. We still gave tax cuts to 15 million working Americans, and now I’ve got a plan that’s been out there for two years, it could have been passed already, but instead the Republicans shut the government down to try to force their budget and their plan on me, and I couldn’t take that. But we’ll get the rest of that tax relief. And so I think when you look at those results, you know the plan I’ve laid out for the future has a very good chance of being enacted if you’ll give me a chance to build that bridge to the 21st Century.LEHRER: Senator.DOLE: Well, there he goes again, that line has been used before, I mean, exaggerating all the things that he did. He didn’t do all these things. Let’s take all these four years in a row. He came in with a high growth rate, the 1990 budget agreement, which some, you know, didn’t like, had some very tough cost controls, put a lot of pressure on Congress. The S & L crisis was over, they’re starting to sell assets, all that money was coming in. And he cut defense an extra $60 billion, threw a lot of people out of work.He talks about a smaller government. There are actually more people in government except for people in defense related jobs. They’re gone. The government’s bigger than it was when President Kennedy was around, even though he says it’s not. In addition, Republican Congress cut $53 billion. So let’s just, let’s give credit where credit is due. Governor Engler of Michigan cut taxes 21 times, created a lot of new jobs. So did Governor Thompson, so did Governor Rowland. A lot of people ought to deserve credit, Mr. President. When I’m President of the United States we’re going to have a governors’ council and we’re going to work directly with the governors to get power back to the people and back to the states.CLINTON: I think a lot of people deserve credit and I’ve tried to give it to them. But I believe that my plan is better than Senator Dole’s ill-advised $550 billion scheme which I’ll say again will blow a hole in the deficit. Our plan will balance the budget, grow the economy, preserve the environment, and invest in education. We have the right approach for the future and looks at the results. It is not midnight in America, Senator. We are better off than we were four years ago.LEHRER: All right. That’s the last question, the last answer. Let’s go now to the closing statements. Mr. President, you’re first. Two minutes.CLINTON: Well, first, Jim, let me thank you and thank you, Senator Dole, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, all of you listening tonight for the chance you’ve given us to appear.I want to say in the beginning that I am profoundly grateful for the chance that you have given me to serve as president for the last four years. I never could have dreamed anything like this would come my way in life, and I’ve done my best to be faithful to the charge you’ve given me.I’m proud of the fact that America is stronger and more prosperous and more secure than we were four years ago. And I’m glad we’re going in the right direction. And I’ve done my best tonight to lay out my plans for going forward to an even better future in the next century. I’d like to leave you with the thought that the things I do as president are basically driven by the people whose lives I have seen affected by what does or doesn’t happen in this country. The auto worker in Toledo who was unemployed when I was elected and now has a great job because we’re number one in auto production again. All the people I’ve met who used to be on welfare who are now working and raising their children. And I think what others could do for our country and themselves if we did the welfare reform thing in the proper way. I think of the man who grabbed me by the shoulder once with tears in his eyes and said his daughter was dying of cancer and he thanked me for giving him a chance to spend some time with her without losing his job because of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I think of all the people I grew up with and went to school with and who I stay in touch with and who nerve let me forget how what we do in Washington affects all of you out there in America. Folks, we can build that bridge to the 21st Century, big enough and strong enough for all of us to walk across, and I hope you will help me build it.LEHRER: Senator Dole, your closing statement, sir.DOLE: Thank you, Jim; thank you, Mr. President; thank everyone for watching and listening.I want to address my remarks to the young people of America, because they’re the ones that are going to spend most of their life in the 21st Century. They’re the ones who have the challenges and they are people out there making predictions that it’s not going to be the same. You’re not going to have the opportunities; there are going to be more deficits, more drugs, more crime, and less confidence in the American people. And that’s what you’re faced with, the parents are faced with, and the grand parents are faced with. It’s important, it’s their future. And I would say to those I know there are more young people experimenting with drugs today than ever before; drug use has gone up. And if you care about the future of America, if you care about your future, just don’t do it. And I know that I’m someone older than you. But I’ve had my anxious moments in my life. I’ve learned to feed myself and to walk and to dress. I’m standing here as proof that in America the possibilities are unlimited. I know who I am, and I know where I’m from, and I know where I want to take America. We are the greatest country on the face of the earth. We do more good things for more people in our communities, our neighborhoods, than anywhere that I know of. This is important business. This election is important. I ask for your support, I ask for your help. And if you really want to get involved, just tap into my home page, www.DoleKemp96.org. Thank you. God bless America.Transcription by: AM Court Reporting, White Plains, NY. Conlin, A. O’Donnell, A. Sikora, K. Jones, D. Hughes, J. Tepper, K. Ortilano, J. Spinozzi (staff).",
    "id": "d3576089-3189-4be3-8eff-ed091d1ad86d"
  },
  {
    "year": 1980,
    "date": "October 28, 1980",
    "title": "The Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 28, 1980 Debate TranscriptOctober 28, 1980The Carter-Reagan Presidential DebateRUTH HINERFELD, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, EDUCATION FUND: Good evening. I’m Ruth Hinerfeld of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Next Tuesday is Election Day. Before going to the polls, voters want to understand the issues and know the candidates’ positions. Tonight, voters will have an opportunity to see and hear the major party candidates for the Presidency state their views on issues that affect us all. The League of Women Voters is proud to present this Presidential Debate. Our moderator is Howard K. Smith.MR. SMITH, ABC NEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Hinerfeld. The League of Women Voters is pleased to welcome to the Cleveland, Ohio, Convention Center Music Hall President Jimmy Carter. the Democratic Party’s candidate for reelection to the Presidency. and Governor Ronald Reagan of California, the Republican Party’s candidate for the Presidency. The candidates will debate questions on domestic, economic, foreign policy, and national security issues. The questions are going to be posed by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me. They are: Marvin Stone, the editor of U.S. News & World Report; Harry Ellis, national correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor; William Hilliard, assistant managing editor of the Portland Oregonian; Barbara Walters, correspondent, ABC News. The ground rules for this, as agreed by you gentlemen, are these: Each panelist down here will ask a question, the same question, to each of the two candidates. After the two candidates have answered, a panelist will ask follow-up questions to try to sharpen the answers. The candidates will then have an opportunity each to make a rebuttal. That will constitute the first half of the debate, and I will state the rules for the second half later on. Some other rules: The candidates are not permitted to bring prepared notes to the podium, but are permitted to make notes during the debate. If the candidates exceed the allotted time agreed on, I will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. We ask the Convention Center audience here to abide by one ground rule. Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. Now, based on the toss of the coin, Governor Reagan will respond to the first question from Marvin Stone.MARVIN STONE, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Governor, as you’re well aware, the question of war and peace has emerged as a central issue in this campaign in the give and take of recent weeks. President Carter has been criticized for responding late to aggressive Soviet impulses, for insufficient build-up of our armed forces. and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran. You have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle – military action – to deal with foreign crises. Specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power?MR. REAGAN: I don’t know what the differences might be, because I don’t know what Mr. Carter’s policies are. I do know what he has said about mine. And I’m only here to tell you that I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also, that this meeting this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, and that we cannot shirk our responsibility as a leader of the free world because we’re the only ones that can do it. Therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong. We can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last three and a half years under the foreign policies of this Administration of Mr. Carter’s, until we’re faced each time with a crisis. And good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. I have seen four wars in my lifetime. I’m a father of sons; I have a grandson. I don’t ever want to see another generation of young Americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the Pacific, or rice paddies and jungles in the in Asia or the muddy battlefields of Europe.MR. SMITH: Mr. Stone, do you have a follow-up question for the Governor?MR. STONE: Yes. Governor, we’ve been hearing that the defense build-up that you would associate yourself with would cost tens of billions of dollars more than is now contemplated. Assuming that the American people are ready to bear this cost, they nevertheless keep asking the following question: How do you reconcile huge increases in military outlays with your promise of substantial tax cuts and of balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year, the one that just ended, ran more than $60 billion in the red?MR. REAGAN: Mr. Stone, I have submitted an economic plan that I have worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it, and believe that over a five year projection, this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbishing of our defensive posture, that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983 if not earlier, and that we can afford – along with the cuts that I have proposed in Government. spending – we can afford the tax cuts I have proposed and probably mainly because Mr. Carter’s economic policy has built into the next five years, and on beyond that, a tax increase that will be taking $86 billion more out of the people’s pockets than was taken this year. And my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. I’m only reducing the amount of the increase. In other words, what I’m talking about is not putting government back to getting less money than government’s been getting, but simply cutting the increase in in spending.MR. SMITH: The same question now goes to President Carter. President Carter, would you like to have the question repeated?MR. STONE: Yes, President Carter, the question of war and peace, a central issue in this campaign. You’ve been criticized for, in the give and take, for responding late to aggressive Soviet impulses, for an insufficient build-up of our armed forces, and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran. Governor Reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle – military action – to deal with foreign crises such as I have mentioned. Specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power?MR. CARTER: Mr. Stone, I’ve had to make thousands of decisions since I’ve been President, serving in the Oval Office. And with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country, I have learned in the process. I think I’m a much wiser and more experienced man than I was when I debated four years ago against President Ford. I’ve also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. H. L. Mencken said that for every problem there’s a simple answer. It would be neat and plausible and wrong. The fact is that this nation, in the eight years before I became President, had its own military strength decreased. Seven out of eight years, the budget commitments for defense went down, 37% in all. Since I’ve been in office, we’ve had a steady, carefully planned, methodical but, very effective increase in our commitment for defense. But what we’ve done is use that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the United States to preserve the peace. We’ve not only kept peace for our own country, but we’ve been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. In the Middle East, we’ve worked for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, successfully, and have tied ourselves together with Israel and Egypt in a common defense capability. This is a very good step forward for our nation’s security, and we’ll continue to do as we have done in the past. I might also add that there are decisions that are made in the Oval Office by every President which are profound in nature. There are always trouble spots in the world, and how those troubled areas are addressed by a President alone in that Oval Office affects our nation directly, the involvement of the United States and also our American interests. That is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently, by every President who serves. That is what I have tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace.MR. SMITH: Mr. Stone, do you have a follow-up for?MR. STONE: Yes. I would like to be a little more specific on the use of military power and let’s talk about one area for a moment. Under what circumstances would you use military forces to deal with, for example, a shut-off of the Persian Oil Gulf [sic] if that should occur, or to counter Russian expansion beyond Afghanistan into either Iran or Pakistan? I ask this question in view of charges that we are woefully unprepared to project sustained – and I emphasize the word sustained – power in that part of the world.MR. CARTER: Mr. Stone, in my State of the Union address earlier this year, I pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the Persian Gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. In the past, we have not had an adequate military presence in that region. Now we have two major carrier task forces. We have access to facilities in five different areas of that region. And we’ve made it clear that working with our allies and others, that we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality which might interrupt commerce with that crucial area of the world. But in doing this, we have made sure that we address this question peacefully, not injecting American military forces into combat, but letting the strength of our nation be felt in a beneficial way. This, I believe, has assured that our interests will be protected in the Persian Gulf region, as we have done in the Middle East and throughout the world.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, you have a minute to comment or rebut.MR. REAGAN: Well yes, I question the figure about the decline in defense spending under the two previous Administrations in the preceding eight years to this Administration. I would call to your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those eight years, which of course made a change in military spending because of turning from war to peace. I also would like to point out that Republican presidents in those years, faced with a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, found that their requests for defense budgets were very often cut. Now, Gerald Ford left a five-year projected plan for a military build-up to restore our defenses, and President Carter’s administration reduced that by 38%, cut 60 ships out of the Navy building program that had been proposed, and stopped the the B-l, delayed the cruise missile, stopped the production line for the Minuteman missile, stopped the Trident or delayed the Trident submarine, and now is planning a mobile military force that can be delivered to various spots in the world which does make me question his assaults on whether I am the one who is quick to look for use of force.MR. SMITH: President Carter, you have the last word on this question.MR. CARTER: Well, there are various elements of defense. One is to control nuclear weapons, which I hope we’ll get to later on because that is the most important single issue in this campaign. Another one is how to address troubled areas of the world. I think, habitually, Governor Reagan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas, when I and my predecessors – both Democrats and Republicans – have advocated resolving those troubles in those difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiation. In addition to that, the build-up of military forces is good for our country because we’ve got to have military strength to preserve the peace. But I’ll always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat, and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. Strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand in hand.MR. SMITH: Thank you gentlemen. The next question is from Harry Ellis to President Carter.MR. ELLIS, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%. It now stands at more than 12%. Perhaps more significantly, the nation’s broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling. of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term?MR. CARTER: Again it’s important to put the situation in perspective. In 1974, we had a so-called oil shock, wherein the price of OPEC oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. We had an even worse oil shock in 1979. In 1974, we had the worst recession, the deepest and most penetrating recession since the Second World War. The recession that resulted this time was the briefest since the Second World War. In addition, we’ve brought down inflation. Earlier this year, in the first quarter, we did have a very severe inflation pressure brought about by the OPEC price increase. It averaged about 18% in the first quarter of this year. In the second quarter, we had dropped it down to about 13%. The most recent figures, the last three months, on the third quarter of this year, the inflation rate is 7% – still too high, but it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs – nine million new jobs in the last three and a half years – that the inflationary threat is still urgent on us. I notice that Governor Reagan recently mentioned the Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal. which his own running mate, George Bush, described as voodoo economics, and said that it would result in a 30% inflation rate. And Business Week, which is not a Democratic publication, said that this Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal – and I quote them, I think – was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures which would destroy this nation. So our proposals are very sound and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for American workers, and at the same time would be anti-inflationary in nature. So to add nine million new jobs, to control inflation, and to plan for the future with an energy policy now intact as a foundation is our plan for the years ahead.MR. SMITH: Mr. Ellis, do you have a follow-up question for Mr. Carter?MR. ELLIS: Yes. Mr. President, you have mentioned the creation of nine million new jobs. At the same time, the unemployment rate still hangs high, as does the inflation rate. Now, I wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to try to bring down that inflation rate? And would it be an act of leadership to tell the American people they are going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner lifestyle for some time to come?MR. CARTER: Yes. We have demanded that the American people sacrifice, and they have done very well. As a matter of fact, we’re importing today about one-third less oil from overseas than we did just a year ago. We’ve had a 25% reduction since the first year I was in office. At the same time, as I have said earlier, we have added about nine million net new jobs in that period of time – a record never before achieved. Also, the new energy policy has been predicated on two factors: One is conservation, which requires sacrifice, and the other one, increase in production of American energy, which is going along very well – more coal this year than ever before in American history, more oil and gas wells drilled this year than ever before in history. The new economic revitalization program that we have in mind, which will be implemented next year, would result in tax credits which would let business invest in new tools and new factories to create even more new jobs – about one million in the next two years. And we also have planned a youth employment program which would encompass 600,000 jobs for young people. This has already passed the House, and it has an excellent prospect to pass the Senate.MR. SMITH: Now, the same question goes to Governor Reagan. Governor Reagan, would you like to have the question repeated?MR. ELLIS: Governor Reagan, during the past four years, the Consumer Price Index has risen from 4.8% to currently over 12%. And perhaps more significantly, the nation’s broader, underlying rate of inflation has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that has been due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling of OPEC oil prices last year, which leads me to ask you whether, since the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, specifically what measures would you pursue`?MR. REAGAN: Mr. Ellis, I think this idea that has been spawned here in our country that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore it’s uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it, is entirely spurious and it’s dangerous to say this to the people. When Mr. Carter became President, inflation was 4.8%, as you said. It had been cut in two by President Gerald Ford. It is now running at 12.7%. President Carter also has spoken of the new jobs created. Well, we always, with the normal growth in our country and increase in population, increase the number of jobs. But that can’t hide the fact that there are eight million men and women out of work in America today, and two million of those lost their jobs in just the last few months. Mr. Carter had also promised that he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation. And yet, his 1980 economic message stated that we would reduce productivity and gross national product and increase unemployment in order to get a handle on inflation, because in January, at the beginning of the year, it was more than 18%. Since then, he has blamed the people for inflation, OPEC, he has blamed the Federal Reserve system, he has blamed the lack of productivity of the American people, he has then accused the people of living too well and that we must share in scarcity, we must sacrifice and get used to doing with less. We don’t have inflation because the people are living too well. We have inflation because the Government is living too well. And the last statement, just a few days ago, was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because Government revenues have not kept pace with Government spending. I see my time is running out here. I’ll have to get this out very fast. Yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity and by decreasing the cost of government to the place that we have balanced budgets, and are no longer grinding out printing press money, flooding the market with it because the Government is spending more than it takes in. And my economic plan calls for that. The President’s economic plan calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way. But we will have a very poor nation and a very unsound economy if we follow that path.MR. SMITH: A follow-up, Mr. Ellis?MR. ELLIS: Yes. You have centered on cutting Government spending in what you have just said about your own policies. You have also said that you would increase defense spending. Specifically, where would you cut Government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes, so that, presumably. Federal revenues would shrink?MR. REAGAN: Well. most people, when they think about cutting Government spending, they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or wiping out something, some service that Government is supposed to perform. I believe that there is enough extravagance and fat in government. As a matter of fact, one of the secretaries of HEW under Mr. Carter testified that he thought there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare and in the medical programs associated with it. We’ve had the Central Accounting. Office estimate that there is probably tens of billions of dollars that is lost in fraud alone, and they have added that waste adds even more to that. We have a program for a gradual reduction of Government spending based on these theories, and I have a task force now that has been working on where those cuts could be made. I’m confident that it can be done and that it will reduce inflation because I did it in California. And inflation went down below the national average in California when we returned the money to the people and reduced Government spending.MR. SMITH: President Carter.MR. CARTER: Governor Reagan’s proposal, the Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal, is one of the most highly inflationary ideas that ever has been presented to the American public. He would actually have to cut Government spending by at least $130 billion in order to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. I notice that his task force that is working for his future plans had some of their ideas revealed in The Wall Street Journal this week. One of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage, and several times this year, Governor Reagan has said that the major cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. This is a heartless kind of approach to the working families of our country, which is typical of many Republican leaders of the past, but, I think, has been accentuated under Governor Reagan. In California – I’m surprised Governor Reagan brought this up – he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that state under his administration. He more than doubled state spending while he was Governor – 122% increase – and had between a 20% and 30% increase in the number of employeesMR. SMITH: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Carter.MR. CARTER: in California. Thank you, sir.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan has the last word on this question.MR. REAGAN: Yes. The figures that the President has just used about California is a distortion of the situation there, because while I was Governor of California, our spending in California increased less per capita than the spending in Georgia while Mr. Carter was Governor of Georgia in the same four years. The size of government increased only one-sixth in California of what it increased in proportion to the population in Georgia. And the idea that my tax-cut proposal is inflationary: I would like to ask the President why is it inflationary to let the people keep more of their money and spend it the way that they like, and it isn’t inflationary to let him take that money and spend it the way he wants?MR. SMITH: I wish that question need not be rhetorical, but it must be because we’ve run out of time on that. Now, the third question to Governor Reagan from William Hilliard.WILLIAM HILLIARD, PORTLAND OREGONIAN: Yes. Governor Reagan, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in the services to the public. The signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. What, specifically, would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend?MR. REAGAN: I have been talking to a number of Congressmen who have much the same idea that I have, and that is that in the inner city areas, that in cooperation with the local government and the national Government, and using tax incentives and with cooperating with the private sector, that we have development zones. Let the local entity, the city, declare this particular area, based on the standards of the percentage of people on welfare, unemployed, and so forth, in that area. And then, through tax incentives, induce the creation of businesses providing jobs and so forth in those areas. The elements of government through these tax incentives For example, a business that would not have, for a period of time, an increase in the property tax reflecting its development of the unused property that it was making wouldn’t be any loss to the city because the city isn’t getting any tax from that now. And there would simply be a delay, and on the other hand, many of the people who would then be given jobs are presently wards of the Government and it wouldn’t hurt to give them a tax incentive, because they… that wouldn’t be costing Government anything either. I think there are things to do in this regard. I stood in the South Bronx on the exact spot that President Carter stood on in 1977. You have to see it to believe it. It looks like a bombed-out city – great, gaunt skeletons of buildings. Windows smashed out, painted on one of them “Unkept promises;” on another, “Despair.” And this was the spot at which President Carter had promised that he was going to bring in a vast program to rebuild this department. There are whole or this area there are whole blocks of land that are left bare, just bulldozed down flat. And nothing has been done, and they are now charging to take tourists there to see this terrible desolation. I talked to a man just briefly there who asked me one simple question: “Do I have reason to hope that I can someday take care of my family again? Nothing has been done.”MR. SMITH: Follow-up. Mr. Hilliard:MR. HILLIARD: Yes. Governor Reagan. Blacks and other non-whites are increasing. in numbers in our cities. Many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. There is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as non-whites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. What do you think is the nation’s future as a multi-racial society?MR. REAGAN: I believe in it. I am eternally optimistic, and I happen to believe that we’ve made great progress from the days when I was young and when this country didn’t even know it had a racial problem. I know those things can grow out of despair in an inner city, when there’s hopelessness at home, lack of work, and so forth. But I believe that all of us together, and I believe the Presidency is what Teddy Roosevelt said it was. It’s a bully pulpit. And I think that something can be done from there, because a goal for all of us should be that one day, things will be done neither because of nor in spite of any of the differences between us – ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be – that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. And I would do everything I could in my power to bring that about.MR. SMITH: Mr. Hilliard, would you repeat your question for President Carter?MR. HILLIARD: President Carter. the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in services to the public. The signs seem to point toward deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. What, specifically, would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend.MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. When I was campaigning in 1976, everywhere I went, the mayors and local officials were in despair about the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our nation. We initiated a very fine urban renewal program, working with the mayors, the governors, and other interested officials. This has been a very successful effort. That’s one of the main reasons that we’ve had such an increase in the number of people employed. Of the nine million people put to work in new jobs since I’ve been in office, 1.3 million of those has been among black Americans, and another million among those who speak Spanish. We now are planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid transit, mass transit. Under the windfall profits tax, we expect to spend about $43 billion in the next 10 years to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. We also are pursuing housing programs. We’ve had a 73% increase in the allotment of Federal funds for improved education. These are the kinds of efforts worked on a joint basis with community leaders, particularly in the minority areas of the central cities that have been deteriorating so rapidly in the past. It’s very important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens. I have brought into the top level, top levels of government, into the White House, into administrative offices of the Executive branch, into the judicial system, highly qualified black and Spanish citizens and women who in the past had been excluded. I noticed that Governor Reagan said that when he was a young man that there was no knowledge of a racial problem in this country. Those who suffered from discrimination because of race or sex certainly knew we had a racial problem. We have gone a long way toward correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go.MR. SMITH: Follow-up question?MR. HILLIARD: Yes. President Carter, I would like to repeat the same follow-up to you. Blacks and other non-whites are increasing in numbers in our cities. Many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. There is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as non-whites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. What is your assessment of the nation’s future as a multi-racial society?MR. CARTER: Ours is a nation of refugees, a nation of immigrants. Almost all of our citizens came here from other lands and now have hopes, which are being realized, for a better life, preserving their ethnic commitments, their family structures, their religious beliefs, preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries, but still holding themselves together in a very coherent society, which gives our nation its strength. In the past, those minority groups have often been excluded from participation in the affairs of government. Since I’ve been President, I’ve appointed, for instance, more than twice as many black Federal judges as all previous presidents in the history of this country. I’ve done the same thing in the appointment of women, and also Spanish-speaking Americans. To involve them in the administration of government and the feeling that they belong to the societal structure that makes decisions in the judiciary and in the executive branch is a very important commitment which I am trying to realize and will continue to do so in the future.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal.MR. REAGAN: Yes. The President talks of Government programs, and they have their place. But as governor, when I was at that end of the line and receiving some of these grants for Government programs, I saw that so many of them were dead-end. They were public employment that these people who really want to get out into the private job market where there are jobs with a future. Now, the President spoke a moment ago about that I was against the minimum wage. I wish he could have been with me when I sat with a group of teenagers who were black, and who were telling me about their unemployment problems, and that it was the minimum wage that had done away with the jobs that they once could get. And indeed, every time it has increased you will find there is an increase in minority unemployment among young people. And therefore, I have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. With regard to the great progress that has been made with this Government spending, the rate of black unemployment in Detroit, Michigan, is 56%.MR. SMITH: President Carter, you have the last word on this question.MR. CARTER: It’s obvious that we still have a long way to go in fully incorporating the minority groups into the mainstream of American life. We have made good progress, and there is no doubt in my mind that the commitment to unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, welfare, national health insurance, those kinds of commitments that have typified the Democratic party since ancient history in this country’s political life are a very important element of the future. In all those elements, Governor Reagan has repeatedly spoken out against them, which, to me, shows a very great insensitivity to giving deprived families a better chance in life. This, to me, is a very important difference between him and me in this election, and I believe the American people will judge accordingly. There is no doubt in my mind that in the downtown central cities, with the, with the new commitment on an energy policy, with a chance to revitalize homes and to make them more fuel efficient, with a chance for our synthetic fuels program, solar power, this will give us an additional opportunity for jobs which will pay rich dividends.MR. SMITH: Now, a question from Barbara Walters.BARBARA WALTERS: Mr. President, the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in Iran. I realize this is a sensitive area, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. Other countries have policies that determine how they will respond. Israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. For the future, Mr. President, the country has a right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and, what have we learned from this experience in Iran that might cause us to do things differently if this, or something similar, happens again?MR. CARTER: Barbara, one of the blights on this world is the threat and the activities of terrorists. At one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of the western world, we committed ourselves to take strong action against terrorism. Airplane hijacking was one of the elements of that commitment. There is no doubt that we have seen in recent years – in recent months – additional acts of violence against Jews in France and, of course, against those who live in Israel, by the PLO and other terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the most serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations, who believe in terrorism as a policy, should have atomic weapons. Both I and all my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In countries like Libya or Iraq, we have even alienated some of our closest trade partners because we have insisted upon the control of the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries. When Governor Reagan has been asked about that, he makes the very disturbing comment that non-proliferation, or the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, is none of our business. And recently when he was asked specifically about Iraq, he said there is nothing we can do about it. This ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all, and it’s part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds.MR. SMITH: Ms. Walters, a follow up?MS. WALTERS: While we are discussing policy, had Iran not taken American hostages. I assume that, in order to preserve our neutrality, we would have stopped the flow of spare parts and vital war materials once war broke out between Iraq and Iran. Now we’re offering to lift the ban on such goods if they let our people come home. Doesn’t this reward terrorism, compromise our neutrality, and possibly antagonize nations now friendly to us in the Middle East?MR. CARTER: We will maintain our position of neutrality in the Iran and Iraq war. We have no plans to sell additional materiel or goods to Iran, that might be of a warlike nature. When I made my decision to stop all trade with Iran as a result of the taking of our hostages, I announced then, and have consistently maintained since then, that if the hostages are released safely, we would make delivery on those items which Iran owns – which they have bought and paid for – also, that the frozen Iranian assets would be released. That’s been a consistent policy, one I intend to carry out.MR. SMITH: Would you repeat the question now for Governor Reagan, please, Ms. Walters?MS. WALTERS: Yes. Governor, the eyes of the country tonight remain on the hostages in Iran, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. There are other countries that have policies that determine how they will respond. Israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. For the future, the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and what have we learned from this experience in Iran that might cause us to do things differently if this, or something similar, should happen again?MR. REAGAN: Barbara, you’ve asked that question twice. I think you ought to have at least one answer to it. I have been accused lately of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. Now, this comes from an answer that I’ve made at least 50 times during this campaign to the press, when I am asked have you any ideas of what you would do if you were there? And I said, well, yes. And I think that anyone that’s seeking this position, as well as other people, probably, have thought to themselves, what about this, what about that? These are just ideas of what I would think of if I were in that position and had access to the information, and which I would know all the options that were open to me. I have never answered the question, however; second, the one that says, well, tell me, what are some of those ideas? First of all, I would be fearful that I might say something that was presently under way or in negotiations, and thus expose it and endanger the hostages, and sometimes, I think some of my ideas might require quiet diplomacy where you don’t say in advance, or say to anyone, what it is you’re thinking of doing. Your question is difficult to answer, because, in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay, in any way, the return of those hostages if there if there is a chance that they’re coming home soon, or that might cause them harm. What I do think should be done, once they are safely here with their families, and that tragedy is over – we’ve endured this humiliation for just lacking one week of a year now – then, I think, it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why they have been there so long, and when they came home, what did we have to do in order to bring that about – what arrangements were made? And I would suggest that Congress should hold such an investigation. In the meantime, I’m going to continue praying that they’ll carne home.MR. SMITH: Follow up question.MS. WALTERS: I would like to say that neither candidate answered specifically the question of a specific policy for dealing with terrorism, but I will ask Governor Reagan a different follow-up question. You have suggested that there would be no Iranian crisis had you been President, because we would have given firmer support to the Shah. But Iran is a country of 37 million people who are resisting a government that they regarded as dictatorial. My question is not whether the Shah’s regime was preferable to the Ayatollah’s, but whether the United States has the power or the right to try to determine what form of government any country will have, and do we back unpopular regimes whose major merit is that they are friendly to the United States?MR. REAGAN: The degree of unpopularity of a regime when the choice is total authoritarianism totalitarianism, I should say, in the alternative government, makes one wonder whether you are being helpful to the people. And we’ve been guilty of that. Because someone didn’t meet exactly our standards of human rights, even though they were an ally of ours, instead of trying patiently to persuade them to change their ways, we have, in a number of instances, aided a revolutionary overthrow which results in complete totalitarianism, instead, for those people. I think that this is a kind of a hypocritical policy when, at the same time, we’re maintaining a detente with the one nation in the world where there are no human rights at all – the Soviet Union. Now, there was a second phase in the Iranian affair in which we had something to do with that. And that was, we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy, and we could have done what other embassies did – either strengthen our security there, or remove our personnel before the kidnap and the takeover took place.MR. SMITH: Governor, I’m sorry, I must interrupt. President Carter, you have a minute for rebuttal.MR. CARTER: I didn’t hear any comment from Governor Reagan about what he would do to stop or reduce terrorism in the future. What the Western allies did decide to do is to stop all air flights – commercial air flights – to any nation involved in terrorism or the hijacking of air planes, or the harboring of hijackers. Secondly, we all committed ourselves, as have all my predecessors in the Oval Office not to permit the spread of nuclear weapons to a terrorist nation, or to any other nation that does not presently have those weapons or capabilities for explosives. Third, not to make any sales of materiel or weapons to a nation which is involved in terrorist activities. And, lastly, not to deal with the PLO until and unless the PLO recognizes Israel’s right to exist and recognizes UN Resolution 242 as a basis for Middle East peace. These are a few of the things to which our nation is committed, and we will continue with these commitments.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, you have the last word on that question.MR. REAGAN: Yes. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the things that have been done, because I believe it is high time that the civilized countries of the world made it plain that there is no room worldwide for terrorism; there will be no negotiation with terrorists of any kind. And while I have a last word here, I would like to correct a misstatement of fact by the President. I have never made the statement that he suggested about nuclear proliferation and nuclear proliferation, or the trying to halt it, would be a major part of a foreign policy of mine.MR. SMITH: Thank you gentlemen. That is the first half of the debate. Now, the rules for the second half are quite simple. They’re only complicated when I explain them. In the second half, the panelists with me will have no follow-up questions. Instead, after the panelists have asked a question, and the candidates have answered, each of the candidates will have two opportunities to follow up,. to question, to rebut, or just to comment on his opponent’s statement. Governor Reagan will respond, in this section, to the first question from Marvin Stone.MR. STONE: Governor Reagan – arms control: The President said it was the single most important issue. Both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but by methods that are vastly different. You suggest that we scrap the SALT II treaty already negotiated, and intensify the build-up of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty – one more favorable to us. President Carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it’s the best we can hope to get. Now, both of you cannot be right. Will you tell us why you think you are?MR. REAGAN: Yes. I think I’m right because I believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong America, and a strong economy. And then, as we build up our national security, to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time try to restrain the Soviet build-up, which has been going forward at a rapid pace, and for quite some time. The SALT II treaty was the result of negotiations that Mr. Carter’s team entered into after he had asked the Soviet Union for a discussion of actual reduction of nuclear strategic weapons. And his emissary, I think, came home in 12 hours having heard a very definite nyet. But taking that one no from the Soviet Union, we then went back into negotiations on their terms, because Mr. Carter had canceled the B-I bomber, delayed the MX, delayed the Trident submarine, delayed the cruise missile, shut down the Missile Man – the three – the Minuteman missile production line, and whatever other things that might have been done. The Soviet Union sat at the table knowing that we had gone forward with unilateral concessions without any reciprocation from them whatsoever. Now, I have not blocked the SALT II treaty, as Mr. Carter and Mr. Mondale suggest I have. It has been blocked by a Senate in which there is a Democratic majority. Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 10 to 0, with seven abstentions, against the SALT II treaty, and declared that it was not in the national security interests of the United States. Besides which, it is illegal, because the law of the land, passed by Congress, says that we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal. And we are not equal in this treaty for one reason alone – our B-2 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons; their Backfire bombers are not.MR. SMITH: Governor, I have to interrupt you at that point. The time is up for that. But the same question now to President Carter.MR. STONE: Yes. President Carter, both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but through vastly different methods. The Governor suggests we scrap the SALT II treaty which you negotiated in Vienna or signed in Vienna, intensify the build-up of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. You, on the other hand, say you will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it is the best we can hope to get from the Russians. You cannot both be right. Will you tell us why you think you are?MR. CARTER: Yes, I’d be glad to. Inflation. unemployment, the cities are all very important issues, but they pale into insignificance in the life and duties of a President when compared with the control of nuclear weapons. Every President who has served in the Oval Office since Harry Truman has been dedicated to the proposition of controlling nuclear weapons. To negotiate with the Soviet Union a balanced, controlled, observable, and then reducing levels of atomic weaponry, there is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of Governor Reagan. He has never supported any of those arms control agreements – the limited test ban, SALT I, nor the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, nor the Vladivostok Treaty negotiated with the Soviet Union by President Ford – and now he wants to throw into the wastebasket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on a balanced and equal basis between ourselves and the Soviet Union, negotiated over a seven-year period, by myself and my two Republican predecessors. The Senate has not voted yet on the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. There have been preliminary skirmishing in the committees of the Senate, but the Treaty has never come to the floor of the Senate for either a debate or a vote. It’s understandable that a Senator in the preliminary debates can make an irresponsible statement, or, maybe, an ill-advised statement. You’ve got 99 other senators to correct that mistake, if it is a mistake. But when a man who hopes to be President says, take this treaty, discard it, do not vote, do not debate, do not explore the issues, do not finally capitalize on this long negotiation – that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, you have an opportunity to rebut that. REAGAV: Yes, I’d like to respond very much. First of all, the Soviet Union if I have been critical of some of the previous agreements, it’s because we’ve been out-negotiated for quite a long time. And they have managed, in spite of all of our attempts at arms limitation, to go forward with the biggest military build-up in the history of man. Now, to suggest that because two Republican presidents tried to pass the SALT treaty – that puts them on its side – I would like to say that President Ford, who was within 90% of a treaty that we could be in agreement with when he left office, is emphatically against this SALT treaty. I would like to point out also that senators like Henry Jackson and Hollings of South Carolina – they are taking the lead in the fight against this particular treaty. I am not talking of scrapping. I am talking of taking the treaty back, and going back into negotiations. And I would say to the Soviet Union, we will sit and negotiate with you as long as it takes, to have not only legitimate arms limitation, but to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither one of us represents a threat to the other. That is hardly throwing away a treaty and being opposed to arms limitation.MR. SMITH: President Carter?MR. CARTER: Yes. Governor Reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements. He not only advocates the scrapping of this treaty – and I don’t know that these men that he quotes are against the treaty in its final form – but he also advocates the possibility, he said it’s been a missing element, of playing a trump card against the Soviet Union of a nuclear arms race, and is insisting upon nuclear superiority by our own nation, as a predication for negotiation in the future with the Soviet Union. If President Brezhnev said, we will scrap this treaty, negotiated under three American Presidents over a seven-year period of time, we insist upon nuclear superiority as a basis for future negotiations, and we believe that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future negotiations, it’s obvious that I, as President, and all Americans, would reject such a proposition. This would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. It would be very disturbing to American people. It would change the basic tone and commitment that our nation has experienced ever since the Second World War, with al Presidents, Democratic and Republican. And it would also be very disturbing to our allies, all of whom support this nuclear arms treaty. In addition to that, the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the Soviet Union would undoubtedly deteriorate very rapidly. This attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in its tone, although it’s said with a quiet voice.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?MR. REAGAN: I know the President’s supposed to be replying to me, but sometimes, I have a hard time in connecting what he’s saying, with what I have said or what my positions are. I sometimes think he’s like the witch doctor that gets mad when a good doctor comes along with a cure that’ll work. My point I have made already, Mr. President, with regard to negotiating: it does not call for nuclear superiority on the part of the United States. It calls for a mutual reduction of these weapons, as I say, that neither of us can represent a threat to the other. And to suggest that the SALT II treaty that your negotiators negotiated was just a continuation, and based on all of the preceding efforts by two previous Presidents, is just not true. It was a new negotiation because, as I say, President Ford was within about 10% of having a solution that could be acceptable. And I think our allies would be very happy to go along with a fair and verifiable SALT agreement.MR. SMITH: President Carter, you have the last word on this question.MR. CARTER: I think, to close out this discussion, it would be better to put into perspective what we’re talking about. I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry – and the control of nuclear arms. This is a formidable force. Some of these weapons have 10 megatons of explosion. If you put 50 tons of TNT in each one of railroad cars, you would have a carload of TNT – a trainload of TNT stretching across this nation. That’s one major war explosion in a warhead. We have thousands, equivalent of megaton, or million tons, of TNT warheads. The control of these weapons is the single major responsibility of a President, and to cast out this commitment of all Presidents, because of some slight technicalities that can be corrected, is a very dangerous approach.MR. SMITH: We have to go to another question now, from Harry Ellis to President Carter.HARRY ELLIS: Mr. President, as you have said, Americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. Yet U.S. dependence on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is today much higher than it was at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and for some time to came, the loss of substantial amounts of Arab oil could plunge the U.S. into depression. This means that a bridge must be built out of this dependence. Can the United States develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment, and will this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for American families?MR. CARTER: I don’t think there’s any doubt that, in the future, the cost of oil is going to go up. What I’ve had as a basic commitment since I’ve been President is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It can only be done in two ways: one, to conserve energy – to stop the waste of energy – and, secondly, to produce more American energy. We’ve been very successful in both cases. We’ve now reduced the importing of foreign oil in the last year alone by one-third. We imported today 2 million barrels of oil less than we did the same date just a year ago. This commitment has been opening up a very bright vista for our nation in the future, because with the windfall profits tax as a base, we now have an opportunity to use American technology and American ability and American natural resources to expand rapidly the production of synthetic fuels, yes; to expand rapidly the production of solar energy, yes; and also to produce the traditional kinds of American energy. We will drill more oil and gas wells this year than any year in history. We’ll produce more coal this year than any year in history. We are exporting more coal this year than any year in history. And we have an opportunity now with improved transportation systems and improved loading facilities in our ports, to see a very good opportunity on a world international market, to replace OPEC oil with American coal as a basic energy source. This exciting future will not only give us more energy security, but will also open up vast opportunities for Americans to live a better life and to have millions of new jobs associated with this new and very dynamic industry now in prospect because of the new energy policy that we’ve put into effect.MR. SMITH: Would you repeat the question now for Governor Reagan?MR. ELLIS: Governor Reagan, Americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. And yet, U.S. reliance on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. And the substantial loss of Arab oil could plunge the United States into depression. The question is whether the development of alternative energy sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment, and will it mean for American families steadily higher fuel bills?MR. REAGAN: I’m not so sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but I do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy-poor when it is energy-rich. The coal that the President mentioned – yes, we have it – and yet one-eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now. The mines are closed down; there are 22000 miners out of work. Most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it:. With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act. I think, as technology improves, we’ll be able to do even better with that. The other thing is that we have only leased out – begun to explore – 2% of our outer continental shelf for oil, where it is believed, by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy, that there are vast supplies yet to be found. Our Government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were – well, they were public lands subject to multiple use – exploration for minerals and so forth. It is believed that probably 70% of the potential oil in the United States is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. This is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of Alaska. Nuclear power: There were 36 power plants planned in this country. And let me add the word safety; it must be done with the utmost of safety. But 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because Government regulations and permits, and so forth, take – make it take – more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the United States as it does to build one in Japan or in Western Europe. We have the sources here. We are energy rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have.MR. SMITH: President Carter, your comment?MR. CARTER: To repeat myself, we have this year the opportunity, which we’ll realize, to produce 800 million tons of coal – an unequaled record in the history of our country. Governor Reagan says that this is not a good achievement, and he blames restraints on coal production on regulations – regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners, and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality our water and our land. We cannot cast aside these regulations. We have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. Governor Reagan’s approach to our energy policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal, or to change substantially, the windfall profits tax – to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil companies; to do away with the Department of Energy; to short-circuit our synthetic fuels program; to put a minimal emphasis on solar power; to emphasize strongly nuclear power plants as a major source of energy in the future. He wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan.MR. REAGAN: That is a misstatement, of course, of my position. I just happen to believe that free enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than government can. The Department of Energy has a multi-billion-dollar budget in excess of $10 billion. It hasn’t produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal, or anything else in the line of energy. And for Mr. Carter to suggest that I want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth. As Governor of California, I took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the United States – the strictest air quality law that has even been adopted in the United States. And we created an OSHA – an Occupational Safety and Health Agency – for the protection of employees before the Federal Government had one in place. And to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. So, I think some of those charges are missing the point. I am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary; that Government can do without; that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country; and that are contributing their part to inflation. And I would like to see us a little more free, as we once were.MR. SMITH: President Carter, another crack at that?MR. CARTER: Sure. As a matter of fact,. the air pollution standard laws that were passed in California were passed over the objections of Governor Reagan, and this is a very well-known fact. Also, recently, when someone suggested that the Occupational Safety and Health Act should be abolished, Governor Reagan responded, amen. The offshore drilling rights is a question that Governor Reagan raises often. As a matter of fact, in the proposal for the Alaska lands legislation, 100% of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95% of all the Alaska lands, where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. We have, with our five-year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. So we’re not putting restraints on American exploration, we’re encouraging it in every way we can.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, you have the last word on this question.MR. REAGAN: Yes. If it is a well-known fact that I opposed air pollution laws in California, the only thing I can possibly think of is that the President must be suggesting the law that the Federal Government tried to impose on the State of California – not a law, but regulations – that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any California city, or to have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. It would have destroyed the economy of California, and, I must say, we had the support of Congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the Environmental Protection Agency. We still have the strictest air control, or air pollution laws in the country. As for offshore oiling, only 2% now is so leased and is producing oil. The rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next five years or so – we’re already five years behind in what we should be doing. There is more oil now, in the wells that have been drilled, than has been taken out in 121 years that they’ve been drilled.MR. SMITH: Thank you Governor. Thank you, Mr. President. The next question goes to Governor Reagan from William Hilliard.MR. HILLIARD: Governor Reagan, wage earners in this country – especially the young – are supporting a Social Security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the Social Security system?MR. REAGAN: The Social Security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase. It is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. Now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nation’s history – the payroll tax increase for Social Security – which will only put a band-aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. What is needed is a study that I have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on Social Security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. We cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens – leave them thinking that in some way, they’re endangered and they would have no place to turn. They must continue to get those checks, and I believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. But it’s going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the load – or the roof – fall in on the next administration.MR. SMITH: Would you repeat that question for President Carter?MR. HILLIARD: Yes. President Carter, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a Social Security System that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the Social Security System?MR. CARTER: As long as there is a Democratic President in the White House, we will have a strong and viable Social Security System, free of the threat of bankruptcy. Although Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. I noticed also in The Wall Street Journal early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making Social Security more sound by reducing the adjustment in Social Security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. These kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. But no matter what it takes in the future to keep Social Security sound, it must be kept that way. And although there was a serious threat to the Social Security System and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when I became President, the action of the Democratic Congress working with me has been to put Social Security back on a sound financial basis. That is the way it will stay.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?MR. REAGAN: Well, that just isn’t true. It has, as I said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and I don’t believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. Now, again this statement that somehow, I wanted to destroy it and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary Social Security, which would mean the ruin of it. Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that with a young man orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. That is the closest I have ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. I, too, am pledged to a Social Security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. There are some changes that I would like to make. I would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her father’s or her husband’s benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in; but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. I’d like to change that.MR. SMITH: President Carter’s rebuttal now.MR. CARTER: These constant suggestions that the basic Social Security System should be changed does call for concern and consternation among the aged of our country. It is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that Social Security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which Social Security payments are made to retired people. We also need to continue to index Social Security payments, so that if inflation rises, the Social Security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of a Social Security check continue intact. In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare. Now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.MR. SMITH: Governor?MR. REAGAN: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. There is something else about Social Security. Of course, it doesn’t come out of the payroll tax. It comes out of a general fund, but something should be done about it. I think it is disgraceful that the Disability Insurance Fund in Social Security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from Social Security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care.MR. SMITH: President Carter, you have the last word on this question.MR. CARTER: I think this debate on Social Security, Medicare, national health insurance typifies, as vividly any other subject tonight, the basic historical differences between the Democratic Party and Republican Party. The allusions to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments that Governor Reagan has made about unemployment compensation. These commitments that the Democratic Party has historically made to the working families of this nation have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. I noticed recently that Governor Reagan frequently quotes Democratic presidents in his acceptance address. I have never heard a candidate for President, who is a Republican, quote a Republican president, but when they get in office, they try to govern like Republicans. So, it is good fo the American people to remember that there is a sharp basic historical difference between Governor Reagan and me on these crucial issues – also, between the two parties that we represent.MR. SMITH: Thank you Mr. President, Governor Reagan. We now go to another question – a question to President Carter by Barbara Waiters.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. You have addressed some of the major issues tonight, but the biggest issue in the mind of American voters is yourselves – your ability to lead this country. When many voters go into that booth just a week from today, they will be voting their gut instinct about you men. You have already given us your reasons why people should vote for you, now would you please tell us for this your final question, why they should not vote for your opponent, why his Presidency could be harmful to the nation and, having examined both your opponent’s record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness.MR. CARTER: Barbara, reluctant as I am to say anything critical about Governor Reagan, I will try to answer your question. First of all, there is the historical perspective that I just described. This is a contest between a Democrat in the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the actions that I have taken in the Oval Office the last four years, as contrasted with Governor Reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of Eisenhower and others. The most important crucial difference in this election campaign, in my judgment, is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the inclination to control or not to control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations who don’t presently have it, particularly terrorist nations. The inclination that Governor Reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he has been running for President – I think since 1968 – to inject American military forces in places like North Korea, to put a blockade around Cuba this year, or in some instances, to project American forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of Ecuador on the west coast of South America. This is typical of his long-standing inclination, on the use of American power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. Obviously, no President wants war, and I certainly do not believe that Governor Reagan, if he were President, would want war, but a President in the Oval Office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how to exercise the enormous power of our country for peace, through diplomacy, or in a careless way in a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past.MR. SMITH: Barbara, would you repeat the question for Governor Reagan?MS. WALTERS: Yes, thank you. Realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, may I ask why people should not vote for your opponent, why his Presidency could be harmful to the nation, and having examined both your opponent’s record and the man himself, could you tell us his greatest weakness?MR. REAGAN: Well, Barbara, I believe that there is a fundamental difference – and I think it has been evident in most of the answers that Mr. Carter has given tonight – that he seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a Federal Government program. I happen to believe that the Federal Government has usurped powers of autonomy and authority that belong back at the state and local level. It has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people, and there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves, if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them. Now, as to why I should be and he shouldn’t be, when he was a candidate in 1976, President Carter invented a thing he called the misery index. He added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5% under President Ford. He said that no man with that size misery index has a right to seek reelection to the Presidency. Today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%, and I think this must suggest something. But, when I had quoted a Democratic President, as the President says, I was a Democrat. I said many foolish things back in those days. But the President that I quoted had made a promise, a Democratic promise, and I quoted him because it was never kept. And today, you would find that that promise is at the very heart of what Republicanism represents in this country today. That’s why I believe there are going to be millions of Democrats that are going to vote with us this time around, because they too want that promise kept. It was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people.MR. SMITH: President Carter?MR. CARTER: I mentioned the radical departure of Governor Reagan from the principles or ideals of historical perspective of his own party. I don’t think that can be better illustrated than in the case of guaranteeing women equal rights under the Constitution of our nation. For 40 years, the Republican Party platforms called for guaranteeing women equal rights with a constitutional amendment. Six predecessors of mine who served in the Oval Office called for this guarantee of women’s rights. Governor Reagan and his new Republican Party have departed from this commitment – a very severe blow to the opportunity for women to finally correct discrimination under which they have suffered. When a man and a women do the same amount of work, a man gets paid $1.00, a women only gets paid 59 cents. And the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for omen b the Federal Government or by he state governments. That is all it says a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the Democratic arty, and which is a very important commitment of mine, as contrasted with Governor Reagan’s radical departure from the long-standing policy of his own party.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?MR. REAGAN: Yes. Mr. President, once again, I happen to be against the amendment, because I think the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands f unelected judges. I am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for four ears and not one single state – and most f them have a majority of Democratic legislators – has added to the ratification r voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. While I was Governor, more than eight years ago, I found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of California law, and I had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned – equal pay and so forth. I believe that if in all these years that we have spent trying to get the amendment, that we had spent as much time correcting these laws, as we did in California – and we were the first to do it. If I were President, I would also now take a look at the hundreds of Federal regulations which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. I would have someone ride herd on those regulations, and we would start eliminating those discriminations in the Federal Government against women.MR. SMITH: President Carter?MR. CARTER: Howard, I’m a Southerner, and I share the basic beliefs of my region that an excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of American citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. One of the commitments that I made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. We’ve been remarkably successful, with the help of a Democratic Congress. We have deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions. We’re now working on the communications industry. In addition to that, I believe that this element of discrimination is something that the South has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected – not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people that have to work for a living – because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, since the long depression years, and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. We have made remarkable success. It is part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress. So, my heritage as a Southerner, my experience in the Oval Office, convinces me that what I have just described is a proper course for the future.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan, yours is the last word.MR. REAGAN: Well, my last word is again to say this: We were talking about this very simple amendment and women’s rights. And I make it plain again: I am for women’s rights. But I would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that that so-called simple amendment would be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against things that would be physically harmful to them. Those would all, could all be challenged by men. And the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. I thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on. But, if we’re talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, I’m the only fellow who ever ran for this job who was six times President of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union.MR. SMITH: Gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. President Carter, you’re first.MR. CARTER: First of all, I’d like to thank the League of Women Voters for making this debate possible. I think it’s been a very constructive debate and I hope it’s helped to acquaint the American people with the sharp differences between myself and Governor Reagan. Also, I want to thank the people of Cleveland and Ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. I’ve been President now for almost four years. I’ve had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. I’ve seen the strength of my nation, and I’ve seen the crises it approached in a tentative way. And I’ve had to deal with those crises as best I could. As I’ve studied the record between myself and Governor Reagan, I’ve been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. I think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of Presidents who served before me. The United States must be a nation strong; the United States must be a nation secure. We must have a society that’s just and fair. And we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. I believe that since I’ve been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. In each case, I alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. I’ve done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness; sometimes consulting experts. But, I’ve learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. And the final judgment about the future of the nation – war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern – has to be made by the man in the Oval Office. It’s a lonely job, but with the involvement of the American people in the process, with an open Government, the job is a very gratifying one. The American people now are facing, next Tuesday, a lonely decision. Those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. And I think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. If one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, John Kennedy would never have been President of this nation. And if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, Hubert Humphrey would have been President; Richard Nixon would not. There is a partnership involved in our nation. To stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. I ask the American people to join me in this partnership.MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?MR. REAGAN: Yes, I would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the League of Women Voters for making these debates possible. I’m sorry that we couldn’t persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. But still, it’s good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. Next Tuesday is Election Day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn’t have to be in the shape that it is in. We do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. We talk about the unemployment lines. If all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from New York City to Los Angeles, California. All of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. I have not had the experience the President has had in holding that office, but I think in being Governor of California, the most populous state in the Union – if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world – I, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. I know that the economic program that I have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. I know because we did it there. We cut the cost – the increased cost of government – in half over the eight years. We returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits and cuts to our people. We, as I have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. And I know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. I would like to have a crusade today, and I would like to lead that crusade with your help. And it would be one to take Government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that I know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. Thank you.",
    "id": "5fdaf852-3153-48de-beaa-62e61ecdf664"
  },
  {
    "year": 2004,
    "date": "October 13, 2004",
    "title": "The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 13, 2004 Debate TranscriptOctober 13, 2004The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential DebateTHIRD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATEARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE, ARIZONASPEAKERS:GEORGE W. BUSHPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESU. S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEBOB SCHIEFFERCBS ANCHORSCHIEFFER: Good evening from Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News. I want to welcome you to the third and last of the 2004 debates between President George Bush and Senator John Kerry.As Jim Lehrer told you before the first one, these debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.Tonight the topic will be domestic affairs, but the format will be the same as that first debate. I’ll moderate our discussion under detailed rules agreed to by the candidates, but the questions and the areas to be covered were chosen by me. I have not told the candidates or anyone else what they are.To refresh your memory on the rules, I will ask a question. The candidate is allowed two minutes to answer. His opponent then has a minute and a half to offer a rebuttal.At my discretion, I can extend the discussion by offering each candidate an additional 30 seconds.A green light will come on to signal the candidate has 30 seconds left. A yellow light signals 15 seconds left. A red light means five seconds left.There is also a buzzer, if it is needed.The candidates may not question each other directly. There are no opening statements, but there will be two-minute closing statements.There is an audience here tonight, but they have agreed to remain silent, except for right now, when they join me in welcoming President George Bush and Senator John Kerry.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, welcome to you both.By coin toss, the first question goes to Senator Kerry.Senator, I want to set the stage for this discussion by asking the question that I think hangs over all of our politics today and is probably on the minds of many people watching this debate tonight.And that is, will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?KERRY: Well, first of all, Bob, thank you for moderating tonight.Thank you, Arizona State, for welcoming us.And thank you to the Presidential Commission for undertaking this enormous task. We’re proud to be here.Mr. President, I’m glad to be here with you again to share similarities and differences with the American people.Will we ever be safe and secure again? Yes. We absolutely must be. That’s the goal.Now, how do we achieve it is the most critical component of it.I believe that this president, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away. And, as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be.The measurement is not: Are we safer? The measurement is: Are we as safe as we ought to be? And there are a host of options that this president had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them — 95 percent come in today uninspected. That’s not good enough.People who fly on airplanes today, the cargo hold is not X-rayed, but the baggage is. That’s not good enough. Firehouses don’t have enough firefighters in them. Police officers are being cut from the streets of America because the president decided to cut the COPS program.So we can do a better job of homeland security. I can do a better job of waging a smarter, more effective war on terror and guarantee that we will go after the terrorists.I will hunt them down, and we’ll kill them, we’ll capture them. We’ll do whatever is necessary to be safe.But I pledge this to you, America: I will do it in the way that Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy and others did, where we build the strongest alliances, where the world joins together, where we have the best intelligence and where we are able, ultimately, to be more safe and secure.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, you have 90 seconds.BUSH: Bob, thank you very much.I want to thank Arizona State as well.Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists — and we’re making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice — but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.As a result of securing ourselves and ridding the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Afghan people had elections this weekend. And the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Think about that. Freedom is on the march.We held to account a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein.In other words, in order to make sure we’re secure, there must be a comprehensive plan. My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don’t think you can secure America for the long run if you don’t have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.At home, we’ll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it.We’re doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.But absolutely we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership.SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden? ” He said, “I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned. “We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.Of course we’re worried about Osama bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.SCHIEFFER: New question, Mr. President, to you.We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year.Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?BUSH: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn’t allow contaminated medicine into our country. We’re working with Canada to hopefully — that they’ll produce a — help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.My call to our fellow Americans is if you’re healthy, if you’re younger, don’t get a flu shot this year. Help us prioritize those who need to get the flu shot, the elderly and the young.The CDC, responsible for health in the United States, is setting those priorities and is allocating the flu vaccine accordingly.I haven’t gotten a flu shot, and I don’t intend to because I want to make sure those who are most vulnerable get treated.We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.One of the reasons I’m such a strong believer in legal reform is so that people aren’t afraid of producing a product that is necessary for the health of our citizens and then end up getting sued in a court of law.But the best thing we can do now, Bob, given the circumstances with the company in England is for those of us who are younger and healthy, don’t get a flu shot.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: This really underscores the problem with the American health-care system. It’s not working for the American family. And it’s gotten worse under President Bush over the course of the last years.Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country. You’ve got about a million right here in Arizona, just shy, 950,000, who have no health insurance at all. 82,000 Arizonians lost their health insurance under President Bush’s watch. 223,000 kids in Arizona have no health insurance at all.All across our country — go to Ohio, 1. 4 million Ohioans have no health insurance, 114,000 of them lost it under President Bush; Wisconsin, 82,000 Wisconsinites lost it under President Bush.This president has turned his back on the wellness of America. And there is no system. In fact, it’s starting to fall apart not because of lawsuits — though they are a problem, and John Edwards and I are committed to fixing them — but because of the larger issue that we don’t cover Americans.Children across our country don’t have health care. We’re the richest country on the face of the planet, the only industrialized nation in the world not to do it.I have a plan to cover all Americans. We’re going to make it affordable and accessible. We’re going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, would you like to add something?BUSH: I would. Thank you.I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can’t pay for.He just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.It’s an empty promise. It’s called bait and switch.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.BUSH: Thank you.KERRY: Actually, it’s not an empty promise.It’s really interesting, because the president used that very plan as a reason for seniors to accept his prescription drug plan. He said, if it’s good enough for the congressmen and senators to have choice, seniors ought to have choice.What we do is we have choice. I choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Other senators, other congressmen choose other programs.But the fact is, we’re going to help Americans be able to buy into it. Those that can afford it are going to buy in themselves. We’re not giving this away for nothing.SCHIEFFER: All right.Senator Kerry, a new question. Let’s talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health-care costs, as you are talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war.My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we’re running up to our children?KERRY: I’ll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what President Bush took away, which is called pay as you go.During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how.President Bush has taken — he’s the only president in history to do this. He’s also the only president in 72 years to lose jobs — 1. 6 million jobs lost. He’s the only president to have incomes of families go down for the last three years; the only president to see exports go down; the only president to see the lowest level of business investment in our country as it is today.Now, I’m going to reverse that. I’m going to change that. We’re going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.Every plan that I have laid out — my health-care plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans — I’ve shown exactly how I’m going to pay for those.And we start — we don’t do it exclusively — but we start by rolling back George Bush’s unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest people, people earning more than $200,000 a year, and we pass, hopefully, the McCain-Kerry Commission which identified some $60 billion that we can get.We shut the loophole which has American workers actually subsidizing the loss of their own job. They just passed an expansion of that loophole in the last few days: $43 billion of giveaways, including favors to the oil and gas industry and the people importing ceiling fans from China.I’m going to stand up and fight for the American worker. And I am going to do it in a way that’s fiscally sound. I show how I pay for the health care, how we pay for the education.I have a manufacturing jobs credit. We pay for it by shutting that loophole overseas. We raise the student loans. I pay for it by changing the relationship with the banks.This president has never once vetoed one bill; the first president in a hundred years not to do that.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn’t match his record.He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, or fiscally sound, but he voted over — he voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4. 2 trillion.He talks about PAYGO. I’ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you’re a senator from Massachusetts, when you’re a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.He’s proposed $2. 2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich, which is also a tax on many small-business owners in America, raises $600 million by our account — billion, $800 billion by his account.There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.I propose a detailed budget, Bob. I sent up my budget man to the Congress, and he says, here’s how we’re going to reduce the deficit in half by five years. It requires pro-growth policies that grow our economy and fiscal sanity in the halls of Congress.SCHIEFFER: Let’s go to a new question, Mr. President. Two minutes. And let’s continue on jobs.You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who’s being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?BUSH: I’d say, Bob, I’ve got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here’s some help for you to go get an education. Here’s some help for you to go to a community college.We’ve expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.You know, there’s a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.I went to Washington to solve problems. And I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system, year after year, grade after grade, without learning the basics.And so we said: Let’s raise the standards. We’re spending more money, but let’s raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now, before it’s too late.No, education is how to help the person who’s lost a job. Education is how to make sure we’ve got a workforce that’s productive and competitive.Got four more years, I’ve got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.And so the person you talked to, I say, here’s some help, here’s some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that’s what I would say to that person.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally.Let me come back in one moment to that, but I want to speak for a second, if I can, to what the president said about fiscal responsibility.Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country.(LAUGHTER)This president has taken a $5. 6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see. Health-care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent; tuitions have gone up 35 percent; gasoline prices up 30 percent; Medicare premiums went up 17 percent a few days ago; prescription drugs are up 12 percent a year.But guess what, America? The wages of Americans have gone down. The jobs that are being created in Arizona right now are paying about $13,700 less than the jobs that we’re losing.And the president just walks on by this problem. The fact is that he’s cut job-training money. $1 billion was cut. They only added a little bit back this year because it’s an election year.They’ve cut the Pell Grants and the Perkins loans to help kids be able to go to college.They’ve cut the training money. They’ve wound up not even extending unemployment benefits and not even extending health care to those people who are unemployed.I’m going to do those things, because that’s what’s right in America: Help workers to transition in every respect.SCHIEFFER: New question to you, Senator Kerry, two minutes. And it’s still on jobs. You know, many experts say that a president really doesn’t have much control over jobs. For example, if someone invents a machine that does the work of five people, that’s progress. That’s not the president’s fault.So I ask you, is it fair to blame the administration entirely for this loss of jobs?KERRY: I don’t blame them entirely for it. I blame the president for the things the president could do that has an impact on it.Outsourcing is going to happen. I’ve acknowledged that in union halls across the country. I’ve had shop stewards stand up and say, “Will you promise me you’re going to stop all this outsourcing? “And I’ve looked them in the eye and I’ve said, “No, I can’t do that. “What I can promise you is that I will make the playing field as fair as possible, that I will, for instance, make certain that with respect to the tax system that you as a worker in America are not subsidizing the loss of your job.Today, if you’re an American business, you actually get a benefit for going overseas. You get to defer your taxes.So if you’re looking at a competitive world, you say to yourself, “Hey, I do better overseas than I do here in America. “That’s not smart. I don’t want American workers subsidizing the loss of their own job. And when I’m president, we’re going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we’re going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, 5 percent. And we’re going to have a manufacturing jobs credit and a job hiring credit so we actually help people be able to hire here.The second thing that we can do is provide a fair trade playing field. This president didn’t stand up for Boeing when Airbus was violating international rules and subsidies. He discovered Boeing during the course of this campaign after I’d been talking about it for months.The fact is that the president had an opportunity to stand up and take on China for currency manipulation. There are companies that wanted to petition the administration. They were told: Don’t even bother; we’re not going to listen to it.The fact is that there have been markets shut to us that we haven’t stood up and fought for. I’m going to fight for a fair trade playing field for the American worker. And I will fight for the American worker just as hard as I fight for my own job. That’s what the American worker wants. And if we do that, we can have an impact.Plus, we need fiscal discipline. Restore fiscal discipline, we’ll do a lot better.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Whew!Let me start with the Pell Grants. In his last litany of misstatements. He said we cut Pell Grants. We’ve increased Pell Grants by a million students. That’s a fact.You know, he talks to the workers. Let me talk to the workers.You’ve got more money in your pocket as a result of the tax relief we passed and he opposed.If you have a child, you got a $1,000 child credit. That’s money in your pocket.If you’re married, we reduced the marriage penalty. The code ought to encourage marriage, not discourage marriage.We created a 10 percent bracket to help lower-income Americans. A family of four making $40,000 received about $1,700 in tax relief.It’s your money. The way my opponent talks, he said, “We’re going to spend the government’s money. “No, we’re spending your money. And when you have more money in your pocket, you’re able to better afford things you want.I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives.My opponent talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric.He voted to increase taxes 98 times and to bust the budget 277 times.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: Bob, anybody can play with these votes. Everybody knows that.I have supported or voted for tax cuts over 600 times. I broke with my party in order to balance the budget, and Ronald Reagan signed into law the tax cut that we voted for. I voted for IRA tax cuts. I voted for small-business tax cuts.But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don’t have money.But they’re not getting the $5,100 the president promised them. They’re getting less money.We have more people who qualify. That’s not what we want.BUSH: Senator, no one’s playing with your votes. You voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they voted — when they proposed reducing taxes, you voted against it 126 times.He voted to violate the budget cap 277 times. You know, there’s a main stream in American politics and you sit right on the far left bank. As a matter of fact, your record is such that Ted Kennedy, your colleague, is the conservative senator from Massachusetts.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s get back to economic issues. But let’s shift to some other questions here.Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?BUSH: You know, Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that.And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.And that’s to be honored.But as we respect someone’s rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn’t change — or have to change — our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it’s very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.I’m deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.But I’m concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not choice. I’ve met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.And I’ve met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.I think we have to respect that.The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we’re a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can’t discriminate in the workplace. You can’t discriminate in the rights that you afford people.You can’t disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I’m for partnership rights and so forth.Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they’re proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, a new question for you.The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman’s right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research.What is your reaction to that?KERRY: I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.I believe that I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. And that’s why I support that.Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he’s tried to appoint to the court he wants to.I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, “I’m not running to be a Catholic president. I’m running to be a president who happens to be Catholic. “My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There’s a great passage of the Bible that says, “What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. “And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.That’s why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God’s work must truly be our own. And that’s what we have to — I think that’s the test of public service.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: I think it’s important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. I understand there’s great differences on this issue of abortion, but I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions.Take, for example, the ban on partial birth abortion. It’s a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls of Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. It made a lot of sense. My opponent, in that he’s out of the mainstream, voted against that law.What I’m saying is, is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions: continue to promote adoption laws — it’s a great alternative to abortion — continue to fund and promote maternity group homes; I will continue to promote abstinence programs.The last debate, my opponent said his wife was involved with those programs. That’s great. I appreciate that very much. All of us ought to be involved with programs that provide a viable alternative to abortion.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s have a new question. It goes to you. And let’s get back to economic issues.Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years according to The Washington Post. We’re paying more. We’re getting less.I would like to ask you: Who bears responsibility for this? Is it the government? Is it the insurance companies? Is it the lawyers? Is it the doctors? Is it the administration?BUSH: Gosh, I sure hope it’s not the administration.There’s a — no, look, there’s a systemic problem. Health-care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. Most health-care costs are covered by third parties. And therefore, the actual user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. And there’s no market forces involved with health care.It’s one of the reasons I’m a strong believer in what they call health savings accounts. These are accounts that allow somebody to buy a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plan and couple it with tax-free savings. Businesses can contribute, employees can contribute on a contractual basis. But this is a way to make sure people are actually involved with the decision-making process on health care.Secondly, I do believe the lawsuits — I don’t believe, I know — that the lawsuits are causing health-care costs to rise in America. That’s why I’m such a strong believer in medical liability reform.In the last debate, my opponent said those lawsuits only caused the cost to go up by 1 percent. Well, he didn’t include the defensive practice of medicine that costs the federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between $60 billion and $100 billion a year.Thirdly, one of the reasons why there’s still high cost in medicine is because this is — they don’t use any information technology. It’s like if you looked at the — it’s the equivalent of the buggy and horse days, compared to other industries here in America.And so, we’ve got to introduce high technology into health care. We’re beginning to do it. We’re changing the language. We want there to be electronic medical records to cut down on error, as well as reduce cost.People tell me that when the health-care field is fully integrated with information technology, it’ll wring some 20 percent of the cost out of the system.And finally, moving generic drugs to the market quicker.And so, those are four ways to help control the costs in health care.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: The reason health-care costs are getting higher, one of the principal reasons is that this administration has stood in the way of common-sense efforts that would have reduced the costs. Let me give you a prime example.In the Senate we passed the right of Americans to import drugs from Canada. But the president and his friends took it out in the House, and now you don’t have that right. The president blocked you from the right to have less expensive drugs from Canada.We also wanted Medicare to be able to negotiate bulk purchasing. The VA does that. The VA provides lower-cost drugs to our veterans. We could have done that in Medicare.Medicare is paid for by the American taxpayer. Medicare belongs to you. Medicare is for seniors, who many of them are on fixed income, to lift them out of poverty.But rather than help you, the taxpayer, have lower cost, rather than help seniors have less expensive drugs, the president made it illegal — illegal — for Medicare to actually go out and bargain for lower prices.Result: $139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies coming out of your pockets. That’s a large part of your 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums.When I’m president, I’m sending that back to Congress and we’re going to get a real prescription drug benefit.Now, we also have people sicker because they don’t have health insurance. So whether it’s diabetes or cancer, they come to hospitals later and it costs America more.We got to have health care for all Americans.SCHIEFFER: Go ahead, Mr. President.BUSH: I think it’s important, since he talked about the Medicare plan, has he been in the United States Senate for 20 years? He has no record on reforming of health care. No record at all.He introduced some 300 bills and he’s passed five.No record of leadership.I came to Washington to solve problems. I was deeply concerned about seniors having to choose between prescription drugs and food. And so I led. And in 2006, our seniors will get a prescription drug coverage in Medicare.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry? Thirty seconds.KERRY: Once again, the president is misleading America. I’ve actually passed 56 individual bills that I’ve personally written and, in addition to that, and not always under my name, there is amendments on certain bills.But more importantly, with respect to the question of no record, I helped write — I did write, I was one of the original authors of the early childhood health care and the expansion of health care that we did in the middle of the 1990s. And I’m very proud of that.So the president’s wrong.SCHIEFFER: Let me direct the next question to you, Senator Kerry, and again, let’s stay on health care.You have, as you have proposed and as the president has commented on tonight, proposed a massive plan to extend health-care coverage to children. You’re also talking about the government picking up a big part of the catastrophic bills that people get at the hospital.And you have said that you can pay for this by rolling back the president’s tax cut on the upper 2 percent.You heard the president say earlier tonight that it’s going to cost a whole lot more money than that.I’d just ask you, where are you going to get the money?KERRY: Well, two leading national news networks have both said the president’s characterization of my health-care plan is incorrect. One called it fiction. The other called it untrue.The fact is that my health-care plan, America, is very simple. It gives you the choice. I don’t force you to do anything. It’s not a government plan. The government doesn’t require you to do anything. You choose your doctor. You choose your plan.If you don’t want to take the offer of the plan that I want to put forward, you don’t have do. You can keep what you have today, keep a high deductible, keep high premiums, keep a high co-pay, keep low benefits.But I got a better plan. And I don’t think a lot of people are going to want to keep what they have today.Here’s what I do: We take over Medicaid children from the states so that every child in America is covered. And in exchange, if the states want to — they’re not forced to, they can choose to — they cover individuals up to 300 percent of poverty. It’s their choice.I think they’ll choose it, because it’s a net plus of $5 billion to them.We allow you — if you choose to, you don’t have to — but we give you broader competition to allow you to buy into the same health care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves. If it’s good enough for us, it’s good enough for every American. I believe that your health care is just as important as any politician in Washington, D. C.You want to buy into it, you can. We give you broader competition. That helps lower prices.In addition to that, we’re going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early. And most importantly, we give small business a 50 percent tax credit so that after we lower the costs of health care, they also get, whether they’re self-employed or a small business, a lower cost to be able to cover their employees.Now, what happens is when you begin to get people covered like that — for instance in diabetes, if you diagnose diabetes early, you could save $50 billion in the health care system of America by avoiding surgery and dialysis. It works. And I’m going to offer it to America.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: In all due respect, I’m not so sure it’s credible to quote leading news organizations about — oh, never mind. Anyway, let me quote the Lewin report. The Lewin report is a group of folks who are not politically affiliated. They analyzed the senator’s plan. It cost $1.2 trillion.The Lewin report accurately noted that there are going to be 20 million people, over 20 million people added to government-controlled health care. It would be the largest increase in government health care ever.If you raise the Medicaid to 300 percent, it provides an incentive for small businesses not to provide private insurance to their employees. Why should they insure somebody when the government’s going to insure it for them?It’s estimated that 8 million people will go from private insurance to government insurance.We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think government- run health will lead to poor-quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice.Once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls.And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally controlled health care. They have poor-quality health care.Our health-care system is the envy of the world because we believe in making sure that the decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by officials in the nation’s capital.SCHIEFFER: Senator?KERRY: The president just said that government-run health care results in poor quality.Now, maybe that explains why he hasn’t fully funded the VA and the VA hospital is having trouble and veterans are complaining. Maybe that explains why Medicare patients are complaining about being pushed off of Medicare. He doesn’t adequately fund it.But let me just say to America: I am not proposing a government-run program. That’s not what I have. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Senators and congressmen have a wide choice. Americans ought to have it too.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Talk about the VA: We’ve increased VA funding by $22 billion in the four years since I’ve been president. That’s twice the amount that my predecessor increased VA funding.Of course we’re meeting our obligation to our veterans, and the veterans know that.We’re expanding veterans’ health care throughout the country. We’re aligning facilities where the veterans live now. Veterans are getting very good health care under my administration, and they will continue to do so during the next four years.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, the next question is to you. We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that’s going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?BUSH: First, let me make sure that every senior listening today understands that when we’re talking about reforming Social Security, that they’ll still get their checks.I remember the 2000 campaign, people said if George W. gets elected, your check will be taken away. Well, people got their checks, and they’ll continue to get their checks.There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. And if we don’t act today, the problem will be valued in the trillions. And so I think we need to think differently. We’ll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children and our grandchildren, we need to have a different strategy.And recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow citizens to study the issue. It was a committee chaired by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat. And they came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at.I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren. I will work with Republicans and Democrats. It’ll be a vital issue in my second term. It is an issue that I am willing to take on, and so I’ll bring Republicans and Democrats together.And we’re of course going to have to consider the costs. But I want to warn my fellow citizens: The cost of doing nothing, the cost of saying the current system is OK, far exceeds the costs of trying to make sure we save the system for our children.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: You just heard the president say that young people ought to be able to take money out of Social Security and put it in their own accounts.Now, my fellow Americans, that’s an invitation to disaster.The CBO said very clearly that if you were to adopt the president’s plan, there would be a $2 trillion hole in Social Security, because today’s workers pay in to the system for today’s retirees. And the CBO said — that’s the Congressional Budget Office; it’s bipartisan — they said that there would have to be a cut in benefits of 25 percent to 40 percent.Now, the president has never explained to America, ever, hasn’t done it tonight, where does the transitional money, that $2 trillion, come from?He’s already got $3 trillion, according to The Washington Post, of expenses that he’s put on the line from his convention and the promises of this campaign, none of which are paid for. Not one of them are paid for.The fact is that the president is driving the largest deficits in American history. He’s broken the pay-as-you-go rules.I have a record of fighting for fiscal responsibility. In 1985, I was one of the first Democrats — broke with my party. We balanced the budget in the ’90s. We paid down the debt for two years.And that’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to protect Social Security. I will not privatize it. I will not cut the benefits. And we’re going to be fiscally responsible. And we will take care of Social Security.SCHIEFFER: Let me just stay on Social Security with a new question for Senator Kerry, because, Senator Kerry, you have just said you will not cut benefits.Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, says there’s no way that Social Security can pay retirees what we have promised them unless we recalibrate.What he’s suggesting, we’re going to cut benefits or we’re going to have to raise the retirement age. We may have to take some other reform. But if you’ve just said, you’ve promised no changes, does that mean you’re just going to leave this as a problem, another problem for our children to solve?KERRY: Not at all. Absolutely not, Bob. This is the same thing we heard — remember, I appeared on “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert in 1990-something. We heard the same thing. We fixed it.In fact, we put together a $5. 6 trillion surplus in the ’90s that was for the purpose of saving Social Security. If you take the tax cut that the president of the United States has given — President Bush gave to Americans in the top 1 percent of America — just that tax cut that went to the top 1 percent of America would have saved Social Security until the year 2075.The president decided to give it to the wealthiest Americans in a tax cut. Now, Alan Greenspan, who I think has done a terrific job in monetary policy, supports the president’s tax cut. I don’t. I support it for the middle class, not that part of it that goes to people earning more than $200,000 a year.And when I roll it back and we invest in the things that I have talked about to move our economy, we’re going to grow sufficiently, it would begin to cut the deficit in half, and we get back to where we were at the end of the 1990s when we balanced the budget and paid down the debt of this country.Now, we can do that.Now, if later on after a period of time we find that Social Security is in trouble, we’ll pull together the top experts of the country. We’ll do exactly what we did in the 1990s. And we’ll make whatever adjustment is necessary.But the first and most important thing is to start creating jobs in America. The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we’re losing. And this is the first president in 72 years to preside over an economy in America that has lost jobs, 1. 6 million jobs.Eleven other presidents — six Democrats and five Republicans — had wars, had recessions, had great difficulties; none of them lost jobs the way this president has.I have a plan to put America back to work. And if we’re fiscally responsible and put America back to work, we’re going to fix Social Security.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: He forgot to tell you he voted to tax Social Security benefits more than one time. I didn’t hear any plan to fix Social Security. I heard more of the same.He talks about middle-class tax cuts. That’s exactly where the tax cuts went. Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair. Twenty percent of the upper-income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts. People listening out there know the benefits of the tax cuts we passed. If you have a child, you got tax relief. If you’re married, you got tax relief. If you pay any tax at all, you got tax relief. All of which was opposed by my opponent.And the tax relief was important to spur consumption and investment to get us out of this recession.People need to remember: Six months prior to my arrival, the stock market started to go down. And it was one of the largest declines in our history. And then we had a recession and we got attacked, which cost us 1 million jobs.But we acted. I led the Congress. We passed tax relief. And now this economy is growing. We added 1. 9 million new jobs over the last 13 months.Sure, there’s more work to do. But the way to make sure our economy grows is not to raise taxes on small-business owners. It’s not to increase the scope of the federal government. It’s to make sure we have fiscal sanity and keep taxes low.SCHIEFFER: Let’s go to a new question, Mr. President.I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.I’m told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it’s an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.How do you see it? And what do we need to do about it?BUSH: I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.We’re increasing the border security of the United States. We’ve got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border.We’re using new equipment. We’re using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.And we’ll continue to do so over the next four years. It’s a subject I’m very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They’re coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5. 15, you’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that’s what’s happening.And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there’s not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers’ needs.That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren’t breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they’re not kept in the shadows of our society, that they’re able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it’ll have a period of time attached to it.It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they’re not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.Now, it’s very important for our citizens to also know that I don’t believe we ought to have amnesty. I don’t think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too.And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.SCHIEFFER: Time’s up.Senator?KERRY: Let me just answer one part of the last question quickly, and then I’ll come to immigration.The American middle-class family isn’t making it right now, Bob. And what the president said about the tax cuts has been wiped out by the increase in health care, the increase in gasoline, the increase in tuitions, the increase in prescription drugs.The fact is, the take-home pay of a typical American family as a share of national income is lower than it’s been since 1929. And the take-home pay of the richest . 1 percent of Americans is the highest it’s been since 1928.Under President Bush, the middle class has seen their tax burden go up and the wealthiest’s tax burden has gone down. Now that’s wrong.Now, with respect to immigration reform, the president broke his promise on immigration reform. He said he would reform it. Four years later he is now promising another plan.Here’s what I’ll do: Number one, the borders are more leaking today than they were before 9/11. The fact is, we haven’t done what we need to do to toughen up our borders, and I will.Secondly, we need a guest-worker program, but if it’s all we have, it’s not going to solve the problem.The second thing we need is to crack down on illegal hiring. It’s against the law in the United States to hire people illegally, and we ought to be enforcing that law properly.And thirdly, we need an earned-legalization program for people who have been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes, and their kids are American. We got to start moving them toward full citizenship, out of the shadows. SCHIEFFER: Do you want to respond, Mr. President?BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn’t know the borders. They’re much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas.We have much more manpower and much more equipment there.He just doesn’t understand how the borders work, evidently, to say that. That is an outrageous claim.And we’ll continue to protect our borders. We’re continuing to increase manpower and equipment.SCHIEFFER: Senator?KERRY: Four thousand people a day are coming across the border.The fact is that we now have people from the Middle East, allegedly, coming across the border.And we’re not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris-identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they’re really the people they say they are when they cross the border.We could speed it up. There are huge delays.The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be, and I’ll make them secure.SCHIEFFER: Next question to you, Senator Kerry.The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5. 15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?KERRY: Well, I’m glad you raised that question.It’s long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.And, America, this is one of those issues that separates the president and myself.We have fought to try to raise the minimum wage in the last years. But the Republican leadership of the House and Senate won’t even let us have a vote on it. We’re not allowed to vote on it. They don’t want to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is the lowest minimum wage value it has been in our nation in 50 years.If we raise the minimum wage, which I will do over several years to $7 an hour, 9. 2 million women who are trying to raise their families would earn another $3,800 a year.The president has denied 9. 2 million women $3,800 a year, but he doesn’t hesitate to fight for $136,000 to a millionaire.One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax cut, but people working hard, playing by the rules, trying to take care of their kids, family values, that we’re supposed to value so much in America — I’m tired of politicians who talk about family values and don’t value families.What we need to do is raise the minimum wage. We also need to hold on to equal pay. Women work for 76 cents on the dollar for the same work that men do. That’s not right in America.And we had an initiative that we were working on to raise women’s pay. They’ve cut it off. They’ve stopped it. They don’t enforce these kinds of things.Now, I think that it’s a matter of fundamental right that if we raise the minimum wage, 15 million Americans would be positively affected. We’d put money into the hands of people who work hard, who obey the rules, who play for the American dream.And if we did that, we’d have more consumption ability in America, which is what we need right now in order to kick our economy into gear. I will fight tooth and nail to pass the minimum wage.BUSH: Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage.But let me talk about what’s really important for the worker you’re referring to. And that’s to make sure the education system works. It’s to make sure we raise standards.Listen, the No Child Left Behind Act is really a jobs act when you think about it. The No Child Left Behind Act says, “We’ll raise standards. We’ll increase federal spending. But in return for extra spending, we now want people to measure — states and local jurisdictions to measure to show us whether or not a child can read or write or add and subtract. “You cannot solve a problem unless you diagnose the problem. And we weren’t diagnosing problems. And therefore just kids were being shuffled through the school.And guess who would get shuffled through? Children whose parents wouldn’t speak English as a first language just move through.Many inner-city kids just move through. We’ve stopped that practice now by measuring early. And when we find a problem, we spend extra money to correct it.I remember a lady in Houston, Texas, told me, “Reading is the new civil right,” and she’s right. In order to make sure people have jobs for the 21st century, we’ve got to get it right in the education system, and we’re beginning to close a minority achievement gap now.You see, we’ll never be able to compete in the 21st century unless we have an education system that doesn’t quit on children, an education system that raises standards, an education that makes sure there’s excellence in every classroom.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said — and this will be a new question to you — he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I’d ask you directly, would you like to?BUSH: What he’s asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I’ll have no litmus test.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, you’d like to respond?KERRY: Is that a new question or a 30-second question?SCHIEFFER: That’s a new question for Senator — for President Bush.KERRY: Which time limit. . .SCHIEFFER: You have 90 seconds.KERRY: Thank you very much.Well, again, the president didn’t answer the question.I’ll answer it straight to America. I’m not going to appoint a judge to the Court who’s going to undo a constitutional right, whether it’s the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that’s given under our courts today — under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.So I don’t intend to see it undone.Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.But let me go a step further. We have a long distance yet to travel in terms of fairness in America. I don’t know how you can govern in this country when you look at New York City and you see that 50 percent of the black males there are unemployed, when you see 40 percent of Hispanic children — of black children in some cities — dropping out of high school.And yet the president who talks about No Child Left Behind refused to fully fund — by $28 billion — that particular program so you can make a difference in the lives of those young people.Now right here in Arizona, that difference would have been $131 million to the state of Arizona to help its kids be able to have better education and to lift the property tax burden from its citizens. The president reneged on his promise to fund No Child Left Behind.He’ll tell you he’s raised the money, and he has. But he didn’t put in what he promised, and that makes a difference in the lives of our children.SCHIEFFER: Yes, sir?BUSH: Two things. One, he clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with.And secondly, only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough.We’ve increased funds. But more importantly, we’ve reformed the system to make sure that we solve problems early, before they’re too late.He talked about the unemployed. Absolutely we’ve got to make sure they get educated.He talked about children whose parents don’t speak English as a first language? Absolutely we’ve got to make sure they get educated.And that’s what the No Child Left Behind Act does.SCHIEFFER: Senator?KERRY: You don’t measure it by a percentage increase. Mr. President, you measure it by whether you’re getting the job done.Five hundred thousand kids lost after-school programs because of your budget.Now, that’s not in my gut. That’s not in my value system, and certainly not so that the wealthiest people in America can walk away with another tax cut.$89 billion last year to the top 1 percent of Americans, but kids lost their after-school programs. You be the judge.SCHIEFFER: All right, let’s go to another question. And it is to Senator Kerry.You have two minutes, sir.Senator, the last debate, President Bush said he did not favor a draft. You agreed with him. But our National Guard and Reserve forces are being severely strained because many of them are being held beyond their enlistments. Some of them say that it’s a back-door draft.Is there any relief that could be offered to these brave Americans and their families?If you became president, Senator Kerry, what would you do about this situation of holding National Guard and Reservists for these extended periods of time and these repeated call-ups that they’re now facing?KERRY: Well, I think the fact that they’re facing these repeated call-ups, some of them two and three deployments, and there’s a stop- loss policy that prevents people from being able to get out when their time was up, is a reflection of the bad judgment this president exercised in how he has engaged in the world and deployed our forces.Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they’re wrapped up in it.Now, I’ve proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the armed forces of the United States — one combat, one support.In addition, I’m going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror, with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently here in our own country. There’s much we can do with them with respect to homeland security. We ought to be doing that. And that would relieve an enormous amount of pressure.But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of the armed forces is frankly to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world by working through our statesmanship at the highest levels and our diplomacy to bring other nations to our side.I’ve said it before, I say it again: I believe the president broke faith with the American people in the way that he took this nation to war. He said he would work through a real alliance. He said in Cincinnati we would plan carefully, we would take every precaution. Well, we didn’t. And the result is our forces today are overextended.The fact is that he did not choose to go to war as a last result. And America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we’re finished and much more probably. And that is the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to succeed in Iraq, is to train Iraqis so they can do the hard work of democracy, is to give them a chance to defend their country, which is precisely what we’re doing. We’ll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year.I remember going on an airplane in Bangor, Maine, to say thanks to the reservists and Guard that were headed overseas from Tennessee and North Carolina, Georgia. Some of them had been there before.The people I talked to their spirits were high. They didn’t view their service as a back-door draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country.My opponent, the senator, talks about foreign policy.In our first debate he proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we’d have to get international approval. That’s one of the major differences we have about defending our country.I’ll work with allies. I’ll work with friends. We’ll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national- security decisions to leaders of other countries.We’ll be resolute, we’ll be strong, and we’ll wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists.SCHIEFFER: Senator?KERRY: I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. In fact, I’ve said the opposite: I will never turn the security of the United States over to any nation. No nation will ever have a veto over us.But I think it makes sense, I think most Americans in their guts know, that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard. That’s how you gain legitimacy with your own countrypeople, and that’s how you gain legitimacy in the world.But I’ll never fail to protect the United States of America.BUSH: In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force.Apparently you can’t pass any test under his vision of the world.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions — made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And that’s why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U. S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent — I believe — is the number.Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns.To me, that’s the best way to secure America.SCHIEFFER: Senator?KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.I am a hunter. I’m a gun owner. I’ve been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.But I’ll tell you this. I’m also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney’s offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I’ve broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don’t want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, “See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him. “Because of the president’s decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.And that’s what Osama bin Laden’s handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it.So I believe America’s less safe.If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, “Sorry, we don’t have the votes,” I’d have said, “Then we’re going to have a fight. “And I’d have taken it out to the country and I’d have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We’d have won what Bill Clinton won.SCHIEFFER: Let’s go to a new question. For you, Senator Kerry, two minutes.Affirmative action: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved far enough along that we no longer need to use race and gender as a factor in school admissions and federal and state contracts and so on?KERRY: No, Bob, regrettably, we have not moved far enough along.And I regret to say that this administration has even blocked steps that could help us move further along. I’ll give you an example.I served on the Small Business Committee for a long time. I was chairman of it once. Now I’m the senior Democrat on it. We used to — you know, we have a goal there for minority set-aside programs, to try to encourage ownership in the country. They don’t reach those goals. They don’t even fight to reach those goals. They’ve tried to undo them.The fact is that in too many parts of our country, we still have discrimination. And affirmative action is not just something that applies to people of color. Some people have a mistaken view of it in America. It also is with respect to women, it’s with respect to other efforts to try to reach out and be inclusive in our country.I think that we have a long way to go, regrettably. If you look at what’s happened — we’ve made progress, I want to say that at the same time.During the Clinton years, as you may recall, there was a fight over affirmative action. And there were many people, like myself, who opposed quotas, who felt there were places where it was overreaching. So we had a policy called “Mend it, don’t end it. “We fixed it.And we fixed it for a reason: because there are too many people still in this country who feel the stark resistance of racism, and so we have a distance to travel. As president, I will make certain we travel it.Now, let me just share something. This president is the first president ever, I think, not to meet with the NAACP. This is a president who hasn’t met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country.If a president doesn’t reach out and bring people in and be inclusive, then how are we going to get over those barriers? I see that as part of my job as president, and I’ll make my best effort to do it.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Well, first of all, it is just not true that I haven’t met with the Black Congressional Caucus. I met with the Black Congressional Caucus at the White House.And secondly, like my opponent, I don’t agree we ought to have quotas. I agree, we shouldn’t have quotas.But we ought to have an aggressive effort to make sure people are educated, to make sure when they get out of high school there’s Pell Grants available for them, which is what we’ve done. We’ve expanded Pell Grants by a million students.Do you realize today in America, we spend $73 billion to help 10 million low- and middle-income families better afford college?That’s the access I believe is necessary, is to make sure every child learns to read, write, add and subtract early, to be able to build on that education by going to college so they can start their careers with a college diploma.I believe the best way to help our small businesses is not only through small-business loans, which we have increased since I’ve been the president of the United States, but to unbundle government contracts so people have a chance to be able to bid and receive a contract to help get their business going.Minority ownership of businesses are up, because we created an environment for the entrepreneurial spirit to be strong.I believe part of a hopeful society is one in which somebody owns something. Today in America more minorities own a home than ever before. And that’s hopeful, and that’s positive.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s go to a new question.You were asked before the invasion, or after the invasion, of Iraq if you’d checked with your dad. And I believe, I don’t remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority.I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?First, my faith plays a lot — a big part in my life. And that’s, when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do.And my faith is a very — it’s very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm’s way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.But I’m mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You’re equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.If you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you’re equally an American. That’s the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit.Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, “Well, how do you know? “I said, “I just feel it. “Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else.But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am.I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we’ve unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt.I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That’s what I believe.And that’s been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can’t tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march.And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it’s important and I share it. I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty.Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible — and we all do; different people measure different things — the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it.I was taught — I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There’s one for the people who have, and there’s one for the people who don’t have. And we’re struggling with that today.And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith.I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.I think we’ve got a lot more work to do. And as president, I will always respect everybody’s right to practice religion as they choose — or not to practice — because that’s part of America.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, after 9/11 — and this is a new question for you — it seemed to me that the country came together as I’ve never seen it come together since World War II. But some of that seems to have melted away. I think it’s fair to say we’ve become pretty polarized, perhaps because of the political season.But if you were elected president, or whoever is elected president, will you set a priority in trying to bring the nation back together? Or what would be your attitude on that?KERRY: Very much so.Let me pay a compliment to the president, if I may. I think in those days after 9/11, I thought the president did a terrific job. And I really was moved, as well as impressed, by the speech that he gave to the Congress.And I think the hug Tom Daschle gave him at that moment was about as genuine a sense of there being no Democrats, no Republicans, we were all just Americans. That’s where we were.That’s not where we are today. I regret to say that the president who called himself a uniter, not a divider, is now presiding over the most divided America in the recent memory of our country. I’ve never seen such ideological squabbles in the Congress of the United States. I’ve never seen members of a party locked out of meetings the way they’re locked out today.We have to change that. And as president, I am committed to changing that. I don’t care if the idea comes from the other side or this side. I think we have to come together and work to change it.And I’ve done that. Over 20 years in the United States Senate, I’ve worked with John McCain, who’s sitting here, I’ve worked with other colleagues. I’ve reached across the aisle. I’ve tried to find the common ground, because that’s what makes us strong as Americans.And if Americans trust me with the presidency, I can pledge to you, we will have the most significant effort, openly — not secret meetings in the White House with special interests, not ideologically driven efforts to push people aside — but a genuine effort to try to restore America’s hope and possibilities by bringing people together.And one of the ways we’re going to do it is, I’m going to work with my friend, John McCain, to further campaign finance reform so we get these incredible amounts of money out of the system and open it up to average people, so America is really represented by the people who make up America.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is. I had a record of working with Republicans and Democrats as the governor of Texas, and I was hopeful I’d be able to do the same thing.And we made good progress early on. The No Child Left Behind Act, incredibly enough, was good work between me and my administration and people like Senator Ted Kennedy.And we worked together with Democrats to relieve the tax burden on the middle class and all who pay taxes in order to make sure this economy continues to grow.But Washington is a tough town. And the way I view it is there’s a lot of entrenched special interests there, people who are, you know, on one side of the issue or another and they spend enormous sums of money and they convince different senators to taut their way or different congressmen to talk about their issue, and they dig in.I’ll continue, in the four years, to continue to try to work to do so.My opponent said this is a bitterly divided time. Pretty divided in the 2000 election. So in other words, it’s pretty divided during the 1990s as well.We’re just in a period — we’ve got to work to bring it — my opponent keeps mentioning John McCain, and I’m glad he did. John McCain is for me for president because he understands I have the right view in winning the war on terror and that my plan will succeed in Iraq. And my opponent has got a plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq.SCHIEFFER: We’ve come, gentlemen, to our last question. And it occurred to me as I came to this debate tonight that the three of us share something. All three of us are surrounded by very strong women. We’re all married to strong women. Each of us have two daughters that make us very proud.I’d like to ask each of you, what is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?BUSH: To listen to them.(LAUGHTER)To stand up straight and not scowl.(LAUGHTER)I love the strong women around me. I can’t tell you how much I love my wife and our daughters.I am — you know it’s really interesting. I tell the people on the campaign trail, when I asked Laura to marry me, she said, “Fine, just so long as I never have to give a speech. “I said, “OK, you’ve got a deal. “Fortunately, she didn’t hold me to that deal. And she’s out campaigning along with our girls. And she speaks English a lot better than I do. I think people understand what she’s saying.But they see a compassionate, strong, great first lady in Laura Bush. I can’t tell you how lucky I am. When I met her in the backyard at Joe and Jan O’Neill’s in Midland, Texas, it was the classic backyard barbecue. O’Neill said, “Come on over. I think you’ll find somebody who might interest you. “So I said all right. Bopped over there. There was only four of us there. And not only did she interest me, I guess you would say it was love at first sight.SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?KERRY: Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up.(LAUGHTER)And some would say maybe me more so than others.(LAUGHTER)But I can take it.(LAUGHTER)Can I say, if I could just say a word about a woman that you didn’t ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run. And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing.And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, “Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity. “Those are the three words that she left me with.And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what’s right, what’s wrong.They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don’t let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don’t let me do that.And I’m blessed, as I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I’ve watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters. He’s a great father. And I think we’re both very lucky.SCHIEFFER: Well, gentlemen, that brings us to the closing statements.Senator Kerry, I believe you’re first.KERRY: My fellow Americans, as you heard from Bob Schieffer a moment ago, America is being tested by division. More than ever, we need to be united as a country.And, like Franklin Roosevelt, I don’t care whether an idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. I just care whether it works for America and whether it’s going to make us stronger.These are dangerous times. I believe I offer tested, strong leadership that can calm the waters of the troubled world. And I believe that we can together do things that are within the grasp of Americans.We can lift our schools up. We can create jobs that pay more than the jobs we’re losing overseas. We can have health care for all Americans. We can further the cause of equality in our nation.Let me just make it clear: I will never allow any country to have a veto over our security. Just as I fought for our country as a young man, with the same passion I will fight to defend this nation that I love.And, with faith in God and with conviction in the mission of America, I believe that we can reach higher. I believe we can do better.I think the greatest possibilities of our country, our dreams and our hopes, are out there just waiting for us to grab onto them. And I ask you to embark on that journey with me.I ask you for your trust. I ask you for your help. I ask you to allow me the privilege of leading this great nation of ours, of helping us to be stronger here at home and to be respected again in the world and, most of all, to be safer forever.Thank you. Goodnight. And God bless the United States of America.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: In the Oval Office, there’s a painting by a friend of Laura and mine named — by Tom Lee. And it’s a West Texas painting, a painting of a mountain scene.And he said this about it.He said, “Sarah and I live on the east side of the mountain. It’s the sunrise side, not the sunset side. It’s the side to see the day that is coming, not to see the day that is gone. “I love the optimism in that painting, because that’s how I feel about America. And we’ve been through a lot together during the last 3 3/4 years. We’ve come through a recession, a stock market decline, an attack on our country.And yet, because of the hard work of the American people and good policies, this economy is growing. Over the next four years, we’ll make sure the economy continues to grow.We reformed our school system, and now there’s an achievement gap in America that’s beginning to close. Over the next four years, we’ll continue to insist on excellence in every classroom in America so that our children have a chance to realize the great promise of America.Over the next four years, we’ll continue to work to make sure health care is available and affordable.Over the next four years, we’ll continue to rally the armies of compassion, to help heal the hurt that exists in some of our country’s neighborhoods.I’m optimistic that we’ll win the war on terror, but I understand it requires firm resolve and clear purpose. We must never waver in the face of this enemy that — these ideologues of hate.And as we pursue the enemy wherever it exists, we’ll also spread freedom and liberty. We got great faith in the ability of liberty to transform societies, to convert a hostile world to a peaceful world.My hope for America is a prosperous America, a hopeful America and a safer world.I want to thank you for listening tonight.I’m asking for your vote.God bless you.SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Mr. President.Thank you, Senator Kerry.Well, that brings these debates to a close, but the campaign goes on.I want to wish both of you the very best of luck between now and Election Day.That’s it for us from Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. I’m Bob Schieffer at CBS News.Goodnight, everyone.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "2f1539c8-a5ae-451b-9832-81e76ad8c31c"
  },
  {
    "year": 2012,
    "date": "October 16, 2012",
    "title": "The Second Obama-Romney Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 16, 2012 Debate TranscriptPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEYPARTICIPATE IN A CANDIDATES DEBATE, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY,HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORKOCTOBER 16, 2012SPEAKERS: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMACANDY CROWLEY, MODERATOR[*]CROWLEY: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I’m Candy Crowley from CNN’s “State of the Union.” We are here for the second presidential debate, a town hall, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.CROWLEY: The Gallup organization chose 82 uncommitted voters from the New York area. Their questions will drive the night. My goal is to give the conversation direction and to ensure questions get answered.The questions are known to me and my team only. Neither the commission, nor the candidates have seen them. I hope to get to as many questions as possible.CROWLEY: And because I am the optimistic sort, I’m sure the candidates will oblige by keeping their answers concise and on point.Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive — no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort.We will set aside that agreement just this once to welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us here tonight. We have a lot of folks who’ve been waiting all day to talk to you, so I want to get right to it.Governor Romney, as you know, you won the coin toss, so the first question will go to you. And I want to turn to a first-time voter, Jeremy Epstein, who has a question for you.QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?ROMNEY: Thank you, Jeremy. I appreciate your — your question, and thank you for being here this evening and to all of those from Nassau County that have come, thank you for your time. Thank you to Hofstra University and to Candy Crowley for organizing and leading this — this event.Thank you, Mr. President, also for being part of this — this debate.Your question — your question is one that’s being asked by college kids all over this country. I was in Pennsylvania with someone who had just graduated — this was in Philadelphia — and she said, “I’ve got my degree. I can’t find a job. I’ve got three part- time jobs. They’re just barely enough to pay for my food and pay for an apartment. I can’t begin to pay back my student loans.”So what we have to do is two things. We have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college.ROMNEY: And also make sure that when they get out of college, there’s a job. When I was governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree, you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your airlines, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams scholarship, four years tuition free in the college of your choice in Massachusetts, it’s a public institution.I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program, so that people are able to afford school. But the key thing is to make sure you can get a job when you get out of school. And what’s happened over the last four years has been very, very hard for America’s young people. I want you to be able to get a job.I know what it takes to get this economy going. With half of college kids graduating this year without a college — excuse me, without a job. And without a college level job, that’s just unacceptable.And likewise you’ve got more and more debt on your back. So more debt and less jobs. I’m going to change that. I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. And kids across this country are going to recognize, we’re bringing back an economy.It’s not going to be like the last four years. The middle-class has been crushed over the last four years, and jobs have been too scarce. I know what it takes to bring them back, and I’m going to do that, and make sure that when you graduate — when do you graduate?QUESTION: 2014.ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I’m going to be president. I’m going to make sure you get a job. Thanks Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.CROWLEY: Mr. President?OBAMA: Jeremy, first of all, your future is bright. And the fact that you’re making an investment in higher education is critical. Not just to you, but to the entire nation. Now, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country. But not just jobs, good paying jobs. Ones that can support a family.OBAMA: And what I want to do, is build on the five million jobs that we’ve created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone. And there are a bunch of things we can do to make sure your future is bright.Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. Now when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt. I said we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry and it’s come surging back.I want to do that in industries, not just in Detroit, but all across the country and that means we change our tax code so we’re giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States and creating jobs here.It also means we’re helping them and small businesses to export all around the world to new markets.Number two, we’ve got to make sure that we have the best education system in the world. And the fact that you’re going to college is great, but I want everybody to get a great education and we’ve worked hard to make sure that student loans are available for folks like you, but I also want to make sure that community colleges are offering slots for workers to get retrained for the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs of the future.Number three, we’ve got to control our own energy. Now, not only oil and natural gas, which we’ve been investing in; but also, we’ve got to make sure we’re building the energy source of the future, not just thinking about next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now. That’s why we’ve invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts so that we can invest in education like yours.And let’s take the money that we’ve been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright but America’s future is going to bright as well.CROWLEY: Let me ask you for more immediate answer and begin with Mr. Romney just quickly what — what can you do? We’re looking at a situation where 40 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed have been unemployed for six months or more. They don’t have the two years that Jeremy has.What about those long term unemployed who need a job right now?ROMNEY: Well what you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job. And a lot of them, as you say, Candy, have been out of work for a long, long, long time. The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven’t put Americans back to work.We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office. If the — the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when he took office, it’s 7.8 percent now. But if you calculated that unemployment rate, taking back the people who dropped out of the workforce, it would be 10.7 percent.We have not made the progress we need to make to put people back to work. That’s why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay. It’s going to help Jeremy get a job when he comes out of school. It’s going to help people across the country that are unemployed right now.And one thing that the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and Condell (ph) Airlines and come out stronger.And I know he keeps saying, you want to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did.And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.CROWLEY: Let me give the president a chance.Go ahead. OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs. And that — don’t take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.And Governor Romney’s says he’s got a five-point plan? Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector, that’s been his philosophy as governor, that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.That’s exactly the philosophy that we’ve seen in place for the last decade. That’s what’s been squeezing middle class families.And we have fought back for four years to get out of that mess. The last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there.CROWLEY: Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here.And, Mr. Romney — Governor Romney — there’ll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to…ROMNEY: That — that Detroit — that Detroit answer…CROWLEY: We have all these folks.ROMNEY: … that Detroit answer…CROWLEY: I will let you absolutely…ROMNEY: … and the rest of the answer, way off the mark.CROWLEY: OK. Will — will — you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.Because I want to move you on to something that’s sort of connected to cars here, and — and go over. And we want to get a question from Phillip Tricolla.QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years.Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional source of energy. We’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we doubled clean — clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas.And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.That’s going to help Jeremy get a job. It’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.CROWLEY: Governor, on the subject of gas prices?ROMNEY: Well, let’s look at the president’s policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we’ve had four years of policies being played out. And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.So where’d the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, “Please save my job.” The head of the EPA said, “You can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually — it’s virtually impossible given our regulations.” When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America.Let’s take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I’m planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years, you’re going to see manufacturing jobs come back. Because our energy is low cost, that are already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy. I’ll get America and North America energy independent. I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses.We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon.Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up, but our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my — the previous president was an oil man.And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically. We’re encouraging it and working with the industry.And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, “This plant kills,” and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil, same thing with natural gas.And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and, most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.And that’s creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, ’cause that’s the demand around the world, and it also means that it’ll save money in your pocketbook.OBAMA: That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.ROMNEY: But that’s not what you’ve done in the last four years. That’s the problem. In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.ROMNEY: So how much did you cut (inaudible)?OBAMA: Not true.ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by, then?OBAMA: Governor, we have actually produced more oil —ROMNEY: No, no. How much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal waters?OBAMA: Governor Romney, here’s what we did. There were a whole bunch of oil companies.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: No, no, I had a question and the question was how much did you cut them by?OBAMA: You want me to answer a question —ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?OBAMA: I’m happy to answer the question.ROMNEY: All right. And it is —OBAMA: Here’s what happened. You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren’t using. So what we said was you can’t just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it’s most profitable for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it.ROMNEY: OK, (inaudible) —OBAMA: And so what we did was take away those leases. And we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit.ROMNEY: And production on private — on government land —OBAMA: Production is up.ROMNEY: — is down.OBAMA: No, it isn’t.ROMNEY: Production on government land of oil is down 14 percent.OBAMA: Governor —ROMNEY: And production on gas —(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: It’s just not true.ROMNEY: It’s absolutely true. Look, there’s no question but the people recognize that we have not produced more (inaudible) on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up.I was just at a coal facility, where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.OBAMA: Well —ROMNEY: And the answer is I don’t believe people think that’s the case —OBAMA: — (inaudible).ROMNEY: That wasn’t the question.OBAMA: OK.ROMNEY: That was a statement. I don’t think the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof, the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it’s $4.00 a gallon. The price of electricity is up.If the president’s energy policies are working, you’re going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it. Those things will get us the energy we need.CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting.So, it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong, and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we’ve — we’ve built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire earth once.So, I’m all for pipelines. I’m all for oil production. What I’m not for is us ignoring the other half of the equation. So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says “these are imaginary jobs.” When you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that — in Iowa is all for it, providing tax breaks (ph) to help this work and Governor Romney says I’m opposed. I’d get rid of it.That’s not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future. And I intend to win it as President of the United States.CROWLEY: I got to — I got to move you on —ROMNEY: He gets the first —CROWLEY: — and the next question —ROMNEY: He actually got —CROWLEY: — for you —ROMNEY: He actually got the first question. So I get the last question — last answer —CROWLEY: (Inaudible) in the follow up, it doesn’t quite work like that. But I’m going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I’m going to.And the next question is for you. So if you want to, you know, continue on — but I don’t want to leave all —ROMNEY: Candy, Candy —CROWLEY: — sitting here —ROMNEY: Candy, I don’t have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they’re not phantom jobs. They’re real jobs.CROWLEY: OK.ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I’m going to make sure —CROWLEY: OK.ROMNEY: — we’re taking advantage of our energy resources. We’ll bring back manufacturing to America. We’re going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 31/2 million more jobs in this country. It’s critical to our future.OBAMA: Candy, it’s not going to —CROWLEY: We’re going to move you along —OBAMA: Used to being interrupted.CROWLEY: We’re going to move you both along to taxes over here and all these folks that have been waiting.Governor, this question is for you. It comes from Mary Follano — Follano, sorry.ROMNEY: Hi, Mary.QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue.Concerning the — these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit? I forgot.OBAMA: You’re doing great.QUESTION: Oh, I remember.The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class?ROMNEY: Thank you very much. And let me tell you, you’re absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down, I want to simplify the tax code, and I want to get middle- income taxpayers to have lower taxes.And the reason I want middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle-income taxpayers have been buried over the past four years. You’ve seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family, even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums, up $2,500. Food prices up. Utility prices up.The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years. So I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That’s part — that’s part one.Now, how about deductions? ‘Cause I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now.The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same.Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.If you’re getting interest from a bank, if you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there’ll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because under the last four years, they’ve been buried. And I want to help people in the middle-class.And I will not — I will not under any circumstances, reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest income taxpayers. And I will not, under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle-class. The president’s spending, the president’s borrowing will cost this nation to have to raise taxes on the American people. Not just at the high end. A recent study has shown the people in the middle-class will see $4,000.00 per year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration.I will not let that happen. I want to get us on track to a balanced budget, and I’m going to reduce the tax burden on middle income families. And what’s that going to do? It’s going to help those families, and it’s going to create incentives to start growing jobs again in this country.CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor.OBAMA: My philosophy on taxes has been simple. And that is, I want to give middle-class families and folks who are striving to get into the middle-class some relief. Because they have been hit hard over the last decade. Over the last 15, over the last 20 years.So four years ago I stood on a stage just like this one. Actually it was a town hall, and I said I would cut taxes for middle- class families, and that’s what I’ve done, by $3,600.00. I said I would cut taxes for small businesses, who are the drivers and engines of growth. And we’ve cut them 18 times. And I want to continue those tax cuts for middle-class families, and for small business.But what I’ve also said is, if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts, we’ve also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more.So what I’ve said is, your first $250,000.00 worth of income, no change. And that means 98 percent of American families, 97 percent of small businesses, they will not see a tax increase. I’m ready to sign that bill right now. The only reason it’s not happening is because Governor Romney’s allies in Congress have held the 98 percent hostage because they want tax breaks for the top 2 percent.But what I’ve also says is for above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. We created 23 million new jobs. That’s part of what took us from deficits to surplus. It will be good for our economy and it will be good for job creation.Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, “Yes, I think that’s fair.” Not only that, he said, “I think that’s what grows the economy.”Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think what grows the economy is when you get that tax credit that we put in place for your kids going to college. I think that grows the economy. I think what grows the economy is when we make sure small businesses are getting a tax credit for hiring veterans who fought for our country. That grows our economy.So we just have a different theory. And when Governor Romney stands here, after a year of campaigning, when during a Republican primary he stood on stage and said “I’m going to give tax cuts” — he didn’t say tax rate cuts, he said “tax cuts to everybody,” including the top 1 percent, you should believe him because that’s been his history.And that’s exactly the kind of top-down economics that is not going to work if we want a strong middle class and an economy that’s striving for everybody.CROWLEY: Governor Romney, I’m sure you’ve got a reply there.(LAUGHTER) ROMNEY: You’re absolutely right.You heard what I said about my tax plan. The top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.And why do I want to bring rates down, and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people.And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America’s economy going again. Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.For me, I look at what’s happened in the last four years and say this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don’t have to settle for, how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now.There are 3.5 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office.We don’t have to live like this. We can get this economy going again. My five-point plan does it. Energy independence for North America in five years. Opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America. Cracking down on China when they cheat. Getting us to a balanced budget. Fixing our training programs for our workers. And finally, championing small business.I want to make small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go. And they’re going now because of the policies of this administration.CROWLEY: Governor, let me ask the president something about what you just said.The governor says that he is not going to allow the top 5 percent, believe is what he said, to have a tax cut, that it will all even out, that what he wants to do is give that tax cut to the middle class. Settled?OBAMA: No, it’s not settled.Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board, 20 percent. Along with what he also wants to do in terms of eliminating the estate tax, along what he wants to do in terms of corporates, changes in the tax code, it costs about $5 trillion.Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs even though the military’s not asking for them. That’s $7 trillion.He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That’s another trillion dollars — that’s $8 trillion.Now, what he says is he’s going to make sure that this doesn’t add to the deficit and he’s going to cut middleclass taxes.But when he’s asked, how are you going to do it, which deductions, which loopholes are you going to close? He can’t tell you.The — the fact that he only has to pay 14 percent on his taxes when a lot of you are paying much higher. He’s already taken that off the board, capital gains are going to continue to be at a low rate so we — we’re not going to get money that way.We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that.Now, Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t take such a sketchy deal and neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.And — and what’s at stake here is one of two things, either Candy — this blows up the deficit because keep in mind, this is just to pay for the additional spending that he’s talking about, $7 trillion – $8 trillion before we even get to the deficit we already have. Or, alternatively, it’s got to be paid for, not only by closing deductions for wealthy individuals, that — that will pay for about 4 percent reduction in tax rates.You’re going to be paying for it. You’re going to lose some deductions, and you can’t buy the sales pitch. Nobody who’s looked at it that’s serious, actually believes it adds up.CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me get — let me get the governor in on this. And Governor, let’s — before we get into a…ROMNEY: I — I…CROWLEY: …vast array of who says — what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent…ROMNEY: Well of course they add up. I — I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years, and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years. When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That’s math that doesn’t add up. We have — we have a president talking about someone’s plan in a way that’s completely foreign to what my real plan is.ROMNEY: And then we have his own record, which is we have four consecutive years where he said when he was running for office, he would cut the deficit in half. Instead he’s doubled it. We’ve gone from $10 trillion of national debt, to $16 trillion of national debt. If the president were reelected, we’d go to almost $20 trillion of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece. I know what it takes to balance budgets. I’ve done it my entire life. So for instance when he says, “Yours is a $5 trillion cut.” Well, no it’s not. Because I’m offsetting some of the reductions with holding down some of the deductions.And…CROWLEY: Governor, I’ve gotta — gotta — actually, I need to have you both (inaudible).(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: I understand the stakes here. I understand both of you. But I — I will get run out of town if I don’t…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: And I just described — I just described to you, Mr. President — I just described to you precisely how I’d do it which is with a single number that people can put — and they can put they’re — they’re deductions and credits…(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Mr. President, we’re keeping track, I promise you. And Mr. President, the next question is for you, so stay standing.OBAMA: Great. Looking forward to it.And it’s Katherine Fenton, who has a question for you.QUESTION: In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?OBAMA: Well, Katherine, that’s a great question. And, you know, I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we needed. My grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president of a local bank, but she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career.She didn’t complain. That’s not what you did in that generation. And this is one of the reasons why one of the first — the first bill I signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill. And it’s named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found about it earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed that. And that’s an example of the kind of advocacy that we need, because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women’s issue, this is a family issue, this is a middle-class issue, and that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.It also means that we’ve got to make sure that young people like yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier, Governor Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education accessible for young people.Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including millions of young women, all across the country.We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, and we said, let’s just cut out the middleman. Let’s give the money directly to students.And as a consequence, we’ve seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that’s going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace.But we’ve got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing, and we’ve also got to make sure that in every walk of life we do not tolerate discrimination.That’s been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I’m going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.” They said, “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.” And I said, “Well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?”ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 31/2 million women, more now in poverty than four years ago.What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.This is what I have done. It’s what I look forward to doing and I know what it takes to make an economy work, and I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy.An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t finds a job, or a college level job, that’s not what we have to have. CROWLEY: Governor?ROMNEY: I’m going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.CROWLEY: Mr. President why don’t you get in on this quickly, please?OBAMA: Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney’s campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it? He said, “I’ll get back to you.” And that’s not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy. Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace. For example, their healthcare. You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.I think that’s a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Because this is not just a — a health issue, it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.That’s not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country. And it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we talk about child care, and the credits that we’re providing. That makes a difference in whether they can go out there and — and earn a living for their family.These are not just women’s issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues.And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men are.CROWLEY: Mr. President…OBAMA: And I’ve got two daughters and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have. That’s part of what I’m fighting for as president of the United States.CROWLEY: I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question.And, Governor, it’s for you. QUESTION: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter, because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration.Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?ROMNEY: Thank you. And I appreciate that question.I just want to make sure that, I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that that I don’t believe…OBAMA: I don’t think so, Candy.ROMNEY: … I don’t believe…OBAMA: I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.ROMNEY: The time — the time…CROWLEY: OK. The timekeepers are all working. And let me tell you that the last part, it’s for the two of you to talk to one another, and it isn’t quite as (inaudible) you think.But go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to, the question is on the floor.ROMNEY: I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.OBAMA: Governor…ROMNEY: Let me come back and — and answer your question.President Bush and I are — are different people and these are different times and that’s why my five point plan is so different than what he would have done.I mean for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the — the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn’t true in his time, that’s why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America — become energy secure.Number two, trade — I’ll crack down on China, President Bush didn’t. I’m also going to dramatically expand trade in Latin America. It’s been growing about 12 percent per year over a long period of time. I want to add more free trade agreements so we’ll have more trade.Number three, I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t. President Obama was right, he said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right, but then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years. And his forecast for the next four years is more deficits, almost that large. So that’s the next area I’m different than President Bush.And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.And the thing I find the most troubling about Obama Care, well it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush has a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor.Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to tell you that we did come in during some tough times. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when I started. But we had been digging our way out of policies that were misplaced and focused on the top doing very well and middle class folks not doing well.Now, we’ve seen 30 consecutive — 31 consecutive months of job growth; 5.2 million new jobs created. And the plans that I talked about will create even more. But when Governor Romney says that he has a very different economic plan, the centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts. That’s what took us from surplus to deficit. When he talks about getting tough on China, keep in mind that Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China, and is currently investing in countries — in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks.That’s — Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China. And what we’ve done when it comes to trade is not only sign three trade deals to open up new markets, but we’ve also set up a task force for trade that goes after anybody who is taking advantage of American workers or businesses and not creating a level playing field. We’ve brought twice as many cases against unfair trading practices than the previous administration and we’ve won every single one that’s been decided.When I said that we had to make sure that China was not flooding our domestic market with cheap tires, Governor Romney said I was being protectionist; that it wouldn’t be helpful to American workers. Well, in fact we saved 1,000 jobs. And that’s the kind of tough trade actions that are required.But the last point I want to make is this. You know, there are some things where Governor Romney is different from George Bush. George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a voucher. George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform. He didn’t call for self-deportation.George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, so there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush, but they’re not on economic policy. In some ways, he’s gone to a more extreme place when it comes to social policy. And I think that’s a mistake. That’s not how we’re going to move our economy forward.CROWLEY: I want to move you both along to the next question, because it’s in the same wheelhouse, so you will be able to respond. But the president does get this question. I want to call on Michael Jones.QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.OBAMA: Well, we’ve gone through a tough four years. There’s no doubt about it. But four years ago, I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle class families. And I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have.I said that I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we’d refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaeda’s leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead.OBAMA: I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can’t jerk you around and if you don’t have health insurance, that you’d have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have.I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We’ve created five million jobs, and gone from 800 jobs a month being lost, and we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse.Now, does that mean you’re not struggling? Absolutely not. A lot of us are. And that’s why the plan that I’ve put forward for manufacturing and education, and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars, to rebuild America and putting people back to work. Making sure that we are controlling our own energy, but not only the energy of today, but also the energy of the future. All of those things will make a difference, so the point is the commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept.And those that I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying and we’re going to get it done in a second term. But, you should pay attention to this campaign, because Governor Romney has made some commitments as well. And I suspect he’ll keep those too. You know when members of the Republican Congress say, “We’re going to sign a no tax pledge, so that we don’t ask a dime for millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education, and helping kids go to college. He said, “Me too.”When they said, “We’re going to cut Planned Parenthood funding.” He said, “Me too.” When he said, “We’re going to repeal Obamacare. First thing I’m going to do,” despite the fact that it’s the same health care plan that he passed in Massachusetts and is working well. He said, “Me too.” That is not the kind of leadership that you need, but you should expect that those are promises he’s going to keep.(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me let…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …the choice in this election is going to be whose promises are going to be more likely to help you in your life? Make sure your kids can go to college. Make sure that you are getting a good paying job, making sure that Medicare and Social Security… (CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Mr. President. Thank you.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …will be there for you.CROWLEY: Thank you. Governor?ROMNEY: I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like your confident that the next four years are going to be much better either.I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work.I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan. Didn’t get there.He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented — it’s already been passed — if it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500 on top.ROMNEY: The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans.There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.You might say, “Well, you got an example of one that worked better?” Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period — the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a — as a — as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.CROWLEY: Governor, I want to move you along. Don’t — don’t go away, and we’ll have plenty of time to respond. We are quite aware of the clock for both of you. But I want to bring in a different subject here.Mr. President, I’ll be right back with you.Lorraine Osorio has a question for you about a topic we have not…OBAMA: This is for Governor Romney?CROWLEY: It’s for Governor Romney, and we’ll be right with you, Mr. President. Thanks.ROMNEY: Is it Loraina?QUESTION: Lorraine.ROMNEY: Lorraine?QUESTION: Yes, Lorraine.ROMNEY: Lorraine.QUESTION: How you doing?ROMNEY: Good, thanks.QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?ROMNEY: Thank you. Lorraine? Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for your question. And let me step back and tell you what I would like to do with our immigration policy broadly and include an answer to your question.But first of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American parents; Ann’s dad was born in Wales and is a first-generation American. We welcome legal immigrants into this country.I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined. I want it to be clearer. I don’t think you have to — shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally. I also think that we should give visas to people — green cards, rather, to people who graduate with skills that we need. People around the world with accredited degrees in science and math get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the U.S. of A. We should make sure our legal system works.Number two, we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who have come here illegally.What I will do is I’ll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won’t put in place magnets for people coming here illegally. So for instance, I would not give driver’s licenses to those that have come here illegally as the president would.The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.ROMNEY: Now when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation — he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our — our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn’t do it.He had a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, super majority in both Houses. Why did he fail to even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come legally and for those that are here illegally today? What’s a question I think the — the president will have a chance to answer right now.OBAMA: Good, I look forward to it.Was — Lorranna — Lorraine — we are a nation of immigrants. I mean we’re just a few miles away from Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around the world wants to come here. People are willing to take risks. People who want to build on their dreams and make sure their kids have an even bigger dreams than they have.But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is we need to fix a broken immigration system and I’ve done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make sure that we fix the system.The first thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system, to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country and that’s good for our economic growth.They’ll start new businesses. They’ll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States.Number two, we do have to deal with our border so we put more border patrol on the — any time in history and the flow of undocumented works across the border is actually lower than it’s been in 40 years.What I’ve also said is if we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families. And that’s what we’ve done. And what I’ve also said is for young people who come here, brought here often times by their parents. Had gone to school here, pledged allegiance to the flag. Think of this as their country. Understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers. And we should make sure that we give them a pathway to citizenship.And that’s what I’ve done administratively. Now, Governor Romney just said, you know he wants to help those young people too, but during the Republican primary, he said, “I will veto the DREAM Act”, that would allow these young people to have access.” His main strategy during the Republican primary was to say, “We’re going to encourage self-deportation.” Making life so miserable on folks that they’ll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. Part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and check their papers.You know what? If my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they’re not a citizen, I don’t want — I don’t want to empower somebody like that. So, we can fix this system in a comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says, the challenge is, “Well Obama didn’t try.” That’s not true. I have sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term. And I said, let’s fix this system. Including Senators previously who had supported it on the Republican side. But it’s very hard for Republican’s in Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform, if their standard bearer has said that, this is not something I’m interested in supporting.CROWLEY: Let me get the governor in here, Mr. President. Let’s speak to, if you could…ROMNEY: Yes.CROWLEY: …the idea of self-deportation?ROMNEY: No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points that the president made and — and — and let’s get them correct.I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the E-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is — which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally, that that was a model for the nation. That’s number one.Number two, I asked the president a question I think Hispanics and immigrants all over the nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you’d filed legislation in your first year didn’t you do it? And he didn’t answer. He — he doesn’t answer that question. He said the standard bearer wasn’t for it.I’m glad you thought I was a standard bearer four years ago, but I wasn’t.Four years ago you said in your first year you would file legislation.In his first year, I was just getting — licking my wounds from having been beaten by John McCain, all right. I was not the standard bearer.My — my view is that this president should have honored his promise to do as he said.Now, let me mention one other thing, and that is self-deportation says let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we’re not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead let people make their own choice. And if they — if they find that — that they can’t get the benefits here that they want and they can’t — and they can’t find the job they want, then they’ll make a decision to go a place where — where they have better opportunities.But I’m not in favor of rounding up people and — and — and taking them out of this country. I am in favor, as the president has said, and I agree with him, which is that if people have committed crimes we got to get them out of this country.ROMNEY: Let me mention something else the president said. It was a moment ago and I didn’t get a chance to, when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth.OBAMA: Candy?Hold on a second. The…ROMNEY: Mr. President, I’m still speaking.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Mr. President, let me finish.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: I’ve gotta continue.(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They’ve been waiting for you. (inaudible) make it short (inaudible).ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in — in Chinese companies.Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?OBAMA: I’ve got to say…ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?OBAMA: You know, I — I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.ROMNEY: Well, let me give you some advice.OBAMA: I don’t check it that often.ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman’s trust.(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: We’re way off topic here, Governor Romney.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: I thought we were talking about immigration.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: I do want to make sure that…CROWLEY: If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.OBAMA: I do want to make sure that — I do want to make sure that we just understand something. Governor Romney says he wasn’t referring to Arizona as a model for the nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it; not E-Verify, the whole thing. That’s his policy. And it’s a bad policy. And it won’t help us grow.Look, when we think about immigration, we have to understand there are folks all around the world who still see America as the land of promise. And they provide us energy and they provide us innovation and they start companies like Intel and Google. And we want to encourage that.Now, we’ve got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way, and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don’t have bipartisan support — I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done, and we can’t…ROMNEY: I’ll get it done. I’ll get it done. First year…OBAMA: … we can’t — we have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all. And it’s time for them to get serious on it.CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me move you on here please. Mr. President, (inaudible).OBAMA: This used to be a bipartisan issue.(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Don’t go away, though — right. Don’t go away because I — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka who wants to switch the topic for us.OBAMA: OK.Hi, Kerry.QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President.OBAMA: I’m sorry. What’s your name?QUESTION: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.OBAMA: Great to see you.QUESTION: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply (ph) in Minneola yesterday.OBAMA: Ah.QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?OBAMA: Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we’re going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.OBAMA: Now Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue. Certainly not right when it’s happening. And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I’ve made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya — in — in Iraq, and I did.I said that we’d go after al-Qaeda and bin Laden, we have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan, and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security, that’s what I’m doing. And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.CROWLEY: Mr. President, I’m going to move us along. Governor?ROMNEY: Thank you Kerry for your question, it’s an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that the buck does stop at his desk and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for the failure in providing those security resources, and — and those terrible things may well happen from time to time. I — I’m — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. And today there’s a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply. There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration, or actually whether it was a terrorist attack.ROMNEY: And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?But I find more troubling than this, that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador, the first time that’s happened since 1979, when — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, other political event.I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance and perhaps even material significance in that you’d hope that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We’ve read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.And this calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and — and Israel, the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel.We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just a tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America.The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and — and — and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.CROWLEY: Because we’re — we’re closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly.Your secretary of state, as I’m sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to…ROMNEY: Yes, I — I…CROWLEY: … quickly to this please.ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.OBAMA: That’s what I said.ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?OBAMA: Please proceed governor.ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.OBAMA: Get the transcript.CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.CROWLEY: It did.ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary —OBAMA: Candy?ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how —OBAMA: Candy, I’m —ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous —CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me —OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation —CROWLEY: I know you —OBAMA: — about foreign policy.CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also —OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.CROWLEY: — the transcripts and —OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —CROWLEY: — figure out what we —OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.CROWLEY: Because what I — what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.ROMNEY: Yeah, I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.And you ask how — how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state. And I believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll — we’ll give people the — the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.Because if there’s a two parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system. The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords.They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords. OBAMA: Candy?CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it’s referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven’t previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s gridlocked.CROWLEY: So I could — if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?ROMNEY: We have —OBAMA: Candy?ROMNEY: — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.OBAMA: The — first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. So that’s on the record.But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed and we have got to make sure they don’t get weapons.But we can make a difference in terms ensuring that every young person in America, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance to succeed.And, Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much, but I think it is very important to understand that the reforms we’ve put in place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing schools that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science.When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs, including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting another chance, training them for the jobs that exist right now.And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers. And so we’re matching them up. Giving them access to higher education. As I said, we have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an education that they weren’t able to get before.Now…CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to — I have to move you along here. You said you wanted to…(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: We need to do it here.OBAMA: But — but it’ll — it’ll — it’ll be…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: … just one second.CROWLEY: One…OBAMA: Because — because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election.When Governor Romney was asked whether teachers, hiring more teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn’t grow our economy.When — when he was asked would class size…(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: The question, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need to move us along.OBAMA: I understand.CROWLEY: You know, the question was guns. So let me — let me bring in another…OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people…CROWLEY: I understand.OBAMA: … and reduce our violence.CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much. I want to ask Carol Goldberg to stand up, because she gets to a question that both these men have been passionate about. It’s for Governor Romney.QUESTION: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?ROMNEY: Boy, great question and important question, because you’re absolutely right. The place where we’ve seen manufacturing go has been China. China is now the largest manufacturer in the world. It used to be the United States of America. A lot of good people have lost jobs. A half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last four years. That’s total over the last four years.One of the reasons for that is that people think it’s more attractive in some cases to go offshore than to stay here. We have made it less attractive for enterprises to stay here than to go offshore from time to time. What I will do as president is make sure it’s more attractive to come to America again.This is the way we’re going to create jobs in this country. It’s not by trickle-down government, saying we’re going to take more money from people and hire more government workers, raise more taxes, put in place more regulations. Trickle-down government has never worked here, has never worked anywhere.I want to make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for small business, for big business, to invest and grow in America.Now, we’re going to have to make sure that as we trade with other nations that they play by the rules. And China hasn’t. One of the reasons — or one of the ways they don’t play by the rules is artificially holding down the value of their currency. Because if they put their currency down low, that means their prices on their goods are low. And that makes them advantageous in the marketplace.We lose sales. And manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can’t compete. China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so.On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers.So we’re going to make sure that people we trade with around the world play by the rules. But let me — let me not just stop there. Don’t forget, what’s key to bringing back jobs here is not just finding someone else to punish, and I’m going to be strict with people who we trade with to make sure they — they follow the law and play by the rules, but it’s also to make America the most attractive place in the world for businesses of all kinds. That’s why I want to down the tax rates on small employers, big employers, so they want to be here. Canada’s tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. So if you’re starting a business, where would you rather start it? We have to be competitive if we’re going to create more jobs here.Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president. I talk to small businesses across the country. They say, “We feel like we’re under attack from our own government.” I want to make sure that regulators see their job as encouraging small business, not crushing it. And there’s no question but that Obamacare has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people.My priority is making sure that we get more people hired. If we have more people hired, if we get back manufacturing jobs, if we get back all kinds of jobs into this country, then you’re going to see rising incomes again. The reason incomes are down is because unemployment is so high. I know what it takes to get this to happen, and my plan will do that, and one part of it is to make sure that we keep China playing by the rules.CROWLEY: Mr. President, two minutes here, because we are then going to go to our last question.OBAMA: OK. We need to create jobs here. And both Governor Romney and I agree actually that we should lower our corporate tax rate. It’s too high. But there’s a difference in terms of how we would do it. I want to close loopholes that allow companies to deduct expenses when they move to China; that allow them to profit offshore and not have to get taxed, so they have tax advantages offshore.All those changes in our tax code would make a difference.Now, Governor Romney actually wants to expand those tax breaks. One of his big ideas when it comes to corporate tax reform would be to say, if you invest overseas, you make profits overseas, you don’t have to pay U.S. taxes.But, of course, if you’re a small business or a mom-and-pop business or a big business starting up here, you’ve got to pay even the reduced rate that Governor Romney’s talking about.And it’s estimated that that will create 800,000 new jobs. The problem is they’ll be in china. Or India. Or Germany.That’s not the way we’re going to create jobs here. The way we’re going to create jobs here is not just to change our tax code, but also to double our exports. And we are on pace to double our exports, one of the commitments I made when I was president. That’s creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country. That’s why we’ve kept on pushing trade deals, but trade deals that make sure that American workers and American businesses are getting a good deal.Now, Governor Romney talked about China, as I already indicated. In the private sector, Governor Romney’s company invested in what were called pioneers of outsourcing. That’s not my phrase. That’s what reporters called it.And as far as currency manipulation, the currency has actually gone up 11 percent since I’ve been president because we have pushed them hard. And we’ve put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That’s why exports have significantly increased under my presidency. That’s going to help to create jobs here.CROWLEY: Mr. President, we have a really short time for a quick discussion here.iPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China. One of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here?ROMNEY: The answer is very straightforward. We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China’s been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There’s even an Apple store in China that’s a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that’s number one.Number two, we have to make America the most attractive place for entrepreneurs, for people who want to expand their business. That’s what brings jobs in. The president’s characterization of my tax plan…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …is completely…is completely…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …is completely false. Let me tell you…CROWLEY: Let me to go the president here because we really are running out of time. And the question is can we ever get — we can’t get wages like that. It can’t be sustained.OBAMA: Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back. Because they are low wage, low skill jobs. I want high wage, high skill jobs. That’s why we have to emphasize manufacturing. That’s why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That’s why we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got the best science and research in the world. And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them, and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race.If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country. Then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy, not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now.CROWLEY: Thanks Mr. President.(CROSSTALK)CROWLEY: Governor Romney?ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs.CROWLEY: Governor Romney, I want to introduce you to Barry Green, because he’s going to have the last question to you first?ROMNEY: Barry? Where is Barry?QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?ROMNEY: Thank you, and that’s an opportunity for me, and I appreciate it.In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they’d like to do. In the course of that, I think the president’s campaign has tried to characterize me as — as someone who’s very different than who I am.I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help with the experience I have, the American people.My — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get 100 percent of my people insured, all my kids, about 98 percent of the adults. I was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation, so 100 percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future.ROMNEY: I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will. I’ll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming — coming generations. The president said he would. He didn’t.CROWLEY: Governor…ROMNEY: I’ll get our incomes up. And by the way, I’ve done these things. I served as governor and showed I could get them done.CROWLEY: Mr. President, last two minutes belong to you.OBAMA: Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this nation that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer.That’s not what I believe. I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known.I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that’s how our economy’s grown. That’s how we built the world’s greatest middle class.And — and that is part of what’s at stake in this election. There’s a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward.I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years. Because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.When my grandfather fought in World War II and he came back and he got a G.I. Bill and that allowed him to go to college, that wasn’t a handout. That was something that advanced the entire country. And I want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. That’s why I’m asking for your vote and that’s why I’m asking for another four years.CROWLEY: President Obama, Governor Romney, thank you for being here tonight.On that note we have come to an end of this town hall debate. Our thanks to the participants for their time and to the people of Hofstra University for their hospitality.The next and final debate takes place Monday night at Lynn (ph) University in Boca Raton, Florida. Don’t forget to watch. Election Day is three weeks from today. Don’t forget to vote.Good night.",
    "id": "ba44a1a7-092b-4795-ad62-58048d5f2c58"
  },
  {
    "year": 1996,
    "date": "October 16, 1996",
    "title": "The Second Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 16, 1996 Debate TranscriptOctober 16, 1996The Second Clinton-Dole Presidential DebateLEHRER: Good evening from the Shiley Theatre at the University of San Diego, San Diego, California. I’m Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. Welcome to this second 1996 presidential debate between Senator Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, and President Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee. It is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. We will follow a town-hall type format tonight. The questions over the next 90 minutes will come from citizens of the greater San Diego area. They were chosen in the past week by the Gallup organization to represent a rough cross section of voters as to political views, age, gender and other factors. Each said he or she is undecided about this presidential race. They were told to come tonight with questions. Nobody from the debate commission or the two campaigns has any idea what those questions are. Neither do I. We will all be hearing them for the first time at the same time. I met with this group three hours ago, and we spoke only about how it was going to work tonight. They are sitting in five sections. I will call on individuals at random, moving from one section to another with each new question, alternating the questions between the two candidates. My job is to keep things fair and the subjects as clear and as varied as possible. The rules, drawn by the campaigns, are basically the same as they were for the Hartford and St. Petersburg debates; 90 second-answers, 60 -second rebuttals, 30-second responses for each question. The candidates are not allowed to question each other directly. There will be two-minute opening and closing statements. The order for this evening was set by coin toss. We begin now with Senator Dole and his opening statement. Senator Dole.DOLE: Thank you very much, Jim. Let me first give you a sports update. The Braves, one; the Cardinals, nothing, early on. I want to thank you and I want to thank everybody here tonight. I want to give a special thanks to my wife Elizabeth, my daughter Robin for their love and support, and thank the people who are listening and watching all over America. In 20 days, you will help decide who will lead this country into the next century. It’s an awesome responsibility. And you must ask yourself, do you know enough about the candidates? You should know as much as possible about each of us. Sometimes the views have been distorted. There’s been millions and millions of dollars of negative advertising spent distorting my views. But I hope tonight you will get a better feel of who Bob Dole is and what he’s all about. And I think first you should — I should understand that the question on your mind is do I understand your problem. Would I understand it if it occurred to me, and I might just say I’m from a large family. I got lots of relatives and they’re good, average, middle-class, hardworking Americans. They live all across the country. They’re not all Republicans. Maybe all but one. But in any event, I understand the problems. Whether it’s two parents working because one has to pay the taxes and one has to provide for the family, whether it’s a single parent who just barely pays the pressing bills or whether you’re worried about an education for your children going to the best schools, or whether you’re worried about safe playgrounds, drug-free schools, crime-free schools. This is what this election is all about. And hopefully tonight when we conclude this debate you will have a better understanding and the viewing and listening audience will have a better understanding. Thank you.LEHRER: Mr. President, two minutes, opening statement.CLINTON: I was going to applaud, too. Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to the people of San Diego for giving us this opportunity to have another discussion about the decision we all face in front of people who will make the decision. Again, I will say I will do my best to make this a discussion of ideas and issues, not insults. What really matters is what happens to your future and what happens to our country as we stand on the brink of a new century, a time of extraordinary possibility. I have a simple philosophy that I tried to follow for the last four years: Do what creates opportunity for all, what reinforces responsibility from all of us, and what will help us build a community where everybody’s got a role to play and a place at the table. Compared to four years ago, we’re clearly better off. We’ve got ten and a half million more jobs, the deficit’s been reduced by 60 percent. Incomes are rising for the first time in a decade, the crime rates, the welfare rolls are falling, we’re putting , 100,000 more police on the street. 60,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers have been denied handguns. But that progress is only the beginning. What we really should focus on tonight is what we still have to do to help the American people make the most of this future that’s out there. I think what really matters is what we can do to build strong families. Strong families need a strong economy. To me that means we have to go on and balance this budget while we protect Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment. We should give a tax cut, targeted to child rearing and education, to buying a first home and paying for health care. We ought to help protect our kids from drugs and guns and gangs and tobacco. We ought to help move a million people from welfare to work and we ought to create the finest education system in the world where every 18-year-old can go on to college and all of our younger children have great educational opportunities. If we do those things, we can build that bridge to the 21st century. That’s what I hope to get to talk about tonight. Thank you.LEHRER: Let’s go now to the first question from this section. For Senator Dole. Yes, ma’am. Yes.MS. McAFEE: Hello, Senator Dole.DOLE: Hi.MS. McAFEE: My name is Shannon McAfee. I’m a beginning educator in this country, and I really think it’s important what children have to say. They’re still very idealistic. And they — everything they say comes from the heart. I have a quote for you from “If I Were President,” compiled by Peggy Gavin. A sixth grader says, “If I were president, I would think about Abraham Lincoln and George Washington and what they did to make our country great. We should unite the white and black people and people of all cultures. Democrats and Republicans should unite also. We should all come together and think of the best ways to solve the economic problems of our country. “I believe that when we are able to come together and stop fighting amongst ourselves we will get along a lot better.” These are the ideals and morals that we are teach — we are trying to teach our children in these days. Yet we don’t seem to be practicing them in our government, in anything. If you are president, how will you begin to practice what we are preaching to our children, the future of our nation?DOLE: Well, I would say first of all, I think, it’s a very good question. I appreciate the quote from the young man. There’s no doubt about it that many American people have lost their faith in government. They see scandals almost on a daily basis. They see ethical problems in the Whitehouse today. They see 900 FBI files, private person, being gathered up by somebody in the Whitehouse. Nobody knows who hired this man. So there’s a great deal of cynicism out there. But I’ve always tried in whatever I’ve done is to bring people together. I said in my acceptance speech in San Diego about two months ago that the exits are clearly marked. If you think the Republican party is some place for you to come if you’re narrow minded or bigoted or don’t like certain people in America, the exits are clearly marked for you to walk out of as I stand here without compromise, because this is the party of Lincoln. I think we have a real obligation, obviously public officials. I’m no longer a public official. I left public life on June the 11th of this year. But it is very important. Young people are looking to us. They’re looking to us for leadership. They’re watching what we do, what we say, what we promise and what we finally deliver. And I would think, it seems to me that there are opportunities here. When I’m President of the United States, I will keep my word. My word is my bond.LEHRER: Mr. President.CLINTON: One of the reasons that I ran for president, Sandy, is because not just children, a lot of grownups felt that way. And if you remember four years ago, we had not only rising unemployment, but a lot of rising cynicism. I had never worked in Washington as an elected official. It seemed to me that most of the arguments were partisan, Republican, Democrat, left, right, liberal, conservative. That’s why I said tonight I’m for opportunity, responsibility and community. And we’ve gotten some real progress in the last four years. I’ve also done everything I could at every moment of division in this country, after Oklahoma City, when these churches were burned, to bring people together and remind people that we are stronger because of our diversity. We have to respect one another. You mentioned Washington and Lincoln. They were presidents at historic times. This is an historic time. It’s important we go beyond those old partisan arguments and focus on people and their future. When we do that, instead of shutting the government down over a partisan fight over the budget, we’re a better country and that’s why we’re making progress now.LEHRER: Senator.DOLE: Well, bringing people together, again, is obviously a responsibility we all have. I know you do it. Everybody here does it. You do a lot of things nobody knows about. I have a little foundation for the disabled called the Dole Foundation. We’ve raised about $10 million. We don’t talk about it. We try to help people with disabilities. Bring them back into the mainstream of public life. So it seems to me that there’s also a public trust. When you’re the president of the United States, you have a public trust and you have to keep that public trust, as George Washington, as Abraham Lincoln did. And I think now that trust is being violated and it seems to me we ought to face up to it, and the president ought to say tonight that he’s not going to pardon anybody that he was involved in business with who might implicate him later on.LEHRER: All right. The next question from this section right here. Right there in the middle, sir. Yes, sir.DR. BERKLEY: Dr. Robert N. Berkley. I’m a cardiologist from Fallbrook, California. Mr. President, I would like to know if you would please explain your plans for — in a substantive fashion for addressing the problems with the health care system in our country.CLINTON: I will. First of all, let me say what we have done. In the last four years we’ve worked hard to promote more competition to bring down the rate of inflation in health care costs without eroding health care quality. The government pays for Medicare and Medicaid, as you know, and that’s very important. Secondly, we’ve added a million more children to the ranks of the insured through the Medicaid program. We have protected 25 million people through the passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that says you can use your health insurance if you change jobs or someone in your family has been sick. We just recently ended those drive-by deliveries saying people can’t be kicked out of the hospital by insurance companies when they’ve just had babies. So this is, that’s a good start. In the next four years, I want to focus on the following things. Number one, add another million children to the insured ranks through the Medicaid program. Number two, keep working with the states, as we are now, to add 2.2 million more people to the insurance system. Number three, cover people who are between jobs for up to six months. That could protect 3 million families, 700,000 kids. Number four, make sure we protect the integrity with the Medicare program and Medicaid program and not do anything in cutting costs which would cause hundreds of hospitals to close which could have been the case if the 270billion dollar Medicare cut that I vetoed, had been enacted in the law.DOLE: Well, first, let me say there you go again, Mr. President, talking about a Medicare cut. I have heard you say this time after time. I have heard you say on one TV appearance, “the media made me do it.” You were trying to defend your cut which was not a cut either, Reduction in the growth of spending. We’ve always had at least 7 percent. You’ve said publicly that it’s now three times the rate of inflation. We ought to cut the growth to twice the rate of inflation. It’s about where we are now. So let’s stop talking about cutting Medicare. In my economic plan we increase it 39percent. Don’t forget what he tried to do with health care. 17 new taxes, spend 1.5 trillion dollars, 50 new bureaucracies. Can you believe that? You couldn’t even have been a cardiologist because he had quotas. You’re a cardiologist, it wouldn’t affect you. But if somebody wanted to be a cardiologist, ten years from now, you’d have to be certain you complied with some of the rules in this extreme medical plan the government was going to take over for all Americans. There are things we can do like the Kassebaum bill. We changed many provisions I authored, cover preexisting conditions, portability, and there are other things we can do. We still need to cover about 20million people and a lot of children.CLINTON: I don’t have time in 30 seconds to respond to fix all that. But let me just say the American Hospital Association said that the budget I vetoed could have closed 700 hospitals. Not me. On a per-person basis, it did cut way below the rate of inflation in medical costs. But the important thing is what are we going to do now? We need to help people who are between jobs. We need to cover more kids. Provide more preventative care. My balanced budget covers mammograms for ladies, women on Medicare and also gives respite care to the million-plus families who have someone with Alzheimer’s. These things are paid for in the balanced budget plan. It’ll move us forward.LEHRER: Next question is for Senator Dole from here. Yes, sir.MR. MILLIGAN: Senator Dole, my name is Jason Milligan, active duty military and small business owner, and my question is: What is your position on closing the gap between military and civilian pay scales?DOLE: Jason, I appreciate that very much, being a former military man myself. You know, we have 17,000 men and women today wearing our uniform that receive food stamps. It shouldn’t happen in America. We have men and women wearing our uniform in substandard housing. It shouldn’t happen in America. And it’s time we take a look at the pay scales. Did get a 3 percent increase this year, but that’s not enough. If we’re going to ask young men and young women to protect us and defend us around the world, and we’ve had more deployments under this administration than any time in history. Fifty times we deployed troops around the world. Every time you do that you take a risk. Somebody, you know, maybe your son, maybe your grandson, maybe somebody else. But I think anybody who wears a uniform is a great American. Remember Vietnam? Remember when people almost used to walk across the street rather than have a contact with somebody who was in Vietnam? That’s all behind us now, and it should be behind us, and the forgotten war, the Korean War, but I guess I can just answer you very plainly, Jason. Thank you for doing what you’re doing. America owes you a debt of gratitude.CLINTON: May I ask you a question? What service are you in?MR. MILLIGAN: I’m in the United States Navy, sir.CLINTON: And what kind of small business do you have?MR. MILLIGAN: I have an Amway business.CLINTON: Good for you. Let me say, if Senator Dole mentioned this, I just signed a bill that we got through Congress to increase the amount of pay increase we could give for military personnel and to make sure the pay increase this year was above the rate of inflation. I also presented to the Congress and they adopted a large package of quality-of-life improvements, which are very important. I spent a lot of time talking to military families as well as military members all over the world and in bases all across the United States, and I became convinced after talking to the families and the personnel in uniform that we needed to not only have the pay raise but we needed to invest more in child care, housing, and other things to support families, especially when there are longer deployments because of the downsizing of the military. So I, we’re going to do better, and we’ll do better still, but this is a commitment I think that all Americans share without regard to party.DOLE: I don’t disagree with anything that the President said, except he waited four years to do these things, and my view is it ought to be, it will be done on Day 1. We’ll start working on Day 1 in the Dole- Kemp administration. This is important. We only have ten divisions now. We used to have 18. We had 25 fighter wings. We’re down to 13. We had 536 ships. We’re down to 336 ships. I mean, we’ve cut defense spending too much in the first place. The President told you in ’92 he would cut it 67 billion. He cut 112 billion dollars, so we’re right on the edge right now. But the last thing we ought to do is make those who wear the uniforms sacrifice.LEHRER: Next question here for President Clinton. Yes, ma’am, here on the front row.MS. KELLY: President Clinton, my name is Cecily Kelly. Yesterday, Yassir Arafat said in Palestine that he thinks the key to success in the Middle East is the commitment of Americans. Would you as President send American troops to Israel or the West Bank as peacekeepers?CLINTON: Let me just take two seconds of my time because I’m the Commander-in-Chief to respond to one thing that was said. I propose to spend 1.6 trillion dollars on defense between now and the year 2002 and there’s less than 1 percent difference between my budget and the Republican budget on defense. Now, on the Middle East, as you know, I worked very hard for peace in the Middle East. The agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis was signed at the White House and the agreement — the peace treaty with Jordan, I was — I went to Jordan to sign that — to be there. But — and I think the United States can do whatever we reasonably can. I can say this: I do not believe Yassir Arafat wants us to send troops to the West Bank. We have never been asked to send troops to the West Bank. I saw the agreement that Prime Minister Rabin and Yassir Arafat signed on the West Bank. It had 26 separate maps they had to sign, literally thousands of delineations of who would do what on the West Bank, and I believe if the parties will get together and in a good-faith manner make that agreement, that they’ll be able to do it if we cannot impose a peace on the Middle East. My position has always been that the job of the United States was to minimize the risks of peace. You know, if they asked me to be part of some monitoring force — as we are in the Sinai and have been since 1978 — to monitor the peace between Egypt and Israel, frankly, I would have to think about it. I would have to see what they wanted to do, but I don’t believe that will be the request. I think what Mr. Arafat wants us to do is to make sure that everybody honors the agreements they’ve already made. That’s why I brought the leaders to Washington a few days ago. I think they will, and I think we’ll get there. Don’t be too discouraged.DOLE: Let me, Jason, come back to you a minute because there is a big difference in the defense budget. We had 7 billion this year and 10 billion more than the president. He puts his money in the outyears, and even if he were re-elected, he’d be gone before anything would happen, and nothing is going to happen. We don’t have modernization now. If we don’t build more B-2 bombers in California and we lost about 500,000 jobs out in California, because of this devastation, these big, big cuts. We had to make cuts. We didn’t have the cuts the president promised he’d make and then he doubled. I think we need to go back and take a look. We’re increasing defense reasonably — not too much, but we are increasing defense some — because we want to be prepared in case somebody here gets called up, Jason. I would say I didn’t hear what Yassir Arafat had to say, but I don’t want to — you know, I think foreign policy, I want to be very careful about, and I’m not here to argue about the President with some ongoing foreign policy matter. What I want the President to do, and I think he may have done it, his last statement, call for an unconditional end of the violence and have the parties keep on talking as they should talk and have a resolution. The last thing we want to do is commit more forces anywhere. But let’s sort of keep this out of politics because it’s pretty dicey right now.CLINTON: When the change of government occurred in Israel, the people of Israel were saying we don’t want to abandon the peace process. We want more security. Then a lot of mutual distrust developed. A lot of things happened which maybe shouldn’t have happened. When I asked Yassir Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to Washington and got them together and they talked alone for three hours, I was convinced that they had to have a chance to make that peace. Again, I’d say if they asked us to play some reasonable role, I don’t know how I would respond. It would depend entirely on what they asked us to do, but the real secret there is for them to abide by the agreements they’ve made and find a way to trust each other, and they’re going to have to spend some time and trust each other. Prime Minister Rabin gave his life believing that that trust could be materialized, and I still think it can be.LEHRER: Alright, next question from this section and it is for Senator Dole. Back in the back. Yes, sir, right there. Yes sir.MR. DELGADO: Senator Dole, Oscar Delgado.LEHRER: Oscar.MR. DELGADO: Exsmoker for 30 years. About 30 years ago I was a pack-plus a day man. Okay? You mentioned a statement — you said some time ago that you didn’t think nicotine was addictive. Would you care to — are you still holding to that statement, or do you wish to recant or explain yourself?DOLE: Oh, that’s very easy. My record going back to 1965 in the Congress, the first vote we had was whether or not you should put a little notice on cigarettes. They may be danger — I voted I for everything since that time. In fact, 1992 we had a bill come before us that all the states had to comply or they’re going to lose certain money. We sent it to the Clinton Administration for implementation, and they waited three and a half years. And during that period about 3,000 young kids every day started smoking. So you add it up. That’s about three million. Not until again in 1996 — I don’t want anybody to smoke. My brother probably died partly because of cigarettes. I was asked a technical question. Are they addictive? Maybe they — they probably are addictive. I don’t know. I’m not a doctor. You shouldn’t smoke. You ought to be glad you quit, Oscar, 30 years. And it seems to me what we need to do is to talk about not only tobacco but drugs, because drug use between 12- and 17-year-olds has doubled in this administration in the last 44 months. Marijuana use is up 141percent. Cocaine use up 160 percent. They’re your kids. It’s all happening in this administration because they cut funding and they cut interdiction. When I’m President of the United States, we’re going to use the National Guard and whatever sources we need to stop some of the drugs coming into America. If you stop the drugs, nobody is going to use the drugs; so don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t use drugs. Just don’t do it.CLINTON: Oscar, the question of what the federal government should do to limit the access of tobacco to young people is one of the biggest differences between Senator Dole and me. We did propose a regulation six months after I became President under the law he mentioned. It simply says all these states — it made it illegal for kids to smoke. Now they have to try harder if they want to keep getting federal funds. Then we took comments, as we always do, and there were tens of thousands of comments as to how we ought to do it. That’s what drug it out. Meanwhile, we started the — also in ’93 to look into whether cigarettes were addictive enough for the Federal Food and Drug Administration to ban the ability of cigarette companies to advertise, market and distribute their products to our kids. No president had ever taken on the tobacco lobby before. I did. Senator Dole opposed me. He went down and made a speech to people who were on his side saying that I did the wrong thing. I think I did the right thing. On drugs, I have repeatedly said drugs are wrong and illegal and can kill you. We have strengthened enforcement, and everybody in San Diego knows we strengthened control of the border. We have done a lot more, and I hope we get a chance to talk about it.DOLE: Well, they also know if they live in San Diego, Mr. President, if you’re caught with 125 pounds of marijuana or less, you go back to Mexico. You’re not prosecuted. You have a U.S. attorney here that sends `em back home, so I think that’s pretty important. That’s a lot of marijuana. That’s a big supply. But don’t get into this smoke screen here Oscar. The President in the election year decided I ought to do something, I haven’t done anything on drugs. I’ve been AWOL for 44 months, so let’s take on smoking, see they haven’t even done it. They haven’t said what’s going to happen, whether they’re going to have it declared addictive. Once it’s a drug, does it apply only to teenagers or everybody in America? Nobody should smoke, young or old, but particularly young people should not smoke, but my record is there. It’s been there. I’ve voted eight, ten times since 1965.LEHRER: Next question is for President Clinton. It comes from right here. Yes, sir.MR. FLECK: President Clinton, my name is Jack Fleck. I’m retired Air Force pilot. Sir, it’s officially forecast that our annual Medicare and Social Security deficits are measured in the trillions of dollars next century. Depending on who you listen to, Social Security will be bankrupted in either 2025 or 2030. I feel this is grossly unfair, especially to our younger generation who are losing faith in the system. My question is this: Assuming you agree that our entitlement programs are on an unsustainable course, what specific reforms do you propose?CLINTON: First of all, there are two different things. Social Security and Medicare are entirely different in terms of the financial stabilities. Let’s talk about them separately. Social Security is stable until, as you pointed out, at least the third decade of the next century. But we’d like to have a Social Security fund that has about 70 years of life instead of about 30 years of life. What we have to do is simply to make some adjustments to take account of the fact that the baby boomers, people like me, are bigger in number than the people that went just before us and the people that come just after us. And I think what we’ll plainly do is what we did in 1983 when Senator Dole served, and this is something I think he did a good job on when he served on the Social Security commission and they made some modest changes in Social Security to make sure that it would be alive and well into the 21st century. And we will do that. It’s obvious that there are certain things that have to be done and there are 50 or 60 different options, and a bipartisan commission to take it out of politics, will make recommendations and build support for the people. Medicare is different. Medicare needs help now. I have proposed a budget which would put ten years on the life of the Medicare trust fund. That’s more than it’s had a lot of the time in the last years. It would save a lot of money through more managed care, by giving more options, more preventative care and lowering the inflation rate and the prices we’re paying providers without having the kind of big premium increases and out-of-pocket costs that the budget I vetoed would provide. Then that would give us ten years to do with Medicare what we’re going to do with Social Security; have a bipartisan group look at what we have to do to save it when the baby boomers retire. But now we can, we ought to pass this budget now and put ten years on it right away so no one has to worry about it.DOLE: Well again, if you’re somebody thinking about the future, I think it’s fair to say that it’ll be — we’ll work it out. This is a political year, and the President is playing politics with Medicare. After this year is over, we’ll resolve it just as we did with Social Security in `83. It’s a nonpartisan commission. Ronald Reagan got together with Tip O’Neill and Howard Baker, two Republicans and one Democrat. They appointed a commission I was on that commission. We resolved, we rescued Social Security. We suggested — I think it has been over a year ago now — we do the same with Medicare, and the White House called it a gimmick. Now last week I guess it was Donna Shalala said well we’ll cut Medicare a hundred billion and appoint a commission. It will probably have to be done by a commission. Take it out of politics. I think if I were a senior citizen I would be a little fed up with all these ads scaring seniors, scaring veterans and scaring students about education. When you don’t have any ideas, you don’t have any agenda, and all you have is fear, that’s all you can use. We have ideas in the Dole-Kemp campaign and we will rescue Medicare as we did Social Security.CLINTON: Their idea was to have the poorest seniors in the country pay $270 more this year. Their idea was a budget that the that the American Hospital Association said could close 700 hospitals. Their idea was to charge everybody more out-of-pocket costs in their budget that I vetoed. Not in an election year, sir. I told them in early ’95. Senator Dole said 30 years ago he was one of 12 people who voted against Medicare and he was proud of it. A year ago he said, “I was right then. I knew it wouldn’t work.” American seniors have the highest life expectancy in the world. We need to reform it. Not wreck it.LEHRER: Next question from here for Senator Dole. Yes, ma’am. Right here. Yes.MS. GONZALEZ: Senator Dole my name is Susan Gonzalez. And I would like to know what you are — what would be your first step in reforming welfare?DOLE: Well, we’ve taken the first step. Took it three steps, twice we sent welfare reform to the president and he vetoed it. On the third time we sent welfare reform to the president he signed it but announced he would change it next year, and the vice president said they were going to do something else through the line item veto which I’ve never understood, but that’s sort of inside baseball. What we need to do is make certain we try to return people to work. And I’m standing here as someone who, a long time ago as the county attorney in Russell, Kansas, one of our jobs every month was go through all the welfare checks and sign them. And three of those checks were my grandparents’. So I know what it’s like to have to look welfare head-on. Obviously some people are going to need help. This is the United States of America. You’re not going to go without food and you’re not going to go without medical care. This is America. But at the same time, if you want to get off Medicare, get back in the mainstream, we’re going to provide jobs. We’re going to say you have a five-year limit. You can be on welfare. You got two years to look for a job. We provided more money for daycare in the bill that passed the senate, was vetoed, then it came back and the president signed pretty much the same bill. But this is an important issue. I don’t think we ought to be giving welfare payments to illegal immigrants. It puts a heavy burden on a state like — except for emergencies. It puts a heavy burden on a states like California. It costs California taxpayers 3 billion dollars a year.LEHRER: President Clinton.DOLE: Let me get out of your way here.CLINTON: It’s illegal right now and has been for years for illegal immigrants to get welfare benefits. Let me say that this is one of the most important issues in the world to me. I started working on welfare reform in 1980 because I was sick of seeing people trapped in a system that was increasingly isolating them and making their kids more vulnerable to get in trouble. So I’ve been working on it when I was a governor for a long time. When I became president I used the authority I had in this law to get out from certain federal rules to help states move people to work. We reduced the welfare rolls by 2 million already. Now, I’ve got a plan with this new welfare reform law to work with the private sector, to give employees specific tax incentives to hire people off welfare, and to do some other things which will create more jobs in the private sector, at least a million, and move more people from welfare to work. It’s very important. And I hope we get a chance to talk about this more. There’s not a more important issue. I, I still remember a woman that I met ten years ago who said she wanted to get off welfare so her kids could tell, give an answer when they say, “What does your mother do for a job?” I met that woman again. She’s got four kids. One’s got a good job, one’s studying to be a doctor. One’s in technical school, one’s an honor student in high school. I want to make more people like that woman, Lily Harden, so I’ve got a plan to do it, and it’s just beginning.DOLE: Well another thing we can do. We talk about growth. We’ve got a great economic package which I hope we will discuss later. Across-the-board tax cut. Child credits. $500 per child under 18. Reduce the capital gains rate. Create more jobs and opportunities for people on and off welfare. We have other provisions. Less litigation. The trial lawyers, big supporters of the president. The trial lawyers, of course they like lawsuits, so every time they have a bill that they want vetoed, the president vetoes it for them. We’ve got to understand in America that we’ve got to have growth, create more jobs and more opportunities in the private sector. The president takes credit for all these people off welfare. The governors did that. Federal government doesn’t do that. And the government doesn’t create jobs. They’re created in the private sector.LEHRER: This section, question? Yes ma’am. On the back row. This is for the president.MS. JOHNSON: Mr. President. My name is Pamela Johnson and I’m a landlord. My question is, does your party have any future plans to reduce the capital gains tax, especially for retired Americans?CLINTON: First of all, we have a big plan to reduce the capital gains tax when people sell their homes. Part of my tax package which is paid for in my balanced budget plan would exempt up to half a million dollars in gains from people when they sell their homes, which I think is the biggest capital gains benefit we could give to most ordinary Americans. We also have capital gains now for people that invest in new small businesses and hold the investment for five years. It was part of our other economic plan. And these are things I think that will go a long way toward helping America build a stronger economy and a better tax system. I think the most important thing to emphasize, though, is that we also have to help people in other ways to build a strong economy and we can’t have any tax cut that’s not paid for. One of the big differences between Senator Dole and myself is that I told you how I’m going to pay for every penny of the tax cuts I recommend and we’ve worked hard to bring this deficit down and that’s helped people in the real estate business because the interest rates are lower. We’ve got home ownership at a 15-year high. We’ve got this country going in the right direction. So we can have a tax cut but my priority would be to help the families who need it with child rearing and education and buying a first-time home and helping for health care costs. So from your business, helping in buying a first-time home, exempting the capital gains on the sale of the home would be the most important things that you asked about. Thank you, Pamela.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Pam, what the president didn’t tell you is all his tax cuts expire the year 2000, but these increases go on forever. That’s the liberal approach. You know, give you a little tax cut, give you a couple of years, then make the tax increases go on forever. So the net tax increase in his plan’s somewhere between 60 and 80 billion dollars. We have in the Dole-Kemp economic plan, unless unless your home’s worth over 500,000 dollars. And if it is, I appreciate it congratulate you. But in any event, no tax. It’s a good idea, they saw it, they picked it up and put it in theirs, but it’s only temporary. Ours are permanent, ours is a good plan. Create jobs and opportunities. Capital gains rate, cut it in half, cut it 28 percent to 14 percent. There are 7 trillion dollars in assets locked up in America. If we cut the capital gains rate, I’m told everyday, I had a letter from a former constituent in Kansas saying I want to sell property in California, put it in my business in Kansas, I can’t, because the capital gains rate’s too high. We need to get the economy going. That’ll help social security. That’ll create more jobs. That’ll help people who want to get off welfare. It’s the American way.CLINTON: Before Senator Dole left the Senate, he and Mr. Gingrich also were recommending that we pass these tax cuts only insofar as we could pay for them. We all assume that the tax cuts will be permanent. But we have to prove we can pay for them. After he left the senate, we abandoned that. That’s why most experts say that this tax scheme will blow a huge hole in the deficit, raise interest rates and weaken the economy and that will take away all the benefits of the tax cut with a weaker economy. That’s why we have to balance the budget, and I will tell you how I’m going to pay for anything I promise you, line by line. You should expect that from both of us.LEHRER: All right. The next question is for Senator Dole. Yes, ma’am. Right there.MS. NAUDIN: My name is Melissa Naudin. I’m a third-year student at UC, San Diego. I just want to say it’s a great honor representing the voices of America. My voice, my question is concerning you, Mr. Dole. All the controversy regarding your age. How do you feel you can respond to young voices of America today and tomorrow?DOLE: Well, I think age is very — you know, wisdom comes from age, experience and intelligence. And if you have some of each — and I have some age, some experience and some intelligence — that adds up to wisdom. I think it also is a strength. It’s an advantage. And I have a lot of young people work in my office, work in my campaign. This is about America. This is about, somebody said earlier, one of the first questions, we’re together. It’s one America, one nation. I’m looking at our economic plan because I’m concerned about the future for young people. I’m looking about drugs. The president has been AWOL for four years. I’m looking about crime. He’ll claim credit now for crime going down, but it happens because mayors and governors and others have brought crime down. Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York, brought crime down 25 percent just in New York City. Of course the president will take credit for that. My view is we want to find jobs and opportunities and education. This year the Republican Congress, as far as student loans went from 24 billion to 36 billion over the next six years. A 50 percent increase. The highest appropriation. 6 billion dollars for Pell Grants, very, very important. We also raised the amount of each Pell Grant. In our economic plan, the $500 child credit can be used for young people, rolled over and over and over, you, of course not this age, but if you have a child two years old, 7 percent interest would be worth about $18,000 by the time that child was ready for college.CLINTON: I can only tell you that I don’t think Senator Dole is too old to be president. It’s the age of his ideas that I question. You’re almost not old enough to remember this. But we tried this before, promising people an election year tax cut that’s not paid for.DOLE: You tried it last time you ran.CLINTON: Tell him you can have everything you got. And so let me just say this. Did you hear him say that Congress just voted to increase student loans and scholarships? They did after he left. The last budget he led cut Pell Grants, cut student loans. I vetoed it when they shut the government down. My plan would give students a dollar-for-dollar reduction for the cost of a typical community college tuition. A $10,000 deduction a year for the cost of college tuition. We let families save in an IRA, withdraw tax free to pay for the cost of education and it’s all paid for. My whole administration is about your future. It’s about what the 21st century is going to be like for you. I hope you will look at the ideas in it. Thank you.DOLE: When you don’t have any ideas, I guess you say the other person’s ideas are old. As I said earlier, they don’t have any ideas. Their ideas is to raise taxes and spend more money. That’s the liberal philosophy. That’s what you like, you’ve got a perfect candidate. President Clinton came to California in 1992. He said the centerpiece in my first four years is going to be a middle class tax cut. Now all you got that tax cut, congratulations. Because you got a big tax increase. You got a 265 billion dollar tax increase. And he stands here and says politicians who make promises like that ought to be ignored. Well he made the promise. I keep my word, and you will have a tax cut. It will help you in whatever you’re going to do in the next few years. Thank you.LEHRER: Next question is for President Clinton and it’s from — yes, ma’am. Yes.MS. SANDERS: Hello. My name is Tressia Sanders. And my question is, do you feel that America has grown enough and has educated itself enough to totally cut out Affirmative Action?CLINTON: No, ma’am, I don’t. I am against quotas. I’m against giving anybody any kind of preference for something they’re not qualified for. But because I still believe that there is some discrimination and that not everybody has an opportunity to prove they’re qualified, I favor the right kind of Affirmative Action. I’ve done more to eliminate Affirmative Action programs I didn’t think were fair and tighten others up than my predecessors have, since affirmative action’s been around. But I have also worked hard to give people a chance to prove that they are qualified. Let me just give you some examples. We’ve doubled the number of loans from the small business administration, tripled the number of loans to women business people, no one unqualified, everybody had to meet the standards. We’ve opened 260,000 new jobs in the military to women since I’ve been president. But the joint chiefs say we’re stronger and more confident and solid than ever. Let me give you another example of what I mean. To me, Affirmative Action is making that extra effort. It’s sort of like what Senator Dole did when he sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act and said to certain stores, okay, you have to make it accessible to people in wheelchairs. We weren’t guaranteeing anything, anybody anything except the chance to prove they were qualified, the chance to prove that they could do it. And that’s why I must say I agree with General Colin Powell that we’re not there yet. We ought to keep making those extra effort Affirmative Action programs, the law and the policy of the land.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, we may not be there yet but we’re not going to get there by giving preferences and quotas. I supported that route for some time and again I think it gets back to experience. A little experience, a little age, a little intelligence. And I noted that nobody was really benefitting except a very small group at the top. The average person wasn’t benefitting. People who had the money were benefiting. People who got all the jobs were benefiting. It seems to me that we ought to support the California civil rights initiative. It ought to be not based on gender or ethnicity or color. Or disability. I’m disabled. I shouldn’t have a preference. I would like to have one in this race, come to think of it, but I don’t get one. Maybe we can work that out. I get a 10-point spot. This is America. No discrimination. Discrimination ought to be punished but there ought to be equal opportunity. We ought to reach out, make certain everybody has a chance to participate. Equal opportunity. But we cannot guarantee equal results in America. That’s not how America became the greatest country on the face of the earth.CLINTON: I have never supported quotas. I’ve always been against them. I don’t favor equal results, but I do favor making sure everybody has a chance to prove they’re competent. The reason I have opposed that initiative is because I’m afraid it will end those extra effort programs. Again I say, think of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Make an effort to put a ramp up there so someone in a wheelchair can get up. You don’t guarantee they get the job. You guarantee they have a chance to prove they’re competent. And as I said, this is not a partisan thing with me. General Colin Powell said the same thing, he fears the initiative would take away the extra effort programs. No preferences to unqualified people, no quotas, but don’t give up on making an extra effort until you’re sure everybody has a chance to prove they’re qualified.LEHRER: All right. The next question is for Senator Dole and it comes from this section right here. The back row there in the blue shirt Yes sir..MR. DAVID: My name’s Tim David. I’m a mechanical engineer. Senator Dole, how do you reduce taxes and balance the budget?DOLE: Well I’m glad you asked. What’s your first name?MR. DAVID: Tim.DOLE: I first want to say the President didn’t quite give you all of the stuff on the quotas, because the Justice Department had what we called the Piscataway case up in New Jersey. It’s pretty clear that was a quota case, and just because one teacher was white and one black and they had the same qualifications, you know they decided who would stay there. It shouldn’t be that way. Now, the President can say well he wants to mend it, not end it. There are 168 federal programs that allow quotas. He ended one. Now, this economic package, Tim, I’m glad you asked, because you look like the type that might be able to benefit from a 15 percent across- the-board tax cut and $500-per-child tax credit, or — you know, estate tax relief which you’re not interested in right now, but capital gains rate reduction. If you’re taking care of an elderly parent, you get a $1,000 deduction. We think that’s very important because a lot of people take care of their parents. How do we pay for it? You can have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which the President opposed and defeated. He twisted arms and got six Democrats to vote with him and lost by one vote. We’re going to balance the budget, by the year 2002. The President wants to spend 20 percent more in the next six years, and I want to spend 14 percent more and give that 6 percent back to the people. Remember, it’s your money; it’s not his money. And it’s not my money. It’s your money. And you shouldn’t have to apologize for wanting to keep all you can of it. But he ought to apologize for wanting to take more and more. He wants to give you sort of a government tax cut, which really doesn’t mean anything.CLINTON: You know, one of the responsibilities of growing older, it seems to me, is being able to tell people something they may not want to hear just because it’s true. When they had a 250 billion dollar tax scheme, that is half the size of this one. This one is 550. They passed the budget. They have 270 billion dollars in Medicare cuts the first education cuts in history, cut environmental enforcement by 25 percent, took away the guarantee of quality standards in nursing homes, took away the guarantee of health care for folks with disabilities. Don’t take my word for this. The Economist magazine polled lots of economists, seven Nobel prize winners who said if this tax scheme passes, it will require huge cuts, 40 percent, in the environment and law enforcement and education. It will require bigger cuts in Medicare than I vetoed last time. My targeted tax cut is for child-rearing, buying a first-time home, paying for health care costs. And it’s paid for, and I’ll tell you how I’ll pay for it. He won’t tell you because he can’t.DOLE: Your targeted tax cut, Mr. President, never hits anybody. That’s the problem with it. Nobody ever gets it. But I must say I’m a little offended by this word “scheme.” You talked about it last time, you talked about a risky scheme and Vice President Gore repeated it about ten times in St. Petersburg. If I have anything in politics, it’s my word. My colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will tell you that Bob Dole kept his word. I’m going to keep my word to you. I’m going to keep my word to the American people. We’re going to tax — cut taxes and balance the budget. We’re not going to touch Medicare. It’s going to grow 39 percent, and Social Security is going to grow 34 percent. The President doesn’t have any ideas so he’s out trashing ours. This isn’t going to blow a hole in the deficit. He promised you a tax cut in 1992, and if you got one, you ought to vote for him.LEHRER: The next question is for the President. Yes sir right there.MR. BURNS: My name is Duane Burns. I’m a martial arts instructor and a father. Mr. President, could you outline any plans you have to expand the Family Leave Act?CLINTON: Thank you, well, first let me say that I signed the Family Leave Act. It was my very first bill, and I’m very proud of it because it symbolizes what I think we ought to be doing. I don’t take credit for all the good things that have happened in America, but I take credit for what I’ve tried to do to work with others to make good things happen. Most important good things that happen in America happen in families. Just about every family I know, the main concern is how am I going to succeed at work and still do right by my children. Family medical leave has let 12 million families take a little time off for the birth of a child or a family illness without losing their job. I’d like to see it expanded in two ways. I’d like to say you can also take a little time off without losing your job to go to a regular parent-teacher conference or to go to a regular doctor’s appointment with a family member. I’d also like to see the overtime laws change so that we could have some more flex time so that at the discretion of the worker, the worker, if you earn overtime, you could decide when you want that time to be taken, in cash or in time with your family if you’ve got a family problem. I never go anywhere, it seems like, where I don’t meet somebody who has benefited from a Family Leave Law. In Longview, Texas the other day, I met a woman who was almost in tears because she had been able to keep her job while spending time with her husband who had cancer. One of the people who’s here with me today met a woman in the airport saying her son, Jess was able to be present at the birth of her child because of the Family Leave Law. So yes, I think it should be expanded. We have to help people succeed at home and at work.DOLE: Well, 88 percent of the people — the President claims 11 million are already covered and only 5 percent — keep in mind only 5 percent of the employers are affected by the Family Leave Act. We had a better idea. We didn’t win. We had a better idea. Now we have a majority and we get a president. That was a tax credit for the employer. Instead of the federal government, we had that tax credit, pick up some of the costs, because if you have to hire a replacement worker, that’s a cost. This is the way it ought to work, give more power back to the states and back to the people back to the taxpayers, not always the long arm of the federal government. But keep in mind this bill covers 5 percent of the employers, and 95 percent of the employers and all those employees they employ are not covered in this act. And according to Investors Daily, which I read just a couple of days ago, 88 percent of the people he claims credit for are already covered in collective bargaining agreements or other agreements. We had family leave in our office, I’m certain. I see my friend Senator Mitchell. He had family leave. I work every day with people. I spend a lot of time in hospitals. I know what it’s like to be in a hospital. Sure we want family leave. But there’s a better way to do it.CLINTON: I only have 30 seconds. I can’t fix the statistics. It covers the majority of the work force. Employers of under 50 are exempted. The bill originally covered employers of 25 and more, but because of opposition, we went up to 50. Senator Dole led the opposition to it. He filibustered it. He said it was a mistake. He said it would hurt the economy. We’ve had record numbers of new small businesses and 10 and a half million jobs. It didn’t hurt the economy. He still believes it’s a mistake. I believe it’s right. You can decide which of us you think are right. It’s up to you.LEHRER: Next question for Senator Dole. Yes, ma’am.MS. GIANNOTTI: Hi. My name is Bridget Giannotti, and I’m a wife and mother of two sons, from Carlsbad. And my question to you, Senator Dole, is as the wife of a San Diego business owner, I see one of our biggest problems in the U.S. is it does not manufacture enough of our own products. How would you help this problem out?DOLE: Well, right. We’ve lost 357,000 manufacturing jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics today said they made a mistake. It’s probably going to take a much, much higher figure. So we talk about all these new jobs. We’d better wait and see what the results are. We’re going to do that with a more aggressive trade policy. We’re going to do that with an economic package. We’re going to do that with regulatory reform. You know, regulations cost the average family right here, Democrat or Republican, about $7,000 a year. 7,000. That’s like a tax. It’s put a lot of people out of business. I met a lady in Colorado Springs about seven weeks ago now. She had a small business with 63 employees. She finally gave it up. Why? Because of paperwork and regulation. Congress passed a paperwork reduction act. The President exempts the IRS which creates three-fourths of the paperwork. We’re going to have regulatory — we’re gonna have litigation reform. You know, I fell off a platform out in California, Chico, a while back. Before I hit the ground, my cell phone rang and this trial lawyer said, I think we’ve got a case here. (Laughter). We’ve got to stop some of these frivolous lawsuits. They’re putting people out of business, men and women. Get the economy going, cut the capital gains rate, create more jobs and opportunities for everybody in America. That’s what we will do. And my word is good. I keep my promises. I don’t break my promises after the election, and I don’t make new promises in an election year. We’re going to get it done. We’re going to grow some of these jobs in America, because we need to get it — they’re going the wrong way.CLINTON: Let’s look at the facts. We lost a lot of manufacturing jobs in the 12 years before I became President. We’ve gained manufacturing jobs since I’ve been President. We’ve negotiated over 200 separate trade agreements. Let’s just take California. In California, we made 37 billion dollars’ worth of telecommunications equipment eligible for export for the first time. We’re selling everything from from — from telephones to CDs to rice in Japan. We’re selling American automobiles in Japan now. I visited a Chrysler dealership in Japan. We’re No.1 in automobile manufacturing production and sales around the world again, the first time since 1970s. Why? Because we’ve had tough aggressive trade policies, and because we’ve got interest rates down. We have a good, stable economic policy. Because we reduced the deficit four years in a row. For the first time in the 20th century the President has done that in all four years and that’s why I don’t want to see us blow a big hole in the deficit with a tax program we can’t pay for, so your interest rates will go up, and you’ll have to pay back in higher interest rates what you allegedly will get in a tax cut, so I say keep working on expanding the markets. More than half of these 10 and a half million new jobs are in higher wage areas and we’ll have more manufacturing and sales around the world.DOLE: You may think the biggest employer in America is General Motors, but I’ve got news for you. It’s Manpower Services. Hiring people temporarily who have lost their jobs and they get to work for 30 days or 60 days. That’s a good economy? I don’t think so. They’re setting new records this year. We had the worst economy in a century. We had the slowest growth, about 2.5 percent. The president inherited growth of over 5 percent. We don’t have the S&L crisis anymore. Republicans have cut 53 billion dollars in spending, that’s why the budget looked good. It didn’t look good the first two years when we had a Democratic president and  Democratic Congress.LEHRER: Next question is for President Clinton. Yes, sir.MR. GOLDFARB: I’m Bob Goldfarb. I’m a travel agent and can you please explain your policy on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act that would have prohibited discrimination, would have prohibited people from being fired from their jobs simply for being gay or lesbian.CLINTON: I’m for it. That’s my policy. I’m for it. I believe that any law- abiding, tax-paying citizen who shows up in the morning and doesn’t break the law and doesn’t interfere with his or her neighbors ought to have the ability to work in our country and shouldn’t be subject to unfair discrimination. I’m for it. Now, I have a little time left so let me just say that I get attacked so many times on these questions; it’s hard to answer these things. Senator Dole just said we had the worst economy in the century. In February he said we had the best economy in  30 years, just February. And I don’t want to respond in kind to all these things. I could. I could answer a lot of these things tit for tat. But I hope we can talk about what we’re going to do in the future. No attack ever created a job or educated a child, or helped a family make ends meet. No insult ever cleaned up a toxic waste dump or helped an elderly person. Now, for four years that’s what I worked on. If you give me four years more I will work on it some more and I will try to answer these charges, but I prefer to emphasize direct answers to the future and I gave you a direct answer.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, I’m opposed to discrimination in any form but I don’t favor creating special rights for any group. That would be my answer to this question. And I’m, you know — there would be special rights for different groups in America. But I’m totally opposed to discrimination. I don’t have any policy against hiring anyone; whether it’s lifestyle or whatever, we don’t have any policy of that kind, never have had in my office or will we have in the future. But as far as special rights, I’m opposed to same-sex marriages, which the President signed well after midnight one morning in the dark of night. I opposed it. But I will get back to the economic package because, again, I think this is very important. If there’s anything that’s going to change America it’s get the economy growing. The President inherited a good economy, sure the S&L crisis then were selling assets. Got a Republican Congress cutting spending finally and he said it’s the best four years ever. That’s not true. We had a 1.2 million bankruptcy, set a new record. Credit card debt has never been higher. I just told you about this manufacturing job loss which is going to increase. We need a good strong economic package, let the private sector creates the jobs and they can do it.CLINTON: If you believe that the California economy was better in 1992 than it is today, you should vote for Bob Dole. I have worked so hard out here to help turn this economy around. Let me just give you one tiny example. In San Diego where we had some defense cutbacks, we funded a project for the University of California San Diego to use airplane composite materials to build lighter, stronger bridges, a little project in a program that Senator Dole opposed. And that composite now is going to be built around the bridges on the Santa Monica Freeway to help minimize the impact of earthquakes and create more jobs. That’s just one tiny example. Maybe we will talk about some more before it’s over.LEHRER: Next question’s for Senator Dole this section. Yes, ma’am. Yes.MS. STRATEGOS: Senator Dole, I am Bertha Strategos, and I work in health care and it’s truly an honor to be here tonight to address both of you.DOLE: Thank you.MS. STRATEGOS: Being in health care — we have talked about a little bit about health care tonight, but mainly Medi-Cal and Medicare have been mentioned, but the private sector is a problem. Managed care is taking over, especially in California. And because of that, the quality of care is going downhill. There are many, many people who cannot get the tests that they need when they need them, and because of that, they are dying needlessly. There are many, many more lawsuits being presented against the managed care industry because of this. And I think it’s a real problem that needs to be addressed. What would you do if you were president?DOLE: Well, one thing I did was oppose the government takeover health care that President Clinton offered in 1993, which created 17 new taxes and 50 new bureaucracies and price controls, because we were afraid the very thing you mentioned would have happened. Everybody would have been forced into managed care. You couldn’t have chosen your own doctor and that would have been the end. And I think right now we got to go back. I know they’ve appointed a commission to take a look at managed care. Maybe that’s part of the answer. But it seems to me if we start to take choices away from people and if we drive them into one type care, eliminate fee-for-service altogether or eliminate the fact you can go to your own doctor, you have to go somewhere else, then I think we’ve taken a giant step backward in the United States of America. We have the best health care delivery system in the world and we want to keep it that way. That’s why we opposed the government take over health care plan that President Clinton tried and tried and tried to get through Congress. Didn’t get it done. And ended up we had more votes than he had, then they decided to pull the plug. It was a big, big mistake. Now whether or not he’ll do that again I’ve heard some of the people say, well, that’s the model we ought to use and if he’s reelected maybe he will come back and try it again. I hope not. I hope not in both cases. But it does seem to me that you’ve raised a very important point that needs to be addressed. You’re going to have to watch it. Gonna have to take a look at all the managed care going on in California, or we’re going to end up losing our best care that we have in the world.CLINTON: I’m just curious. How many of you are under managed care plans? Raise your hand if you’re in managed care plan. How many of you like it?DOLE: Two.CLINTON: Well, one of the things that I tried to do was to make sure that everybody in the country who was under a managed care plan should at least have three choices of plans, and would have the right to get out without penalty every year. Now that’s not a government takeover. That’s like the family of medical-leave law; it just tries to set the rules of the game. I’m strongly in favor of a federal bill to repeal any gag rules on providers. In other words, I believe that doctors should not be able to be kicked out of managed care plans just because they tell the patients what they need and what more expensive care options might be. If we’re saving money and managing resources better, that’s a good thing. If we’re saving money and depriving people of care, that’s a bad thing. A good place to start is to say no managed care provider can gag a doctor and kick the doctor out of the managed care plan for the doctor, telling the patient, you need a more expensive test, you need a more expensive procedure, your health requires it.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, I don’t have any quarrel with that. I think that would help. But I think what we want to avoid is falling back into this nationalized health care system that President Clinton wanted to give us in 1993. If that isn’t a liberal idea, I’ve never heard one. 17 new taxes, price controls, 50 new bureaucracies. We’d have that trouble all over America. We need to deal with managed care. It not only happened in California. It’s happening in other states that we visit, too. It’s a national problem. Not just a state problem.LEHRER: The next question is for President Clinton in this section. Yes, ma’am. Yes.MS. O’CONNOR: I would sort of like — Colleen O’Connor. I teach history and political science in San Diego Mesa College right up the road here. And I would like to tee off from the original question by another teacher and speak for those people that aren’t here tonight. 63 percent of the American people are not participating that are eligible to vote, not even participating in the process. Several parties can’t even get in the debate; the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party, all of these people are basically opted out of what we’re still participating in. If we in fact are going to bring the country back together and be all faces around the table, the new American family, what do you see as something the president can do to begin that process to bring them back in?CLINTON: First of all, I think it’s important to make voting more accessible. That’s why I strongly supported the Motor Voter law. There was a big story I think in U.S.A. Today of the millions of people who have now registered because of it. Secondly, I think we need to look at making the elections more accessible. You know several states now are letting people vote over three weeks. A lot of people are busy and it’s hard for them to just get there and vote. Third thing I think we need is more forums like this, which is one of the reasons I have so strongly supported campaign finance reform. Because if you want to cut the cost of campaigns, you have to open the airways, because what drives the cost of campaigns are the cost of advertising on television, radio, newspaper, mass mailing. And if you open the airways to more things like this, you see it’s not just you that are participating here. For every one of you who stood up here and asked a question tonight, I promise you there’s a 100,000 Americans who said I wish I could have asked that question. So I think we have to change the nature of politics. The last thing I think we should do is something I have been trying to do since I have been president, is every time I do something in a public way, I try to have a real American citizen there who is directly affected by it so that people can see the connection of what happens way across the country, in Washington with more police on the street, in San Diego, clean up the sewage here in San Diego, doubling the border guards here in Southern California, that there is a connection between what we do way back there and what we do here. Those are my best ideas about it.DOLE: Well, I don’t know of any perfect solution. I have been in politics for some time, and I worry about the people who don’t vote. And I wonder if it’s our fault, the candidates’ fault. People say, “I don’t care. One vote doesn’t make a difference.” I can give you hundreds of — you can probably give me 200 cases where one vote made a difference. I know it made a lot of difference many times in the Congress. Campaign finance might help. It might help the contributions from coming in from Indonesia or other foreign countries, rich people in those countries, and then being sent back after the L.A. Times discovers it, $250,000. But maybe there ought to be more debates. I would be willing to have another debate this year. We can invite all the candidates. And talk about the economy. If we don’t get the economy to grow, if we don’t cut taxes, and give people child credits, and cut the capital gains rate, and get this economy growing, we’re going to limp into the next century. If we grow the economy it’s going to help Social Security. It’s going to help jobs. It’s going to help everything.CLINTON: Let me make one other suggestion, because you’re a teacher, you can have an impact on that. One of the things I think that really frustrates people is that so often political campaigns seem to be more about the politicians that are running than the people. And there is a connection. And I think what we have to do is convince people there is a big difference, if you vote one way you will have a Department of Education in the 21st century, if you vote the other way, you won’t. If you vote one way you will have an expansion of family leave. If you vote the other way, you will be lucky to save it. But these are important questions. And people have to decide. I think that the American people also need to be a little more responsible and think about whether there’s a connection with their lives and what we do in Washington.LEHRER: For Senator Dole, in this section, on the back row. Yes, ma’am.MS. SIEFERT: I’m Iris Siefert and I’m unemployed.DOLE: Iris.MS. SIEFERT: Iris. Senator Dole, we talked about Social Security for us baby boomers. But shouldn’t we be saving and investing for our own retirement as well? Are you planning any incentives to encourage us to take care of ourselves rather than to rely on the government and on Social Security when we retire?DOLE: Well, we have in our economic pack, — individual retirement accounts where we think it will encourage savings. You can also use those accounts for health care or education or a first home. We’re doing that precisely, and I think one thing sooner or later we’re going to have to consider is take a look at the Social Security system. Because we’ve got a lot of people advocating we don’t want to put our money into Social Security. You have to be very careful of that because you have to protect the people who are already in the pipeline. It’s something you might consider. I’m not suggesting it will be done, but at least we ought to look at it. It’s been looked, When I was chairman of the finance committee which handled Social Security we looked at all these options, and one thing we’ve got to make certain, when I used to go home my mother would tell me all I’ve got is my Social Security, don’t touch it. And we didn’t touch it. We preserved it. And I’m an optimist. Your your Social Security is going to be there when you retire. We will fix it. It will probably happen in the year 2012 or 2015. In 1983 we thought we had a 75 -year fix. It didn’t work. Much, much less, but at least we fixed it for some time and 37 to 40 million people get their checks on time. So we need to preserve the system. And we need to make it stronger. But we also need to look at some options, whether or not we — depending on what the options are. In fact, they have got a commission right now in Congress, a bipartisan commission, looking at all the different options they will present to the next Congress. so I think we will wait, see what they present, take a look at it.CLINTON: Iris, this is one where we have some agreement, I think. Only about half the people in this country have pension plans. And Social Security is not enough for a lot of people to live on, or at least is not enough for them to maintain anything like their previous lifestyle. So we’ve got to figure out how are we going to have more people with pension plans, and pension coverage has been declining as more and more people work for small businesses and fewer people work for big businesses. So what, what is in my plan and I think it’s almost identical in Senator Dole’s plans is we make more people eligible to save in an IRA and let couples, married couples save more and then they could withdraw from it tax-free if they needed to, for medical emergencies or buy a home or education, but they could also save to supplement retirement. In addition to that, we just passed a sweeping small business reform that makes it easier for small business people to take out 401 K plans for themselves and employees and much easier for employees to carry it from job to job. My best friend from grade school is a computer software salesman and he told me last time he changed employers it took him nine months to figure out how to transfer his 401K plan. Now none of that will happen anymore. I hope over the next ten years you will see a big increase over the percentage of people that have pension plans, plus a secure Social Security system.DOLE: Did you say you’re unemployed?MS. SIEFERT: Yes.DOLE: See, the first thing we have to do is get you a job. And that’s the economic package again. Create jobs and opportunities. Reduce the capital gains rate. Reduce regulatory reform. Stop some of this senseless litigation and let people work in America. And I think that’s that’s the thrust we will make. Obviously if Social Security is a very important program, it should — it will be preserved. Democrats or Republicans, it will be preserved. We want to make certain we protect those in the pipeline just as we did back in 1983 and we did it on a bipartisan basis. We took it out of politics. people get so tired of politics. We ought to do the same with Medicare. Maybe we can make a deal here tonight.LEHRER: All right. The question’s is for President Clinton. Does anybody have a foreign affairs question in this section? Yes, sir.MR. SMITH: Good evening. I’m Michael Smith. I’m an electronics technician in the Navy. My question was how you plan to deal with the trade deficit with Japan.CLINTON: Let me tell you what we have done. We have concluded with Japan 21 — about to be 22 — trade agreements now. And since we did that, in the areas where we concluded, trade agreements or exports to Japan have gone up by 85 percent in the last four years and our trade deficit with Japan has gone down. Until about five months ago the Japanese economy was in a deep recession. It’s coming back now, so they can buy even more American products, and I think it will go down more. But I’m very — that’s one of the real success stories here of the work we’ve done. We’re selling Japanese rice from California for the first time. I visited a Chrysler dealership in Tokyo. I visited a Jeep plant, oldest plant in America, a plant in Toledo, Ohio, where they’re going to export 41,000 right hand drive Jeeps this year, and they’ve got 700 new jobs because of it. There’s no easy way to do this when you’re dealing with an economy that’s traditionally been more closed than one that’s traditionally been more open. You have to gut it out, issue by issue by issue. We agreed in principle on an insurance agreement, and we’re working on three or four other areas now, but the way you have to do it is make sure you’re competitive. We’re the most competitive country in the world now, and then just fight to open those markets and go try to make the sale, and that’s what our trade ambassador our commerce secretary and all the other people in our administration are trying to do.DOLE: Well, the bottom line is we have to stop exporting jobs here. There are 357, 000 good jobs — manufacturing jobs, which are lost. And I assume some of those are because of our trading partners. We didn’t have access to their markets. We ought to insist on access. If we don’t have access to their markets the same way they’ve access our markets, we ought to say, “Wait, that’s enough. Time out. When you give us access, we’ll give you access.” It’s very hard to get into the Japan market, as everybody knows. They want to get into our market. They sell a lot of automobiles here, create a lot of jobs — those who sell exports. And that’s very important to the economy, but I think we want to make certain. I supported the President’s trade policy. But we got to be more aggressive. Once you have a policy, then you have to go out and be aggressive and enforce that policy. There are American jobs that are being lost. This is what Ross Perot complains about. And I’d say to the Reform party, take a look at the Republican party. We’re the reform party, and we’re going to make things better, and one of the things we’re going to do is stop exporting jobs.CLINTON: Let me say again, we’ve had over 200 separate trade agreements in the last four years. By far, the largest number in American history — not just the big ones you read about, but a lot of smaller ones. And now what we have to do is to focus on those things we’re real good at and make sure we’re getting a fair deal. We just had a pretty serious dispute with China because they were copying our CDs, and costing thousands of jobs in places like California. So we have — as we said, if you want to keep doing business and selling your products over here, you’re going to have to quit pirating our CDs, and they agreed to do things and verify that they had done it, which will make the problem much better. There is not a simple answer. You have to work on this day in and day out, every month ,every year, every issue, to make sure that we have not only free trade but fair trade. I’m proud that we’re better off on that than we were four years ago.LEHRER: The next question is for Senator Dole — in this section. Yes, sir?MR. KITE: Rod Kite, minister.DOLE: Hi, Rod.MR. KITE: This great nation has been established by the founding fathers who possessed a very strong Christian belief in godly principles. If elected president of the United States, what could you do to return this nation to these basic principles? And also, do you feel that the president — the office of president has the responsibility to set the role example to inspire our young people?DOLE: Well no doubt about it, our founding fathers had a great deal of wisdom. In addition to what you mentioned, they also were concerned about this all-powerful central government in Washington, D.C., that’d in effect confiscate your property, so — I carry it in my pocket — I can’t pull it out or I’d violate the rules — a copy of the Tenth Amendment which says we ought to return power to the states and the people, the people here. You ought to make more decisions. Honor, duty, and country, that’s what America is all about. Certainly the President of the United States, the highest office in the world, the most important office in the world, has a responsibility to young people, as we talked about earlier. To everyone. By example. And when it comes to public ethics, he has a responsibility. And you have 30-some in your administration, either left or being investigated or in jail or whatever, then you’ve got an ethical problem. This is public ethics; I’m not talking about private ethics. Talking about public ethics. When you have 900 files gathered up by some guy who is a bouncer in a bar and hired a security officer to collect files, in Watergate — I know a person who went to jail for looking at one file, one FBI file. There are 900 sequestered in the White House. 900. People like you. Why should they be rifling through your files? The president has a great responsibility. That’s one that I understand and certainly will carry out.CLINTON: This is the most religious, great country in history. And yet, interestingly enough, we have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe. And now we have all these people just up the road in Los Angeles County, we have people from 150 different racial and ethnic groups and tons of different religions, but the fundamental tenets of virtually every religion are the same, and what I try to do is to support policies that would respect religion and then help parents inculcate those values to their children. Let me very briefly give you some examples. One of my proudest moments was signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that says the government has got to bend over backwards before we interfere with religious practice. So I changed the Justice Department’s effort to get a church to pay back a man tithe, because he was bankrupt when he gave it. I have supported character education programs in our schools, drug-free schools programs. I supported giving parents a V-chip on their television so if they don’t want their young kids to watch things they shouldn’t watch, they wouldn’t have to. That is the kind of thing we have to do, give people like you and our families the power to give those values to our children.DOLE: I think it’s — before I came in, my wife and daughter and I had a prayer. Because it’s God’s will, whatever happens. It’s God’s will, it’ll happen. The constitutional amendment for voluntary prayer in school, in my view would be a great idea. I support it; the president opposes it. It seems to me the president, whoever the president may be, this is one of his highest responsibilities. People look to the President of the United States more than any other person in America. And that’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it always will be.LEHRER: All right. This is our last question. It goes to President Clinton and it’s from this section. Yes, ma’am.MS. DUBE: My name is Yvette Dube and I too am a minister. I’m with the Universal Metropolitan Community Churches. President Clinton, perhaps you can help me with something tonight. I heard Mr. Dole say several times “all of us together,” and when he was asked if he would support equal rights and employment for gay and lesbian people, you said that you favored that, and he said that he did not believe in special rights. And I thought the question was equal rights for all people. And I don’t understand why people are using the term “special rights” when the question is “equal rights.” Could you help me in understanding that?CLINTON: I want to answer your question, but let me say one other thing. We don’t need a constitutional amendment for kids to pray, and what I did was to have the justice department and the education department for the first time ever issue a set of guidelines that we gave to every school in America, saying that children could not be interfered with in religious advocacy when they were praying, when they were doing whatever they could do under the constitution, just because they were on a public school ground, and I think anyone who’s experienced this will tell you that our administration has done more than any in years to clarify the freedom of religion in the public square, including in the public schools. Now, I think I have to let Senator Dole speak for himself. It wouldn’t be fair for me to do that. I would wind up — I mean, it’s the last question and I would mischaracterize it to try to make you happy. Let me tell you what I feel. We have a lot of differences in our country, and some of us believe that other people’s decisions are wrong, even immoral. But under our constitution, if you show up tomorrow and obey the law, and you work hard and you do what you’re supposed to do, you are entitled to equal treatment. That’s the way the system works. All over the world, people are being torn apart — Bosnia, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Burundi — you name it — because of all their differences. We still have some of that hatred inside us. You see it in the church burnings. And one of the things I’ve tried hardest to do is to tell the American people that we have to get beyond that, we have to understand that we’re stronger when we unite around shared values instead of being divided by our differences.LEHRER: Senator Dole.DOLE: Well, I hope I made my answer clear. I said I’m opposed to discrimination. You know we’ve suffered discrimination in the disability community. There are 43 million of us. And I can recall cases where people would cross the street rather than meet somebody in a wheelchair. So we want to end discrimination. I think that answers itself. No discrimination in America. We’ve made that clear. And I would just say that it seems to me that that’s the way it ought to be. We shouldn’t discriminate — race, color, whatever — life-style, disability. This is America. And we’re all proud of it. But we’re not there yet. What we need is good, strong leadership going in the next century. I’m sorry we didn’t have a foreign policy question, because just this week Secretary Christopher said, “Well, we really didn’t know much the first couple of years about foreign policy.” Now that was quite an admission. It underscores what I had to say in the Hartford debate, that there is really no foreign policy in this administration. It’s sort of ad hoc, just whatever comes up, we’ll deal with it. Unfortunately, we didn’t have more questions on that.CLINTON: Let me say again, there is no more important responsibility for the president than to say if you believe in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, that’s all we need to know. And you can be part of our America and you can walk across that bridge to the 21st century with us. And we are not well served when we attack each other in a kind of ad hominem way. It doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t educate children. It doesn’t solve problems. We need to be disagreeing on ideas, honestly, and talking about the future. The future will be the greatest time in this country’s history if we can beat this division that is bedeviling the whole rest of the world.LEHRER: All right. Now we go to the closing statement. Senator Dole, you’re first. Two minutes, sir.DOLE: Well, let me thank everybody here at the University and, Jim, thank you. All the people who may still be watching or viewing. This is what it’s all about. It’s not about me. It’s not about President Clinton. It’s about the process. It’s about selecting a president of the United States. So we have our differences. We should have our differences. Mentioned other parties. They have their differences. We all agreed it would be a pretty dull place. We should have more debates. Maybe we will have another debate on the economy. But I would just say this. This is the highest honor that I have ever had in my life, to think that somebody from Russell, Kansas, somebody who grew up living in a basement apartment, someone whose parents didn’t finish high school, somebody who spent about 39 months in hospitals after World War II, someone who uses a buttonhook every day to get dressed. Somebody who understands that there’re real Americans out there with real problems, whether soccer moms, or the single parents, the families or the seniors, or people with disabilities, whoever it may be. There are some very fundamental differences in this campaign. President Clinton opposes term limits, President Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. President Clinton opposes voluntary prayer amendment. Opposes an amendment to protect the flag of the United States of America. People give their lives. Couple of service men here. They sacrifice, they give everything for America. We ought to protect the American flag with a constitutional amendment. But beyond that we need to address the economy. I will just say my time is running out here. It’s a very proud moment for me. What I want the voters to do is to make a decision. And I want them to be proud of their vote in the years ahead. Proud that they voted for the right candidate. Proud that they voted hopefully for me. And I’ll just make you one promise, my word is good. Democrats and Republicans said Bob Dole’s word is good. I keep my word. I promise you the economy is going to get better. We’re going to have a good economic package. We’re going into the next century a better America. Thank you.CLINTON: Thank you, Jim. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and all the people who are watching. One thing I would like to say is I agree with what Senator Dole said. It’s a remarkable thing in a country like ours, a man who grew up in Russell, Kansas, and one who was born to a widowed mother in Hope, Arkansas, could wind up running for president. Could have a chance to serve as president. First thing I want to say is thank you for giving me the chance to be president. This election is about two different visions about how we should go into the 21st Century. Would we be better off as I believe, working together to give each other the tools we need to make the most of our God-given potential, or are we better off saying, you’re on your own? Would we be better off building that bridge to the future together so we can all walk across it or saying you can get across yourself? If you don’t agree — leave this room with anything else tonight and if the people watching us don’t leave with anything else, I hope you will leave with this. This is a real important election. The world is changing dramatically in how we work and how we live, how we relate to each other, huge changes. And the decisions we make will have enormous practical consequences. So we’ve talked about our responsibility tonight. I want to talk about your responsibility, and your responsibility. Your responsibility is to show up on November the 5th. Because you’re going to decide whether we’re going to balance the budget now, but protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. You will decide whether we’re going to keep fighting crime with a Brady Bill, assault weapons and finish putting those 100,000 police. Whether we’re going to move a million people from welfare to work. Whether we’re going to give our families more protection for their kids against drugs and tobacco and gangs and guns. Whether we’re going to give our children a world-class education. Where every eight-year-old can read. Every 12-year-old can log in on the Internet. Every 18-year-old can go to college. If we do those things we will build that bridge to the 21st Century and the greatest country in history will be even greater. Thank you.LEHRER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President. This concludes — this is the last of the three 1996 presidential and vice-presidential debates.Transcribed by: Reagan Evans, CSR NO. , CRR , Joanne Cunningham, CSR NO. , CRRAdditional Staff: Pam Taylor, Vivian Leinhos, Patricia SchullerFred Fischer and Mary Sue CornellOf: Kerns & Gradillas Certified Court Reporters.",
    "id": "7634bdf9-febf-4226-917d-33dc309a5197"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 19, 1992",
    "title": "The Third Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 19, 1992 Debate TranscriptOctober 19, 1992The Third Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential DebateThis is a transcript of the third presidential debate. The event took place on October 19, in East Lansing, Michigan. The two-part format used a single moderator question period for the first half of the debate, and a panel of journalist asking questions in the second half of the debate. Jim Lehrer details the format in his opening remarks.The transcript is approximately 35 pages in length.JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Welcome to this third and final debate among the three major candidates for president of the US. Governor Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, President George Bush, the Republican nominee, —(APPLAUSE)— and independent candidate Ross Perot.(APPLAUSE)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 follow-ups. A panel of 3 other journalists will ask questions in the 2nd 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.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’ve been taxed more in the 1980s 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 re-educated.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 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 clean-up 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.LEHRER: Mr. President, a response.PRESIDENT BUSH: Do I have 1 minute? Just the ground rules here.LEHRER: Roughly 1 minute. We can loosen that up a little bit but go ahead.BUSH: Well, he doesn’t like trickle down government but 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. And what I don’t like is trickle down government. And therein, 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.And 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 proposes.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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, what do you think of the governor’s approach, what he just laid out?PEROT: The basic problem with it, it doesn’t balance the budget. If you forecast it out, we still 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 the 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’ve 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.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’s said it’s got — to do the things that 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? They said the numbers don’t add up.CLINTON: I disagree with both of them. For one thing, let me just follow up here. I disagree with Mr. Perot that the answer is to raise — 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.And as far as what Mr. Bush says, he is the person who raised taxes on the middle class after saying he wouldn’t. And 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.And 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 out-spend 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 paid in, 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 ten 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’ll work here.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 —BUSH: I think everybody’s paying too much taxes. He refers to one tax increase. Let me remind you it was a Democratic tax increase, and I didn’t want to do it and I went along with it. And I said I make 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’s 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 at 21.5% under Jimmy Carter, and inflation was 15. We don’t want to go back to that.And so yes, everybody’s taxed too much and I want to get the taxes down, but not by signing a tax bill that’s gonna raise taxes on people.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?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 one or 2 years. Over the last ten years since he’s been governor, they’re 30% behind, 30% — they’re 30% 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. And I’m going to do that. It’s not dirty campaigning because he’s been talking about my record for a half a year here, 11 months here. So we’ve got to do that. I gotta 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.LEHRER: Governor, is that true?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.BUSH: This year.CLINTON: 4th in manufacturing jobs, 4th in the reduction of poverty, 4th 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 2nd in tax burden, the 2nd lowest tax burden in the country.We have the lowest per capita state and local spending in the country. We’re low spending, low tax burden. We 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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, if you were sitting at home now and just heard this exchange about Arkansas, who would you believe?PEROT: I grew up 5 blocks from Arkansas. 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 Forth 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.LEHRER: Why is that a mistake?PEROT: It’s irrelevant.(Laughter)LEHRER: What he did as governor of Arkansas is irrelevant?PEROT: No, no, no, but I could say, you know, that I ran a small grocery store on the corner, therefore I extrapolate that into the fact that I can run Wal-Mart. That’s not true.(Laughter)I can’t protect an Arkansas company, you notice there, Governor.LEHRER: Governor?CLINTON: Mr. Perot, with all respect, I think it is highly relevant, and I think that a 4-billion dollar budget of state and federal funds is not all that small, and 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 5 blocks from there you would think that what goes on in that state is irrelevant. I think it’s been pretty impressive.PEROT: It’s not —CLINTON: And the people who have jobs —(APPLAUSE)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 they wish the rest of the country had them.BUSH: I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’d like to get in on this.CLINTON: Well, you think it’s relevant.(Laughter)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, and 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. And we almost had it done.And that institution, the House of Representatives — everyone is yelling “Clean House!” One of the reasons is we almost had it done, and the speaker — a 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% of it, to compel the government to cut spending. And 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.LEHRER: Mr. President, let’s move to some of the leadership concerns that have been voiced about you. And 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?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. And now we hear a lot of talk, oh, well, we all want enterprise zones, and yet the House and the Senate can’t send it down without loading it up with a lot of, you know, 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 1. 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 2 civil rights quota bills because I don’t believe in quotas, and I don’t think the American people believe in quotas. And 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 antisemitism and racism, and I think my record as a member of Congress speaks for itself on that.What was the other part of it?LEHRER: Well, it’s just that — you’ve spoken to it. I mean, but the idea, not so much in specifics, but that it has to be a crisis before it gets your attention.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.LEHRER: Do you think that’s true, Mr. Perot?PEROT: I’d like to just talk about issues, and so —LEHRER: You don’t think this is an issue?PEROT: Well, no, but the point is that’s a subjective thing. See, the subjective thing is when does President Bush react? And it would be very difficult for me to answer that in any short period of time.LEHRER: Well, then, let’s phrase — 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 between — among the 3 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 —(Laughter)— my question to you —PEROT: I thought you’d forgotten I was here.LEHRER: No, no, no, no, no.(Laughter)But my question to you is, so — if you have nothing to say about it, fine, I’ll go to Governor Clinton, but —PEROT: I will let the American people decide that. I would rather not critique the 2 candidates.LEHRER: All right. Governor, what do you think?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 1300 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 hundred days to deal with the critical issues that America is 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 1. They will be my first priority, not my election year concern.LEHRER: Mr. 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 US 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, and interest rates were 21%, inflation was 15%. The misery index — unemployment and 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, remember the question, are you better off? Well, is a homebuyer better off he can refinance the home, because interest rates are down? Is the senior citizen better off because inflation is not wiping out their family’s savings? I think they are. Is the guy out of work better off? Of course he’s not, but he’s not gonna 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 businesses have more incentives. For 3 months — quarters I’ve been fighting, 3 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. And 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 and favor the taxpayer.LEHRER: I have to — 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 US, it 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 had a problem with General Motors. You took your $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 US and you walked out.Does that say anything relevant to how you would function as president of the US?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-’80s while it was still financially strong. They just wouldn’t do it, and everybody now knows the terrible price they’re paying by waiting until it’s obvious to the brain-dead that they have problems.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 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 till a 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 to just 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 5 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 Texas War on Drugs program and the big-time drug dealers got all upset. Then when I had 2 people imprisoned in Iran, I could have left them there. I could have rationalized it. We went over, we got them out, 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, at 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, I’m here tonight, folks; I never quit supporting you as you put me on the ballot in the other 26 states; and 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 2 parties are spending your money, taxpayer money. I 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.(Laughter)LEHRER: Governor, do you have a response to the staying- the-course question about Mr. Perot?CLINTON: I don’t have any criticism of Mr. Perot. I think what I’d like to talk about a minute, since you’re asking the question, is the General Motors issue. I don’t think there’s any question that the automobile executives made some errors in the 1980s, 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. And we’re still losing a lot of auto jobs, in my judgment, because we don’t have a national economic strategy that will build the industrial base of this country.Just today I met with the presidents and the vice presidents of the Willow Run union here, near here. They both said they were Vietnam veterans supporting me because I had an economic program to 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; and 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, and 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.LEHRER: Mr. President, do you have a response?BUSH: To this?LEHRER: Yes.BUSH: Well, I wondered, when Governor Clinton was talking to the auto workers, whether he talked about his and Senator Gore’s favoring CAFE standards, 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. And I take it back, because I think — he said he made a mistake. And 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 a gallon will throw many auto workers out of work, and you can’t have it both ways. There’s a pattern here of appealing to the auto workers and then trying to appeal to the spotted owl crowds 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.LEHRER: Governor, what about that charge? Do you want it both ways on this issue?CLINTON: Let’s just talk about the CAFE standards — that’s the fuel efficiency standards. They are 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 environmental speech in April, and 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 have never said we should write it into law if there is evidence that that goal cannot be achieved. The Natl 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.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.PEROT: Well, everybody’s nibbling around the edges. Let’s go to the center of the bull’s-eye, the core problem. And 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 a dollar 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’ve 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 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. It’s very simple. Everybody says it’ll create jobs. Yes, it’ll create bubble jobs.Now, you know, 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 — I thought I didn’t understand it — called all the experts, and they said, oh, it’ll be disruptive for 12 to 15 years.We haven’t got 12 days, folks. We cannot lose those jobs. They were eventually saying, Mexican jobs will eventually come to $7.50 an hour, ours will eventually go down to $7.50 an hour. 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 till 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.LEHRER: Just for the record, though, Mr. Perot, I take it, then, from your answer, you do not have a position on whether or not enforcing the CAFE standards will cost jobs in the auto industry?PEROT: Oh, no, it will cost jobs, but that’s not — let me say this. I’d rather, if you gave me 2 bad choices —LEHRER: Okay.PEROT: I’d rather have some jobs left here than just see everything head south, see?LEHRER: So that means — in other words, you agree with President Bush; is that right?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 where the — millions of people at work are our tax base.Jim, 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 gotta come from. Millions and millions of people at work.LEHRER: Yes, sir.BUSH: I’m caught in the middle on 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 gonna make up his mind, he sees some merit in it, but then he sees a lot of things wrong with it. 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 US, 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 when 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. And it’s free trade, fair trade that needs to be our hallmark, and we need more free trade agreements, not fewer.LEHRER: Governor, quick answer on trade and I want to go on to something else.(APPLAUSE)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 a 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’s 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, if we can 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, and 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 life-long 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: We’ve got about 4 —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 gotta decide who’s gonna 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. And 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 am for it and on the other hand I may be against it.LEHRER: The governor —(APPLAUSE)CLINTON: That’s what’s wrong with Mr. Bush. His whole deal is you’ve gotta be for it or against it, 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.GOVERNOR CLINTON (continuing): I want think they want somebody with common sense who can do what’s best for the American people. And 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 it’s biggest practitioner.(Laughter and applause)He promised — he — you know — let me just say —BUSH: But I’ve always said trickle-down government is bad.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 promise, and 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot.PEROT: Is there an equal time rule tonight?BUSH: Yes.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 2. Is that the way it works?LEHRER: No, it’s — Mr. Perot, you’re doing fine. Go ahead. Whatever you want to say, say it.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.LEHRER: Wait a minute. I was going to ask — I thought you wanted to respond to what we’re talking about.PEROT: I do, I do.LEHRER: All right.PEROT: I just want to make — 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 leaves in key roles in their campaigns. And 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 — 1 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 2 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. President, how do you respond to that? Mr. Perot’s made that charge several times. The fact that you have people working in your campaign who are paid foreign lobbyists.BUSH: Most people that are lobbying are lobbying the Congress. And 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. And what you’re assuming is that that makes the recipient of the lobbying corrupt or the lobbyist himself 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 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.PEROT: And as soon as I found it out, he went out the door.(Laughter)BUSH: Well —(APPLAUSE)But I don’t — I think you 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 that.PEROT: One quick relevant specific. We’re getting ready to dismantle the airlines industry in our country, and none of you know it. And I doubt in all candor if the president knows it. But this deal that we’re doing with BAC and US Air and KLM and Northwest, guess who’s on the president’s campaign big time: a guy from Northwest. This deal is terribly destructive to the US 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 president 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 2 European companies. And 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’s sure 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.(APPLAUSE)CLINTON: Jim.LEHRER: Governor, I’m sorry, but that concludes my time with — well, you…CLINTON: Why, I had a great response to that.LEHRER: All right, go ahead, quick, quickly.CLINTON: Just very briefly. 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’ loopholes; they ought to have to disclose when they’re really lobbying. And we ought to have to limit — 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 interests. I agree with that.We’ve wrecked the airline industry already because of all these leverage 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 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-$40 billion 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: I’m going to be in real trouble if I don’t bring out — it’s now time…BUSH: I promise it’s less than 10 seconds.LEHRER: OK.BUSH: I heard Gov Clinton congratulate us on 1 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 good ones, but I was glad he acknowledged that. Thank you.LEHRER: Now we’re going to move to the 2nd half…PEROT: Now give me 1 second…LEHRER: We’re going to move to the…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 interests. So I have to stand up for myself. Now, Jim, let me get it out. On the 2nd debate, I offered, since both sides want the enterprise zones and we 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 and hold hands with you and get this airlines thing straightened, 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)LEHRER: All right, I want to bring in…PEROT: 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?LEHRER: All right. Now we’re going to bring in 3 other journalists to ask questions. They are Susan Rook of CNN, Gene Gibbons of Reuters and Helen Thomas of United Press Intl. You thought you’d never get in here, did you?BUSH: Uh-uh. Uh-uh.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: OK we’re going to continue on the subject of leadership and the first question goes to Gov Clinton for a 2-minute answer. It will be asked by Helen Thomas. Helen?HELEN THOMAS (upi): Governor Clinton, your credibility has come into question because of your different responses on the Vietnam draft. If you had it to do over again, would you put on the nation’s uniform, and if elected, could you in good conscience send someone to war?CLINTON: If I had it to do over again I might answer the questions a little better. You know, I’d 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 things that happened a long time ago and 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 had a lot of other presidents who didn’t wear their country’s uniform who 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.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 1 minute to respond. Mr. 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’s this same pattern. In New Hampshire Senator Kerrey said you ought to level, you ought to tell the truth about it. On April 17 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. And 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’s this pattern.And again, you might be able to make amendments all the time, Governor, but you’ve got to, 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.LEHRER: Your minute is up, sir.BUSH: Yes, sir. Helen?LEHRER: Mr. Perot, 1 minute.PEROT: I’ve spent my whole adult life very close to the military. I feel very strongly about the people who go into battle for our country. I 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, and I consider it really a waste of time tonight, when you consider the issues that face our country right now.LEHRER: All right. The next question goes to President Bush and Gene Gibbons will ask it. Gene.(APPLAUSE)GENE GIBBONS (Reuters): 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?BUSH: I wouldn’t have taken any of the alternatives. I believe that — 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 a 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 1 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, and I — 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot, 1 minute.PEROT: 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 down the deficit. This was a trick on the American people. That’s not leadership.Let’s go back in terms of accepting responsibility for your actions. If you create Saddam Hussein, over a 10-year period, using billions of dollars of US taxpayer money, step up to the plate and say it was a mistake. If you 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 kidnapped him and 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. We’ve created, and I’m not aiming at any one person here, I’m aiming at our government — nobody takes responsibility for anything. We’ve gotta change that.LEHRER: I’m taking responsibility for saying your time’s up.PEROT: I’m watching the lights.LEHRER: All right. Governor Clinton, 1 minute, sir.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.(APPLAUSE)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.LEHRER: All right, Mr. Perot, the question is for you. You have a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Susan Rook.SUSAN ROOK (CNN): 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?PEROT: You’re talking about 2 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, and 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 is 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. The point is, they’ll get to decide what to think.(Laughter and applause)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 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’ll happen. And 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, 1 minute.CLINTON: Well, I believe in the town hall meetings; they started with my campaign in New Hampshire. And I think Ross Perot has done a good job in having them. And I, as you know, pushed for the debate to include the 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 3 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.And 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 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, 1 minute.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. Re-elect President Bush. And I just had to work that in. Sorry, Helen.(Laughter and applause)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 4th 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 UN, 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. And in this case I’m glad we did, because if we had let sanctions work and 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 4th largest army, and we did it through leadership.LEHRER: All right, we’re going to go on to another subject now, and the subject is priorities. The first question goes to you, President Bush, and Susan will ask it.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?BUSH: You don’t see Margaret Tutwiler sitting in there with me today.ROOK: The key people, President Bush.BUSH: Huh?ROOK: The key people, the people beyond the glass ceiling.(APPLAUSE)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. Yeah, 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 got to do is keep working, as the Labor Dept is doing a first-class job on, to break down discrimination, to break down the glass ceiling.And I am not apologetic at all about our record with women. We’ve got, I think — you know, 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 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 —(Laughter)— 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 got some very good Republican women running. So we’re making dramatic progress.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, 1 minute.PEROT: Well, I come from the computer business, and everybody knows the 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, the 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 4 beautiful daughters, and I just have 1 son, so he and I are surrounded by women, giving — telling us what to do all the time.(Laughter)And 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 his border dispute, and we’ve never revealed those papers that were given to Ambassador Glaspie on July the 25th. 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 oil fields 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?BUSH: I’ve got 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.PEROT: Well, where are the papers?BUSH: That is absolutely absurd.PEROT: Where are the papers?BUSH: Glaspie has testified —(APPLAUSE)— and Glaspie’s papers have been presented to the US Senate. Please, let’s be factual.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 emir but he’s still not his nuclear, his chemical, his bacteriological and he’s still over there, right? I’d like to see those written instructions.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. President, just to make sure that everybody knows what’s going on here, when you responded directly to Mr. Perot, you violated the rule, your rules. Now —BUSH: For which I apologize. When I make a mistake I say I’m sorry.(Laughter.)LEHRER: I just want to make sure everybody understands. If you all want to change the rules, we can do it.BUSH: No, I don’t. I apologize for it but that one got right to the national honor and I’m sorry. I just couldn’t let it stand.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have a minute.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 today. There was a story today or yesterday in the Washington Post about my economic programs and 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 Natl Women’s Political Caucus gave me an award, one of their Good Guy Awards, for my involvement of women in high levels of government, and I’ve appointed more minorities to positions of high level 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 and 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: All right. Next question goes to you, Mr. Perot. It’s a 2-minute question and Helen will ask it. Helen?THOMAS: Mr. Perot, what proof do you have that Saddam Hussein was told that he could have the — 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?PEROT: No. They’re not correct and if you look at my life, 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 of my children’s friends from childhood on. They went to extraordinary sick lengths, and I just found it amusing that they would take 2 or 3 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 that 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 2 groups has raised it to an art form. It’s a sick art form.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 the Foreign Relations, Senate Intelligence Committees see them. That’s a fact. Ambassador Glaspie did a lot of talking right after July 25 and that’s a fact and it’s in all the newspapers. And 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 of 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, Iraq-gate or you name it, it’s a steady stream.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have 1 minute.CLINTON: Let’s take Mr. Bush for the moment at his word — 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’s 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.LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a moment — a minute, I’m sorry.BUSH: Well, 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 4th largest army. All our Arab allies out there thought we ought to do just exactly that. And when he crossed the line, I stood up and looked into the camera and I said: This aggression will not stand. And we formed a historic coalition, and we brought him down, and we destroyed the 4th largest army. And the battlefield was searched, and there wasn’t one single iota of evidence that any US weapons were on that battlefield. And the nuclear capability has been searched by the United Nations, and there hasn’t been one single scintilla of evidence that there’s any US technology involved in it.And what you’re seeing on all this Iraq-gate is a bunch of people who were wrong on the war trying to cover their necks here and try to do a little revisionism. And 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.(APPLAUSE)And so I just have to say, it’s fine. You can’t stand there, Governor Clinton, and say, well, I think I’d have been — I have supported the minority, let sanctions work or wish it would go away — but I would have voted with the majority. Come on, that’s not leadership.LEHRER: All right, the next question goes to Governor Clinton, and Gene Gibbons will ask it. Gene?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?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 2 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 is, they 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.And I believe if we have a good balanced approach, we can get the good banks loaning money again, end the credit crunch, have proper regulation on the ones that are in trouble, and not overreact. It is a serious problem, but I don’t see it as the kind of terrible, terrible problem that the S&L problem was.LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.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. And I have proposed that. And when I am re-elected, 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.But I think that — I just was watching some of the proceedings of the American Bankers Assn, 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&Ls and where the banks stand right now, in my view.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, 1 minute.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 US 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, because 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 till 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 till 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 a hundred banks, it will be a $100-billion problem. Now, if that’s true, just tell me now. I’m grownup, I can deal with it, I’ll pay my share. But just tell me now; don’t bury 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 got the PAC money, we’ll pay the tab. Just tell us.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?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?PEROT: The debt and the deficit. Well, if you watched my television show the other night, you saw it. And if you watch it Thursday, Friday, Saturday this week, you’ll get more. 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 of the people again; you’ve got to reform the White House. We’ve got to turn this thing around. And 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% pay raise anywhere in the world except Congress? Who would have 1200 airplanes worth 2 billion a year just to fly around in? I don’t have a free reserved parking place at Natl Airport, why should my servants? I don’t have an indoor gymnasium and an indoor tennis and 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 at the tax and budget summit, and I’m going to show how much they’ve increased this little stuff they do for themselves. And 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 at my shoulder, shoulder to shoulder with me, and we will see it done work speed — because it’s wrong. We’ve turned the country upside down.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have one minute. 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% 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 a billion dollars less than President Bush asked them to spend. Now, when you out-spend 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 farther behind. My passion is to pass a jobs program and 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 workforce in the world. That is my passion.We’ve gotta 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, one minute.BUSH: On government reform?LEHRER: Sir?BUSH: Government reform?LEHRER: Yes, exactly. Well, to respond to the subject that Mr. Perot mentioned.BUSH: Well, how about this for a government reform policy? Reduce the White House staff by a 3rd after or at the same time the Congress does the same thing for their staff. Term limits for members of the US 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.(APPLAUSE)Term limits. And then how about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Forty-3 — more than that — states have it, I believe. Let’s try that. And 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. And give it to the president, and 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, and 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.LEHRER: All right.(APPLAUSE)Next question goes to Governor Clinton. You have 2 minutes, Governor, and Susan will ask it.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’m looking for numbers, sir, not just a concept.CLINTON: My plan — 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 play (sic) 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’ll tell ya 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 of the programs. I am not gonna raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs.Now furthermore, I am not gonna 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, and 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 gonna 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’d just said Jim Baker was going to be secretary of state and in the first debate he said no, now he’s gonna be responsible for domestic economic policy.Well, I’ll tell ya. I’ll make some news in the 3rd debate. The person responsible for domestic economic policy in my administration will be Bill Clinton. I’m gonna make those decisions, and I won’t raise taxes on the middle class to pay for my programs.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, you have one minute.BUSH: That’s what worries me —(Laughter and applause)— that he’s going to be responsible. He’s going to do — and he would do for the US what he’s done to Arkansas. He would do for the US what he’s done to Arkansas. We do not want to be the lowest of the low. We are not a nation in decline.(APPLAUSE)We are a rising nation.Now, 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 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%, 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot.CLINTON: Jim, 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 got the lowest spending, state and local, in the country, and the 2nd lowest tax burden. And the difference between Arkansas and the US 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: We’ve got a wash, according to my calculation. We have a wash. And we go to Mr. Perot for one minute. In other words, it’s a violation of the rule, that’s what I meant, Mr. Perot.PEROT: So I’m the only one that’s untarnished at this point?LEHRER: That’s right. You’re clear.(Laughter and applause)PEROT: I’m sure I’ll do it before it’s over.(Laughter)Key thing here, see, we all come up with images. Images don’t fix anything. I think — 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 the 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, and what I — you know, everybody says, gee, Perot, you’re tough. I’m saying, well, this is not as tough as World War II and it’s not as tough as the revolution. And 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.LEHRER: All right. This is the last question, and it goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer. And it will be asked by Helen.THOMAS: Mr. President, why have you dropped so dramatically in the leadership polls, from the high 80s to the 40s? And you have said that you will do anything you have to do to get reelected. What can you do in 2 weeks to win reelection?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 3 of us up here to do something about it. Mine does not grow the government, it does not invest, have government invest.It says we need to do better in terms of stimulating private business. We 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.And 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.And 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. And 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. And you have to make decisions even when it’s against your own interest. And I’ve done that. It’s against my political interest 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.And 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.And so I’ll make the appeal on a wide array of issues. Also I got a philosophical difference. I 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.LEHRER: Mr. Perot, you have —BUSH: That’s why I think I’ll win.LEHRER: Mr. Perot — sorry, excuse me, sir. Mr. Perot, you have one minute.PEROT: I’m the last one, right?LEHRER: No, Governor Clinton has a minute after you. Then we have the closing statements.PEROT: One minute after you.LEHRER: Right.PEROT: I’m totally focussed on the fact that we may have bank failures and nobody answered it. I’m totally focussed on the fact that we are still evading the issue of the Glaspie papers. I’m totally focussed on the fact that we still could have enterprise zones, according to both parties, but we don’t. So I am still focussed on gridlock, I guess.And I am also focussed on the fact that isn’t it a paradox that we have the highest productivity in our workforce in the industrialized world and at the same time have the largest trade deficit, and at the same time rank behind 9 other nations in what we pay our most productive people in the world, and we’re losing whole industries overseas.Now, can’t somebody agree with me that the government is breaking business’s legs with these trade agreements? They’re breaking business’s 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 a 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.LEHRER: Governor Clinton, one minute.CLINTON: I really can’t believe Mr. Bush is still trying to make trust an issue after “read my lips” and 15 million new jobs and embracing what he called voodoo economics and embracing an export enhancement program for farmers he threatened to veto and going all around the country giving out money in 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, that 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: All right. Now, 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’re first. 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 2nd to none and revitalize the private economy.That is my commitment to you. It is the 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 towards 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.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.BUSH: Three weeks from now — 2 weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and 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, brand-new 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 US is doing better than a lot. But we’ve got to do even better. And if a crisis comes up, I ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?And, 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 US of America.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Mr. Perot, your closing statement, sir.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 fixin’ the old car to get it back on the road.Now, the question is, can we win? Absolutely we can win, because it’s your country. Question really is who do you want in the White House. It’s that simple.Now, you got to stop letting these people tell you who to vote for, you got to stop letting these folks in the press tell you you’re throwing your vote away — you got to start using your own head.(APPLAUSE)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, and you won’t tolerate gridlock, you won’t tolerate endless meandering and wandering around, and you won’t tolerate non-performance. And, believe me, anybody that knows me understands I have a very low tolerance for non-performance also. Together we can get anything done.The president mentioned that you need the right person in a crisis. Well, folks, we got one, and that one 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 3rd. I suggest you might consider somebody who’s created jobs. 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 and make your decision.And, finally, who would you give your pension fund and your savings account to manage? And, 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.(APPLAUSE)To the American people, I’m doing this because I love you. That’s it. Thank you very much.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: All right, thank you, Mr. Perot; thank you, Mr. President; thank you, Governor Clinton — for being with us tonight and in 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.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "d95072ed-e442-42f1-a9a3-871917f2ab25"
  },
  {
    "year": 1960,
    "date": "September 26, 1960",
    "title": "The First Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 26, 1960 Debate TranscriptSeptember 26, 1960The First Kennedy-Nixon Presidential DebateHOWARD K. SMITH, MODERATOR: Good evening. The television and radio stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the presidency. The candidates need no introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy. According to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes’ duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes’ duration. In between the candidates will answer, or comment upon answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents. In this, the first discussion in a series of four uh – joint appearances, the subject-matter has been agreed, will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters. And now for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy.SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this nation could exist half-slave or half-free. In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery. I think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States, on the kind of society that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain. We discuss tonight domestic issues, but I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival. Mr. Khrushchev is in New York, and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself. The Chinese Communists have always had a large population. But they are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country. The kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom. If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we’re moving ahead, then I think freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails. Therefore, I think the question before the American people is: Are we doing as much as we can do? Are we as strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we must be if we’re going to maintain our independence, and if we’re going to maintain and hold out the hand of friendship to those who look to us for assistance, to those who look to us for survival? I should make it very clear that I do not think we’re doing enough, that I am not satisfied as an American with the progress that we’re making. This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it could be a more powerful country. I’m not satisfied to have fifty percent of our steel-mill capacity unused. I’m not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world. Because economic growth means strength and vitality; it means we’re able to sustain our defenses; it means we’re able to meet our commitments abroad. I’m not satisfied when we have over nine billion dollars worth of food – some of it rotting – even though there is a hungry world, and even though four million Americans wait every month for a food package from the government, which averages five cents a day per individual. I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don’t think we’re meeting our obligations toward these Americans. I’m not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are. I’m not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none. I’m not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa – in charge of the largest union in the United States – still free. I’m not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States at the present rate of hydropower production – and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society – the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are. These are all the things, I think, in this country that can make our society strong, or can mean that it stands still. I’m not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born – and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities – he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, about half as much chance to own a house. He has about uh – four times as much chance that he’ll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don’t want the talents of any American to go to waste. I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don’t at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they’re not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don’t believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that’s the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom. It’s the only way that we’re going to move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we’re going to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events have placed upon us. We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails. And I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this country. The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States. Because they felt that the American society was moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America; to see how we’re doing things; to wonder what the resident of the United States is doing; and not to look at Khrushchev, or look at the Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny. I think our generation of Americans has the same rendezvous. The question now is: Can freedom be maintained under the most severe tack – attack it has ever known? I think it can be. And I think in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here. I think it’s time America started moving again.MR. SMITH: And now the opening statement by Vice President Richard M. Nixon.MR. NIXON: Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy. The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this nation cannot stand still; because we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the men in Peking. We’re ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when you’re in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. And I subscribe completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the United States should move ahead. Where, then, do we disagree? I think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has been standing still. We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our growth in national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world. Now last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession year. But when we look at the growth of G.N.P. this year, a year of recovery, we find that it’s six and nine-tenths per cent and one of the highest in the world today. More about that later. Looking then to this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the United States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous campaigner: Let’s look at the record. Is the United States standing still? Is it true that this Administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an Administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation? Is it true that, as far as this country is concerned, in the field of electric power, in all of the fields that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead. Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman Administration of seven and a half years and the seven and a half years of the Eisenhower Administration. When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has – has discussed tonight, I think we find that America has been moving ahead. Let’s take schools. We have built more schools in these last seven and a half years than we built in the previous seven and a half, for that matter in the previous twenty years. Let’s take hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these seven and a half years than was developed in any previous administration in history. Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this Administration than in the previous Administration. The same is true of highways. Let’s put it in terms that all of us can understand. We often hear gross national product discussed and in that respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this Administration with that of the previous Administration that then there was a total growth of eleven percent over seven years; in this Administration there has been a total growth of nineteen per cent over seven years. That shows that there’s been more growth in this Administration than in its predecessor. But let’s not put it there; let’s put it in terms of the average family. What has happened to you? We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower Administration as they did in the Truman Administration. What about the prices you pay? We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the Truman Administration as they did in the Eisenhower Administration. What’s the net result of this? This means that the average family income went up fifteen per cent in the Eisenhower years as against two per cent in the Truman years. Now, this is not standing still. But, good as this record is, may I emphasize it isn’t enough. A record is never something to stand on. It’s something to build on. And in building on this record, I believe that we have the secret for progress, we know the way to progress. And I think, first of all, our own record proves that we know the way. Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way. I respect the sincerity which he m- which he makes that suggestion. But on the other hand, when we look at the various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the Truman Administration which preceded it. And I would suggest that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas in which his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then. What kind of programs are we for? We are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to all Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are necessary and dear to the hearts of our people. We are for programs, in addition, which will see that our medical care for the aged are – is – are much – is much better handled than it is at the present time. Here again, may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aims. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate medical care. The question is the means. I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he advocates. I could give better examples, but for – for whatever it is, whether it’s in the field of housing, or health, or medical care, or schools, or the eh- development of electric power, we have programs which we believe will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past seven and a half years. Now, when we look at these programs, might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you’re spending. I will concede that in all the areas to which I have referred Senator Kennedy would have the spe- federal government spend more than I would have it spend. I costed out the cost of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of thirteen and two-tenths billions dollars a year more than we are presently spending to a maximum of eighteen billion dollars a year more than we’re presently spending. Now the Republican platform will cost more too. It will cost a minimum of four billion dollars a year more, a maximum of four and nine-tenths billion dollar a year more than we’re presently spending. Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours? Not at all. Because it isn’t a question of how much the federal government spends; it isn’t a question of which government does the most. It is a question of which administration does the right thing. And in our case, I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of a hundred and eighty million free Americans. I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies, I believe in other words, that his program would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this country to get progress. The final point that I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are unfortunate. Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed. I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Nixon. That completes the opening statements, and now the candidates will answer questions or comment upon one another’s answers to questions, put by correspondents of the networks. The correspondents: [introducing themselves: “I’m Sander Vanocur, NBC News;” “I’m Charles Warren, Mutual News;” “I’m Stuart Novins, CBS News;” “Bob Fleming, ABC News.”] The first question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.MR. FLEMING: Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that you were naive and at times immature. He has raised the question of leadership. On this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the Vice President?MR. KENNEDY: Well, the Vice President and I came to the Congress together 1946; we both served in the Labor Committee. I’ve been there now for fourteen years, the same period of time that he has, so that our experience in uh – government is comparable. Secondly, I think the question is uh – what are the programs that we advocate, what is the party record that we lead? I come out of the Democratic party, which in this century has produced Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and which supported and sustained these programs which I’ve discussed tonight. Mr. Nixon comes out of the Republican party. He was nominated by it. And it is a fact that through most of these last twenty-five years the Republican leadership has opposed federal aid for education, medical care for the aged, development of the Tennessee Valley, development of our natural resources. I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same. The question before us is: which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?Mr. NIXON: I have no comment.Mr. SMITH: The next question: Mr. Novins.MR. NOVINS: Mr. Vice President, your campaign stresses the value of your eight year experience, and the question arises as to whether that experience was as an observer or as a participant or as an initiator of policy-making. Would you tell us please specifically what major proposals you have made in the last eight years that have been adopted by the Administration?MR. NIXON: It would be rather difficult to cover them in eight and- in two and a half minutes. I would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned. First, after each of my foreign trips I have made recommendations that have been adopted. For example, after my first trip abroad – abroad, I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons of leaders in the labor field and in the information field. After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up which the South American nations would like much better than a lend- than to participate in the lending agencies which treated all the countries of the world the same. Uh – I have made other recommendations after each of the other trips; for example, after my trip abroad to Hungary I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted, not only by the President but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress. Within the Administration, as a chairman of the President’s Committee on Price Stability and Economic Growth, I have had the opportunity to make recommendations which have been adopted within the Administration and which I think have been reasonably effective. I know Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech at Cleveland yesterday that that committee had not been particularly effective. I would only suggest that while we do not take the credit for it – I would not presume to – that since that committee has been formed the price line has been held very well within the United States.MR. KENNEDY: Well, I would say in the latter that the – and that’s what I found uh – somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures uh – Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech, when you talked about the Truman Administration. You – Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh – forty-four and at the end of the war, and uh – difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition – 1946 when price controls were lifted – so it’s rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth. In regard to uh – price stability uh – I’m not aware that that committee did produce recommendations that ever were certainly before the Congress from the point of view of legislation in regard to controlling prices. In regard to the exchange of students and labor unions, I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it’s true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over three hundred which was more than the federal government had for all of Africa the previous year, so that I don’t think that uh – we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Warren.MR. WARREN: Uh – Senator Kennedy, during your brief speech a few minutes ago you mentioned farm surpluses.MR. KENNEDY: That’s correct.MR. WARREN: I’d like to ask this: It’s a fact, I think, that presidential candidates traditionally make promises to farmers. Lots of people, I think, don’t understand why the government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers if they overproduce for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir, why can’t the farmer operate like the business man who operates a factory? If an auto company overproduces a certain model car Uncle Sam doesn’t step in and buy up the surplus. Why this constant courting of the farmer?MR. KENNEDY: Well, because I think that if the federal government moved out of the program and withdrew its supports uh – then I think you would have complete uh – economic chaos. The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They really don’t – they’re not able to control their market very well. They bring their crops in or their livestock in, many of them about the same time. They have only a few purchasers that buy their milk or their hogs – a few large companies in many cases – and therefore the farmer is not in a position to bargain very effectively in the market place. I think the experience of the twenties has shown what a free market could do to agriculture. And if the agricultural economy collapses, then the economy of the rest of the United States sooner or later will collapse. The farmers are the number one market for the automobile industry of the United States. The automobile industry is the number one market for steel. So if the farmers’ economy continues to decline as sharply as it has in recent years, then I think you would have a recession in the rest of the country. So I think the case for the government intervention is a good one. Secondly, my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand into better balance. The dropping of the support price in order to limit production does not work, and we now have the highest uh – surpluses – nine billion dollars worth. We’ve had a uh – higher tax load from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the lowest farm income in many years. I think that this farm policy has failed. In my judgment the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand to be in balance. And that can only be done through governmental action. I therefore suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported, that the federal government, after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity, attempt to bring supply and demand into balance – attempt effective production controls – so that we won’t have that five or six per cent surplus which breaks the price fifteen or twenty per cent. I think Mr. Benson’s program has failed. And I must say, after reading the Vice President’s speech before the farmers, as he read mine, I don’t believe that it’s very much different from Mr. Benson’s. I don’t think it provides effective governmental controls. I think the support prices are tied to the average market price of the last three years, which was Mr. Benson’s theory. I therefore do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the past to give us any hope of success for the future.MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?MR. NIXON; I of course disagree with Senator Kennedy insofar as his suggestions as to what should be done uh – with re- on the farm program. He has made the suggestion that what we need is to move in the direction of more government controls, a suggestion that would also mean raising prices uh – that the consumers pay for products and im- and imposing upon the farmers uh – controls on acreage even far more than they have today. I think this is the wrong direction. I don’t think this has worked in the past; I do not think it will work in the future. The program that I have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we have in this respect. It recognizes that the government has a responsibility to get the farmer out of the trouble he presently is in because the government got him into it. And that’s the fundamental reason why we can’t let the farmer go by himself at the present time. The farmer produced these surpluses because the government asked him to through legislation during the war. Now that we have these surpluses, it’s our responsibility to indemnify the farmer during that period that we get rid of the farmer uh – the surpluses. Until we get the surpluses off the farmer’s back, however, we should have a program such as I announced, which will see that farm income holds up. But I would propose holding that income up not through a type of program that Senator Kennedy has suggested that would raise prices, but one that would indemnify the farmer, pay the farmer in kind uh – from the products which are in surplus.Mr. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur.MR. VANOCUR: Uh – Mr. Vice President, since the question of executive leadership is a very important campaign issue, I’d like to follow Mr. Novins’ question. Now, Republican campaign slogans – you’ll see them on signs around the country as you did last week – say it’s experience that counts – that’s over a picture of yourself; sir uh – implying that you’ve had more governmental executive decision-making uh – experience than uh – your opponent. Now, in his news conference on August twenty-fourth, President Eisenhower was asked to give one example of a major idea of yours that he adopted. His reply was, and I’m quoting; “If you give me a week I might think of one. I don’t remember.” Now that was a month ago, sir, and the President hasn’t brought it up since, and I’m wondering, sir, if you can clarify which version is correct – the one put out by Republican campaign leaders or the one put out by President Eisenhower?MR. NIXON: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Vanocur, that uh – if you know the President, that was probably a facetious remark. Uh – I would also suggest that insofar as his statement is concerned, that I think it would be improper for the President of the United States to disclose uh – the instances in which members of his official family had made recommendations, as I have made them through the years to him, which he has accepted or rejected. The President has always maintained and very properly so that he is entitled to get what advice he wants from his cabinet and from his other advisers without disclosing that to anybody – including as a matter of fact the Congress. Now, I can only say this. Through the years I have sat in the National Security Council. I have been in the cabinet. I have met with the legislative leaders. I have met with the President when he made the great decisions with regard to Lebanon, Quemoy and Matsu, other matters. The President has asked for my advice. I have given it. Sometimes my advice has been taken. Sometimes it has not. I do not say that I have made the decisions. And I would say that no president should ever allow anybody else to make the major decisions, The president only makes the decisions. All that his advisers do is to give counsel when he asks for it. As far as what experience counts and whether that is experience that counts, that isn’t for me to say. Uh – I can only say that my experience is there for the people to consider; Senator Kennedy’s is there for the people to consider. As he pointed out, we came to the Congress in the same year. His experience has been different from mine. Mine has been in the executive branch. His has been in the legislative branch. I would say that the people now have the opportunity to evaluate his as against mine and I think both he and I are going to abide by whatever the people decide.MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.Mr. KENNEDY: Well, I’ll just say that the question is of experience and the question also is uh – what our judgment is of the future, and what our goals are for the United States, and what ability we have to implement those goals. Abraham Lincoln came to the presidency in 1860 after a rather little known uh – session in the House of Representatives and after being defeated for the Senate in fifty-eight and was a distinguished president. There’s no certain road to the presidency. There are no guarantees that uh – if you take uh – one road or another that you will be a successful president. I have been in the Congress for fourteen years. I have voted in the last uh – eight years uh – and the Vice President was uh – presiding over the Senate and meeting his other responsibilities. I have met met uh – decisions over eight hundred times on matters which affect not only the domestic security of the United States, but as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The question really is: which candidate and which party can meet the problems that the United States is going to face in the sixties?MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Novins.MR. NOVINS: Senator Kennedy, in connection with these problems of the future that you speak of, and the program that you enunciated earlier in your direct talk, you call for expanding some of the welfare programs for schools, for teacher salaries, medical care, and so forth; but you also call for reducing the federal debt. And I’m wondering how you, if you’re president in January, would go about paying the bill for all this. Does this mean that you?MR. KENNEDY: I didn’t indicate. I did not advocate reducing the federal debt because I don’t believe that you’re going to be able to reduce the federal debt very much in nineteen sixty-one, two, or three. I think you have heavy obligations which affect our security, which we’re going to have to meet. And therefore I’ve never suggested we should uh – be able to retire the debt substantially, or even at all in nineteen sixty-one or two.MR. NOVINS: Senator, I believe in – in one of your speeches –MR. KENNEDY: No, never.MR. NOVINS: – you suggested that reducing the interest rate would help toward –MR. KENNEDY: No. No. Not reducing the interest –MR. NOVINS: – a reduction of the Federal debt.MR. KENNEDY: – reducing the interest rate. In my judgment, the hard money, tight money policy, fiscal policy of this Administration has contributed to the slow-down in our economy, which helped bring the recession of fifty-four; which made the recession of fifty-eight rather intense, and which has slowed, somewhat, our economic activity in 1960. What I have talked about, however, the kind of programs that I’ve talked about, in my judgment, are uh – fiscally sound. Medical care for the aged, I would put under social security. The Vice President and I disagree on this. The program – the Javits-Nixon or the Nixon-Javits program – would have cost, if fully used uh – six hundred million dollars by the government per year, and six hundred million dollars by the state. The program which I advocated, which failed by five votes in the United States Senate, would have put medical care for the aged in Social Security, and would have been paid for through the Social Security System and the Social Security tax. Secondly, I support federal aid to education and federal aid for teachers’ salaries. I think that’s a good investment. I think we’re going to have to do it. And I think to heap the burden further on the property tax, which is already strained in many of our communities, will provide, will make sh- insure, in my opinion, that many of our children will not be adequately educated, and many of our teachers not adequately compensated. There is no greater return to an economy or to a society than an educational system second to none. On the question of the development of natural resources, I would pay as you go in the sense that they would be balanced and the power revenues would bring back sufficient money to finance the projects, in the same way as the Tennessee Valley. I believe in the balanced budget. And the only conditions under which I would unbalance the budget would be if there was a grave national emergency or a serious recession. Otherwise, with a steady rate of economic growth – and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rockefeller, in their meeting, said a five per cent economic growth would bring by 1962 ten billion dollars extra in tax revenues. Whatever is brought in, I think that we can finance essential programs within a balanced budget, if business remains orderly.MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, your comment?MR. NIXON: Yes. I think what Mr. Novins was referring to was not one of Senator Kennedy’s speeches, but the Democratic platform, which did mention cutting the national debt. I think, too, that it should be pointed out that of course it is not possible, particularly under the proposals that Senator Kennedy has advocated, either to cut the national debt or to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact it will be necessary to raise taxes. As Senator Kennedy points out that as far as his one proposal is concerned – the one for medical care for the aged – that that would be financed out of Social Security. That, however, is raising taxes for those who pay Social Security. He points out that he would make pay-as-you-go be the basis for our natural resources development. Where our natural resources development – which I also support, incidentally, however – whenever you uh – uh – in – in – uh – appropriates money for one of these projects, you have to pay now and appropriate the money and the eh- while they eventually do pay out, it doesn’t mean that you – the government doesn’t have to put out the money this year. And so I would say that in all of these proposals Senator Kennedy has made, they will result in one of two things: either he has to raise taxes or he has to unbalance the budget. If he unbalances the budget, that means you have inflation, and that will be, of course, a very cruel blow to the very people – the older people – that we’ve been talking about. As far as aid for school construction is concerned, I favor that, as Senator Kennedy did, in January of this year, when he said he favored that rather than aid to s- teacher salaries. I favor that because I believe that’s the best way to aid our schools without running any risk whatever of the federal government telling our teachers what to teach.MR. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Warren.MR. WARREN: Mr. Vice President you mentioned schools and it was just yesterday I think you asked for a crash program to raise education standards, and this evening you talked about advances in education. Mr. Vice President, you said – it was back in 1957 – that salaries paid to school teachers were nothing short of a national disgrace. Higher salaries for teachers, you added, were important and if the situation wasn’t corrected it could lead to a national disaster. And yet, you refused to vote in the Senate in order to break a tie vote when that single vote, if it had been yes, would have granted salary increases to teachers. I wonder if you could explain that, sir.MR. NIXON: I’m awfully glad you ge- got that question because as you know I got into it at the last of my other question and wasn’t able to complete the argument. Uh – I think that the reason that I voted against having the federal government uh – pay teachers’ salaries was probably the very reason that concerned Senator Kennedy when in January of this year, in his kick-off press conference, he said that he favored aid for school construction, but at that time did not feel that there should be aid for teachers’ salaries – at least that’s the way I read his remarks. Now, why should there be any question about the federal government aiding s- teachers’ salaries? Why did Senator Kennedy take that position then? Why do I take it now? We both took it then, and I take it now, for this reason: we want higher teachers’ salaries. We need higher teachers’ salaries. But we also want our education to be free of federal control. When the federal government gets the power to pay teachers, inevitably in my opinion, it will acquire the power to set standards and to tell the teachers what to teach. I think this would be bad for the country; I think it would be bad for the teaching profession. There is another point that should be made. I favor higher salaries for teachers. But, as Senator Kennedy said in January of this year in this same press conference, the way that you get higher salaries for teachers is to support school construction, which means that all of the local school districts in the various states then have money which is freed to raise the standards for teachers’ salaries. I should also point out this; once you put the responsibility on the federal government for paying a portion of teachers’ salaries, your local communities and your states are not going to meet the responsibility as much as they should. I believe, in other words, that we have seen the local communities and the state assuming more of that responsibility. Teachers’ salaries very fortunately have gone up fifty percent in the last eight years as against only a thirty-four percent rise for other salaries. This is not enough; it should be more. But I do not believe that the way to get more salaries for teachers is to have the federal government get in with a massive program. My objection here is not the cost in dollars. My objection here is the potential cost in controls and eventual freedom for the American people by giving the federal government power over education, and that is the greatest power a government can have.MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy’s comment?MR. KENNEDY: When uh – the Vice President quotes me in January, sixty, I do not believe the federal government should pay directly teachers’ salaries, but that was not the issue before the Senate in February. The issue before the Senate was that the money would be given to the state. The state then could determine whether the money would be spent for school construction or teacher salaries. On that question the Vice President and I disagreed. I voted in favor of that proposal and supported it strongly, because I think that that provided assistance to our teachers for their salaries without any chance of federal control and it is on that vote that th- Mr. Nixon and I disagreed, and his tie vote uh – defeated his breaking the tie defeated the proposal. I don’t want the federal government paying teachers’ salaries directly. But if the money will go to the states and the states can then determine whether it shall go for school construction or for teachers’ salaries, in my opinion you protect the local authority over the school board and the school committee. And therefore I think that was a sound proposal and that is why I supported it and I regret that it did not pass. Secondly, there have been statements made that uh – the Democratic platform would cost a good deal of money and that I am in favor of unbalancing the budget. That is wholly wrong, wholly in error, and it is a fact that in the last eight years the Democratic Congress has reduced the appropri- the requests for the appropriations by over ten billion dollars. That is not my view and I think it ought to be stated very clearly on the record. My view is that you can do these programs – and they should be carefully drawn – within a balanced budget if our economy is moving ahead.MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Vanocur.MR. VANOCUR: Senator, you’ve been promising the voters that if you are elected president you’ll try and push through Congress bills on medical aid to the aged, a comprehensive minimum hourly wage bill, federal aid to education. Now, in the August post-convention session of the Congress, when you at least held up the possibility you could one day be president and when you had overwhelming majorities, especially in the Senate, you could not get action on these bills. Now how do you feel that you’ll be able to get them in January –MR. KENNEDY: Well as you take the bills –MR. VANOCUR: – if you weren’t able to get them in August?MR. KENNEDY: If I may take the bills, we did pass in the Senate a bill uh – to provide a dollar twenty-five cent minimum wage. It failed because the House did not pass it and the House failed by eleven votes. And I might say that two-thirds of the Republicans in the House voted against a dollar twenty-five cent minimum wage and a majority of the Democrats sustained it – nearly two-thirds of them voted for the dollar twenty-five. We were threatened by a veto if we passed a dollar and a quarter – it’s extremely difficult with the great power that the president does to pass any bill when the president is opposed to it. All the president needs to sustain his veto of any bill is one-third plus one in either the House or the Senate. Secondly, we passed a federal aid to education bill in the Senate. It failed to came to the floor of the House of Representatives. It was killed in the Rules Committee. And it is a fact in the August session that the four members of the Rules Committee who were Republicans joining with two Democrats voted against sending the aid to education bill to the floor of the House. Four Democrats voted for it. Every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against sending that bill to be considered by the members of the House of Representatives. Thirdly, on medical care for the aged, this is the same fight that’s been going on for twenty-five years in Social Security. We wanted to tie it to Social Security. We offered an amendment to do so. Forty-four Democrats voted for it, one Republican voted for it. And we were informed at the time it came to a vote that if it was adopted the President of the United States would veto it. In my judgment, a vigorous Democratic president supported by a Democratic majority in the House and Senate can win the support for these programs. But if you send a Republican president and a Democratic majority and the threat of a veto hangs over the Congress, in my judgment you will continue what happened in the August session, which is a clash of parties and inaction.MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?MR. NIXON: Well obviously my views are a little different. First of all, I don’t see how it’s possible for a one-third of a body, such as the Republicans have in the House and the Senate to stop two-thirds, if the two-thirds are adequately led. I would say, too, that when Senator Kennedy refers to the action of the House Rules Committee, there are eight Democrats on that committee and four Republicans. It would seem to me again that it is very difficult to blame the four Republicans for the eight Democrats’ not getting a something through that particular committee. I would say further that to blame the President in his veto power for the inability of the Senator and his colleagues to get action in this special session uh – misses the mark. When the president exercises his veto power, he has to have the people upo- behind him, not just a third of the Congress. Because let’s consider it. If the majority of the members of the Congress felt that these particular proposals were good issues – the majority of those who were Democrats – why didn’t they pass them and send to the President and get a veto and have an issue? The reason why these particular bills in these various fields that have been mentioned were not passed was not because the President was against them; it was because the people were against them. It was because they were too extreme. And I am convinced that the alternate proposals that I have, that the Republicans have in the field of health, in the field of education, in the field of welfare, because they are not extreme, because they will accomplish the end uh – without too great cost in dollars or in freedom, that they could get through the next Congress.MR. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon fa- from Mr. Fleming.MR. FLEMING: Mr. Vice President, do I take it then you believe that you can work better with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate than Senator Kennedy could work with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate?MR. NIXON; I would say this: that we, of course, expect to pick up some seats in both in the House and the Senate. Uh – We would hope to control the House, to get a majority in the House uh – in this election. We cannot, of course, control the Senate. I would say that a president will be able to lead – a president will be able to get his program through – to the effect that he has the support of the country, the support of the people. Sometimes we – we get the opinion that in getting programs through the House or the Senate it’s purely a question of legislative finagling and all that sort of thing. It isn’t really that. Whenever a majority of the people are for a program, the House and the Senate responds to it. And whether this House and Senate, in the next session is Democratic or Republican, if the country will have voted for the candidate for the presidency and for the proposals that he has made, I believe that you will find that the president, if it were a Republican, as it would be in my case, would be able to get his program through that Congress. Now, I also say that as far as Senator Kennedy’s proposals are concerned, that, again, the question is not simply one of uh – a presidential veto stopping programs. You must always remember that a president can’t stop anything unless he has the people behind him. And the reason President Eisenhower’s vetoes have been sustained – the reason the Congress does not send up bills to him which they think will be vetoed – is because the people and the Congress, the majority of them, know the country is behind the President.MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well, now let’s look at these bills that the Vice President suggests were too extreme. One was a bill for a dollar twenty-five cents an hour for anyone who works in a store or company that has a million dollars a year business. I don’t think that’s extreme at all; and yet nearly two-thirds to three-fourths of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against that proposal. Secondly was the federal aid to education bill. It – it was a very uh – because of the defeat of teacher salaries, it was not a bill that uh – met in my opinion the need. The fact of the matter is it was a bill that was less than you recommended, Mr. Nixon, this morning in your proposal. It was not an extreme bill and yet we could not get one Republican to join, at least I think four of the eight Democrats voted to send it to the floor of the House – not one Republican – and they joined with those Democrats who were opposed to it. I don’t say the Democrats are united in their support of the program. But I do say a majority are. And I say a majority of the Republicans are opposed to it. The third is medical care for the aged which is tied to Social Security, which is financed out of Social Security funds. It does not put a deficit on the Treasury. The proposal advanced by you and by Mr. Javits would have cost six hundred millions of dollars – Mr. Rockefeller rejected it in New York, said he didn’t agree with the financing at all, said it ought to be on Social Security. So these are three programs which are quite moderate. I think it shows the difference between the two parties. One party is ready to move in these programs. The other party gives them lip service.MR. SMITH: Mr. Warren’s question for Senator Kennedy.MR. WARREN: Senator Kennedy, on another subject, Communism is so often described as an ideology or a belief that exists somewhere other than in the United States. Let me ask you, sir: just how serious a threat to our national security are these Communist subversive activities in the United States today?MR. KENNEDY: Well, I think they’re serious. I think it’s a matter that we should continue to uh – give uh – great care and attention to. We should support uh – the laws which the United States has passed in order to protect us from uh – those who would destroy us from within. We should sustain uh – the Department of Justice in its efforts and the F.B.I., and we should be continually alert. I think if the United States is maintaining a strong society here in the United States, I think that we can meet any internal threat. The major threat is external and will continue.MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?MR. NIXON: I agree with Senator Kennedy’s appraisal generally in this respect. The question of Communism within the United States has been one that has worried us in the past. It is one that will continue to be a problem for years to come. We have to remember that the cold war that Mr. Khrushchev is waging and his colleagues are waging, is waged all over the world and it’s waged right here in the United States. That’s why we have to continue to be alert. It is also essential in being alert that we be fair; fair because by being fair we uphold the very freedoms that the Communists would destroy. We uphold the standards of conduct which they would never follow. And, in this connection, I think that uh – we must look to the future having in mind the fact that we fight Communism at home not only by our laws to deal with Communists uh – the few who do become Communists and the few who do become tra- fellow travelers, but we also fight Communism at home by moving against those various injustices which exist in our society which the Communists feed upon. And in that connection I again would say that while Senator Kennedy says we are for the status quo, I do believe that he uh – would agree that I am just as sincere in believing that my proposals for federal aid to education, my proposals for health care are just as sincerely held as his. The question again is not one of goals – we’re for those goals – it’s one of means.MR. SMITH: Mr. Vanocur’s question for Vice President Nixon.MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Vice President uh – in one of your earlier statements you said we’ve moved ahead, we’ve built more schools, we’ve built more hospitals. Now, sir, isn’t it true that the building of more schools is a local matter for financing? Uh – Were you claiming that the Eisenhower Administration was responsible for the building of these schools, or is it the local school districts that provide for it?MR. NIXON: Not at all. As a matter of fact your question brings out a point that I am very glad to make. Too often in appraising whether we are moving ahead or not we think only of what the federal government is doing. Now that isn’t the test of whether America moves. The test of whether America moves is whether the federal government, plus the state government, plus the local government, plus the biggest segment of all – individual enterprise – moves. We have for example a gross national product of approximately five hundred billion dollars. Roughly a hundred billion to a hundred and a quarter billion of that is the result of government activity. Four hundred billion, approximately, is a result of what individuals do. Now, the reason the Eisenhower Administration has moved, the reason that we’ve had the funds, for example, locally to build the schools, and the hospitals, and the highways, to make the progress that we have, is because this Administration has encouraged individual enterprise; and it has resulted in the greatest expansion of the private sector of the economy that has ever been witnessed in an eight-year period. And that is growth. That is the growth that we are looking for; it is the growth that this Administration has supported and that its policies have stimulated.MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.MR. KENNEDY: Well, I must say that the reason that the schools have been constructed is because the local school districts were willing to increase the property taxes to a tremendously high figure – in my opinion, almost to the point of diminishing returns in order to sustain these schools. Secondly, I think we have a rich uh – country. And I think we have a powerful country. I think what we have to do, however, is have the president and the leadership set before our country exactly what we must do in the next decade, if we’re going to maintain our security in education, in economic growth, in development of natural resources. The Soviet Union is making great gains. It isn’t enough to compare what might have been done eight years ago, or ten years ago, or fifteen years ago, or twenty years ago. I want to compare what we’re doing with what our adversaries are doing, so that by the year 1970 the United States is ahead in education, in health, in building, in homes, in economic strength. I think that’s the big assignment, the big task, the big function of the federal government.MR. SMITH: Can I have the summation time please? We’ve completed our questions and our comments, and in just a moment, we’ll have the summation time.VOICE: This will allow three minutes and twenty seconds for the summation by each candidate.MR. SM1TH: Three minutes and twenty seconds for each candidate. Vice President Nixon, will you make the first summation?MR. NIXON: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Senator Kennedy. First of all, I think it is well to put in perspective where we really do stand with regard to the Soviet Union in this whole matter of growth. The Soviet Union has been moving faster than we have. But the reason for that is obvious. They start from a much lower base. Although they have been moving faster in growth than we have, we find, for example, today that their total gross national product is only forty-four per cent of our total gross national product. That’s the same percentage that it was twenty years ago. And as far as the absolute gap is concerned, we find that the United States is even further ahead than it was twenty years ago. Is this any reason for complacency? Not at all Because these are determined men. They are fanatical men. And we have to get the very most of uh – out uh – out of our economy. I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on that score. Where we disagree is in the means that we would use to get the most out of our economy. I respectfully submit that Senator Kennedy too often would rely too much on the federal government, on what it would do to solve our problems, to stimulate growth. I believe that when we examine the Democratic platform, when we examine the proposals that he has discussed tonight, when we compare them with the proposals that I have made, that these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for this country than would be the case if we followed the programs that I have advocated. There are many of the points that he has made that I would like to comment upon. The one in the field of health is worth mentioning. Our health program – the one that Senator Javits and other Republican Senators, as well as I supported – is one that provides for all people over sixty-five who want health insurance, the opportunity to have it if they want it. It provides a choice of having either government insurance or private insurance. But it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want it. His program under Social Security, would require everybody who had Social Security to take government health insurance whether he wanted it or not. And it would not cover several million people who are not covered by Social Security at all. Here is one place where I think that our program does a better job than his. The other point that I would make is this: this downgrading of how much things cost I think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happened when – during the Truman Administration when the government was spending more than it took in – we found savings over a lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found the people who could least afford it – people on retired incomes uh – people on fixed incomes – we found them unable to meet their bills at the end of the month. It is essential that a man who’s president of this country certainly stand for every program that will mean for growth. And I stand for programs that will mean growth and progress. But it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves.MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.MR. KENNEDY: The point was made by Mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only forty-four percent of ours. I must say that forty-four percent and that Soviet country is causing us a good deal of trouble tonight. I want to make sure that it stays in that relationship. I don’t want to see the day when it’s sixty percent of ours, and seventy and seventy-five and eighty and ninety percent of ours, with all the force and power that it could bring to bear in order to cause our destruction. Secondly, the Vice President mentioned medical care for the aged. Our program was an amendment to the Kerr bill. The Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who were not on Social Security. I think it’s a very clear contrast. In 1935, when the Social Security Act was written, ninety-four out of ninety-five Republicans voted against it. Mr. Landon ran in 1936 to repeal it. In August of 1960, when we tried to get it again, but this time for medical care, we received the support of one Republican in the Senate on this occasion. Thirdly, I think the question before the American people is: as they look at this country and as they look at the world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans. The means are at question. The means are at issue. If you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the Communists; that we’ve b- gaining more security, that we are achieving everything as a nation that we should achieve, that we are achieving a better life for our citizens and greater strength, then I agree. I think you should vote for Mr. Nixon. But if you feel that we have to move again in the sixties, that the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society as Franklin Roosevelt did in the thirties, the agenda for our people – what we must do as a society to meet our needs in this country and protect our security and help the cause of freedom. As I said at the beginning, the question before us all, that faces all Republicans and all Democrats, is: can freedom in the next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful? That’s the great issue. And if we meet our responsibilities I think freedom will conquer. If we fail, if we fail to move ahead, if we fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength here in this country, then I think that uh – the tide could begin to run against us. And I don’t want historians, ten years from now, to say, these were the years when the tide ran out for the United States. I want them to say these were the years when the tide came in; these were the years when the United States started to move again. That’s the question before the American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you want this country to be, what you want to do with the future. I think we’re ready to move. And it is to that great task, if we’re successful, that we will address ourselves.MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, gentlemen. This hour has gone by all too quickly. Thank you very much for permitting us to present the next president of the United States on this unique program. I’ve been asked by the candidates to thank the American networks and the affiliated stations for providing time and facilities for this joint appearance. Other debates in this series will be announced later and will be on different subjects. This is Howard K. Smith. Good night from Chicago.",
    "id": "931e85ea-f433-43ed-91a9-c81e27efd912"
  },
  {
    "year": 1984,
    "date": "October 11, 1984",
    "title": "The Bush-Ferraro Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 11, 1984 Debate TranscriptOctober 11, 1984The Bush-Ferraro Vice-Presidential DebateDOROTHY S. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Civic Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I’m Dorothy Ridings, president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of tonight’s vice-presidential debate between Republican George Bush and Democrat Geraldine Ferraro. Our panelists for tonight’s debate are John Mashek, correspondent for U.S. News & World Report; Jack White, correspondent for Time magazine; Norma Quarles, correspondent for NBC News; and Robert Boyd, Washington bureau chief for Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Sander Vanocur, senior political correspondent for ABC News, is our moderator tonight. Sandy.VANOCUR: Thank you, Dorothy. A few words about the order of our format tonight. The order of questioning was determined by a toss of the coin. Congresswoman Ferraro won the toss. She elected to speak last. Therefore Vice President Bush will get the first question. The debate will be built upon a series of questions from the four reporters on the panel. A reporter will ask a candidate a question, a follow-up question and then the same to the other candidate; then each candidate will get to rebut the other. The debate will be divided into two parts. There’ll be a section, the first: one, on domestic affairs; the second on foreign affairs. Now the manner of address was decided by the candidates. Therefore it will be Vice President Bush, Congresswoman Ferraro. And we begin our questioning with Mr. Mashek.MASHEK: John Adams, our nation’s first vice-president, once said: “Today I am nothing. Tomorrow I may be everything.” With that in mind, I’d like to ask the following question: Vice President Bush, four years ago, you ran against Mr. Reagan for the Republican nomination. You disagreed with him on such issues as the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, and you labeled his economic policies as voodoo. Now you apparently agree with him on every issue. If you should be called upon to assume the presidency, would you follow Mr. Reagan’s policies down the line or would you revert to some of your own ideas.BUSH: Well, I don’t think there’s a great difference, Mr. Mashek, between my views and President Reagan’s. One of the reasons I think we’re an effective team is that I believe firmly in his leadership. He’s really turned this country around. We agree on the economic program. When we came into office, why, inflation was 21, 12 1/2 percent interest was wiping out every single American were 21 1/2 percent if you can believe it. Productivity was down. Savings was down. There was despair. In fact, the leadership of the country told the people that there was a malaise out there. And this president turned it around and I’ve been with him every step of the way. And of course I would continue those kinds of programs because it’s brought America back. America’s better off. People are going back to work. And why Mr. Monad can’t understand that there’s a new enthusiasm in this country, that America is back, there’s new strong leadership, I don’t know. He has one answer to the problem. Raise everybody’s taxes. He looked right into that lens and he said out there in San Francisco, he said, “I’m gonna raise your taxes.” Well he’s had a lot of experience in that and he’s sure gonna go ahead and do it. But I remember a statement of Lyndon Johnson’s when he was looking around, why his party people weren’t supporting him, and he said, “Hey, they painted their tails white and they ran with the antelopes.” There’s a lot of Democratic white tails running with the antelopes. Not one single Democrat has introduced the Mondale tax bill into the Congress. Of course I support the president’s economic program and I support him in everything else. And I’m not sure, because of my concept of the vice presidency, that if I didn’t, I’d go doing what Mr. Mondale has done with Jimmy Carter; jump away from him. I couldn’t do that to Ronald Reagan, now, next year or any other time. I have too much trust in him. I have too much friendship for him. And I’d feel very uncomfortable doing that.MASHEK: Well some Republicans have criticized Mr. Mondale for now claiming he disagreed privately with Jimmy Carter’s decision to impose the grain embargo. Have you ever disagreed with any decision of the Reagan Administration and its inner circles? And in following that up, where in your judgment does loyalty end and principle begin?BUSH: I owe my president my judgment and then I owe him loyalty. You can’t have the president of the United States out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice president is going to be supporting him. Mrs. Ferraro has quite a few differences with Vice-President Mondale and I understood it when she changed her position on tuition tax credits. They’re different on busing; she voted to extend the grain embargo; he now says that he was against it. If they win – and I hope they don’t – but if they win, she’ll have to accommodate some views. But she’ll give him the same kind of loyalty that I’m giving President Reagan. One, we’re not far apart on anything. Two, I can walk into that Oval Office anytime and give him my judgment and he might agree or he might not. But he also knows I won’t be talking about it to the press or I won’t be knifing him in the back by leaking to make me look good and complicate the problems of the president of the United States.MASHEK: Congresswoman Ferraro, your opponent has served in the House Of Representatives, he’s been ambassador to the United Nations, ambassador to China, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now he’s been vice president for four years. How does your three terms in the House of Representatives stack up against experience like that?FERRARO: Well, let me first say that I wasn’t born at the age of forty-three when I entered Congress. I did have a life before that as well. I was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney’s office in Queens County and I was a teacher. There’s not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It’s how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they’ll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions. I’m intrigued when I hear Vice-President Bush talk about his support of the president’s economic program and how everything is just going so beautifully. I, too, recall when Vice President Bush was running in the primary against President Reagan and he called the program voodoo economics, and it was and it is. We are facing absolutely massive deficits; this administration has chosen to ignore it; the president has failed to put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everything believes that everything is corning up roses, perhaps the vice-president should join me as I travel around the country and speak to people. People in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, are not terribly thrilled with what’s happening in the economy because they’re standing in the light of a closed plant because they’ve lost their jobs. The people in Youngstown, Ohio, have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. It’s not only the old industries that are failing, it’s also the new ones. In San Jose, California, they’re complaining because they can’t export their high-tech qualities – goods – to Japan and other countries. The people in the Northwest – in the state of Washington and Oregon – are complaining about what’s happening to the timber industry and to the agriculture industry. So, so things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. My feeling, quite frankly, is that I have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to those problems.MASHEK: Despite the historic aspects of your candidacy, how do you account for the fact that a majority of women – at least according to the polls – favor the Reagan-Bush ticket over the Mondale-Ferraro ticket?FERRARO: I don’t. Let me say that I’m not a believer in polls and let me say further that what we are talking about are problems that are facing the entire nation. They’re not just problems facing women. The issues in this campaign are the war-peace issues; the problems of deficits; the problems of trade deficits. We are now facing a $120 billion trade deficit in this country. We’re facing problems of the environment. I think what we’re going to be doing over the next several weeks – and I’m absolutely delighted that the League is sponsoring these debates and that we are, we are able to now speak to the American public and address the issues in a way such as this. I think you’re going to see a change in those polls.VANOCUR: Vice President Bush, you have one minute to rebuttal.BUSH: Well, I was glad to get that vote of confidence from Mrs. Ferraro in my economic judgment. So let me make a statement on the economy. The other clay she was in a plant and she said to the workers, Why are you all voting for, why are so many of you voting for the Reagan-Bush ticket. And there was a long, deathly silence and she said come on, we delivered. That’s the problem. And I’m not blaming her except for the liberal voting record in the House. They delivered. They delivered 21 ® percent interest rates. They delivered what they called malaise. They delivered interest rates that were right off the charts. They delivered take-home pay, checks that were shrinking, and we’ve delivered optimism. People are going back to work; 6 million of them. And 300,000 jobs a month being created. That’s why there was that deathly silence out there in that plant. They delivered the wrong thing. Ronald Reagan is delivering leadership.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, one-minute rebuttal.FERRARO: I, I think what I’m going to have to do is I’m going to start correcting the vice-president’s statistics. There are 6 million more people who have jobs and that’s supposed to happen in a growing economy. In fact in the prior administration, with all their problems, they created 10 million jobs. The housing interest rates during this administration, for housing for middle-class Americans, was 14.5 percent. Under the prior administration, with all their problems, the average rate was 10.6 percent. If you take a look at the number of people living in poverty as a result of this administration, 6 million people, 500,000 people knocked off disability rolls. You know, it’s, you can walk around saying things are great and that’s what we’re going to be hearing, we’ve been hearing that on those commercials for the past couple of months. I expect they expect the American people to believe that. I’ll become a one-woman truth squad and we’ll start tonight.VANOCUR: Mr. White.WHITE: Congresswoman Ferraro, I would like to ask you about civil rights. You have in the past been a supporter of tuition tax credits for private parochial schools. And also of a constitutional amendment to ban busing. Both these measures are opposed not only by your running mate but by about every educational and civil rights organization in the country. Now that you’re Mr. Mondale’s running mate have you changed your position on either of those?FERRARO: With reference to the busing vote that I cast in 1979, both Fritz Mondale and I agree on the same goal and that is nondiscrimination. I just don’t agree on the same direction he does on how to achieve it. But I don’t find any problem with that. I think that’s been something that’s been handled by the courts, and not being handled by Congress and will not be handled by the White House. But we both support nondiscrimination in housing and integration of neighborhoods. The goals we both set forth. With reference to tuition tax credits, I have represented a district in Queens which is 70 percent Catholic. I represented my district. Let me say as well that I have also been a great supporter of public school education and that is something that Fritz and I feel very, very strongly about for the future of this country. And this administration over the past several years has gutted the educational programs available to our young people. It has attempted to knock out Pell Grants, which are monies to young individuals who are poor and who cannot afford to go to college. It has reduced by 25 percent the amount of monies going into college education and by a third those going into secondary and primary schools. But Fritz Mondale and I feel very strongly that if you educate your children that that’s an effort and the way that you build up and make a stronger America. With reference to civil rights I think you’ve got to go beyond that and if you take a look, also, at my record in the Congress and Fritz Mondale’s record, both in the Senate and as vice president, we both have extremely strong civil rights records. This administration does not. It has come in in the Bob Jones on the side of segregated academies. It came in in the Grove City case on the side of discrimination against women, the handicapped, and the elderly. As a matter of fact, in the Congress we just passed overwhelmingly the Civil Rights Bill of 1984 and this administration, the Republican-controlled Senate, just killed it in the last week or two in Congress. So there is a real difference between how the Mondale-Ferraro administration will address the problems of civil rights and the failure of this administration specifically in that particular area.WHITE: In the area of affirmative action, what steps do you think government can take to increase the representation of minorities and women in the work force, and in colleges and universities, and specifically, would you support the use of quotas to achieve those goals?FERRARO: I do not support the use of quotas. Both Mr. Mondale and I feel very strongly about affirmative action to correct inequities, and we believe that steps should be taken both through government – for instance, the Small Business Administration. We have supported set-asides for minority and women’s businesses. That’s a positive thing. We don’t feel that you’re in any way hurting anybody else by reaching out with affirmative action to help those who’ve been disenfranchised. On the contrary, if you have a growing economy, if you create the jobs, if you allow for small business the opportunity with lower interest rates to reach out and grow, there will be more than enough space for everybody. And affirmative action is a very positive way to deal with the problems of discrimination.WHITE: Vice-President Bush, many critics of your administration say that it is the most hostile to minorities in recent memory. Have you inadvertently perhaps encouraged that view by supporting tuition tax credits, the antibusing amendment, and siding with Bob Jones University in a case before the Supreme Court, your original opposition to the Voting Rights Act extension and so forth?BUSH: No, Mr. White, I think our record on civil rights is a good record. You mentioned the Voting Rights extension; it was extended for the longest period of time by President Reagan. But we have some problems in attracting the black vote, and I think our record deserves better. We have done more for black colleges than any previous administration. We favor enterprise zones to give – and it’s been blocked by Tip O’Neill and that House of Representatives, those liberals in that House blocked a new idea to bring jobs into the black communities across the country. And because it’s not an old handout, special federal spending program, it’s blocked there – a good idea. And I’d like to sec that tried. We’ve brought more civil rights cases in the Justice Department than the previous administration by far. We believe in trying something new to help these black teenage kids; the minimum wage differential that says, “Look,” to an employer, “hire these guys. And, yes, they’re willing to work for slightly less than the minimum wage. Give ’em a training job in the private sector.” We threw out that old CETA that didn’t train people for jobs that existed, simply rammed them onto the government payroll, and we put in a thing called the Job Training Partnership Act. Wonderful new legislation that’s helping blacks more and more. We think of civil rights as something like crime in your neighborhoods. And, for example, when crime figures are going in the right direction that’s good, that’s a civil right. Similarly, we think of it in terms of quality of life, and that means interest rates. You know, it’s funny, Mr. Mondale talks about real interest rates. The real interest rate is what you pay when you go down and try to buy a TV set or buy a car, or do whatever it is. The interest rates when we left office were 21% percent. Inflation! Is it a civil right to have the going right off the chart so you’re busting every American family, those who can afford it the least? No, we’ve got a good record. We’ve got it on civil rights legislation, minority set-asides, more help for black colleges, and we’ve got it in terms of an economy that’s offering people opportunity and hope instead of despair.WHITE: Along those lines, sir, many recent studies have indicated that the poor and minorities have not really shared in the new prosperity generated by the current economic recovery. Was it right for your administration to pursue policies, economic policies, that required those at the bottom of the economic ladder to wait for prosperity to trickle clown from people who are much better off than they?BUSH: Mr. White, it’s not trickling down. And I’m not suggesting there’s no poverty, but I am suggesting the way to work out of poverty is through real opportunity. And in the meantime, the needy are getting more help. Human resource spending is way, way up. Aid for Dependent Children spending is up. Immunization programs are up. Almost every place you can point, contrary to Mr. Mondale’s – I gotta be careful – but contrary of how he goes around just saying everything bad. If somebody sees a silver lining, he finds a big black cloud out there. Whine on harvest moon! I mean, there’s a lot going on, a lotta opportunity.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal.FERRARO: The vice-president indicates that the President signed the Voting Rights Act. That was after he was – he did not support it while it was in the Congress, in the Senate, it was passed despite his opposition, and he did sign it because he was required to do so. In the civil rights cases that he mentioned, the great number of cases that they have enforced, the reason they enforced them because under the law they’re required to do that. And I’m delighted that the administration is following the law. With referenceVANOCUR: Excuse me – this will be out of my time, not yours – knowing and cherishing the people of this city and knowing their restraint and diffidence about emotion especially of athletic contexts of which this is not one, I beseech you, try to hold your applause please. I’m sorry.FERRARO: I just have to correct in my thirty seconds that are left the comment that the vice-president made with reference specifically to a program like AFDC. If you take AFDC, if you take food stamps, if you take – oh, go down the line on poor people’s programs, those are the programs that suffered considerably under this administration’s first budget cuts and those are the ones that in the second part of their part of their term, we were able to restore some of those terribly, terribly unfair cuts to the poor people of this country.VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush.BUSH: Well, maybe we have a factual – maybe we can ask the experts to go to the books. They’ll do it anyway. Spending for food stamps is way, way up under the Reagan administration, AFDC is up under the Reagan administration, and I’m not going to be found wrong on that. I am sure of my facts, and we are trying to help and I think we’re doing a reasonable job, but we are not going to rest until every single American that wants a job and until this prosperity and this recovery that’s benefiting many Americans, benefits all Americans.VANOCUR: Miss Quarles.QUARLES: Vice-President Bush, one of the most emotional issues in this campaign has been the separation of church and state. What are your views on the separation of church and state specifically with regard to abortion, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of Philadelphia to have a letter read in 305 churches urging Catholics to fight abortion with their votes?BUSH: I do believe in pluralism. I do believe in separation of church and state. I don’t consider abortion a religious issue. I consider it a moral issue. I believe the archbishop has every right to do everything he wants in that direction, just as I never faulted Jesse Jackson from taking his message to the black pulpits all across this country, just as I never objected when the nuclear arms, the nuclear freeze or the antinuclear people – many of those movements were led by priests. Suddenly, because a Catholic bishop or an evangelist feels strongly on a political issue, people are saying it’s merging of church and state. We favor – and I speak confidently for the president – we favor separation of church and state. We favor pluralism. Now somebody says you ought to restore prayer in schools. You don’t think it’s right to prohibit a kid from praying in schools. For years kids were allowed to pray in schools. We don’t think that’s a merger of church and stare to have nonmandatory voluntary, nongovernment-ordered prayer. And yet some are accusing us of injecting religion into politics. I have no problem with what the archbishop does, and I have no problem with what the evangelists on the right do and I have no problem what the priests on the left do. And it didn’t bother me when during the Vietnam War much of the opposition to the government – Democrat and Republican governments – was led by priests, encouraging people to break the law and the adage of the – you know – the civil disobedience thing. So our position, separation of church and stare, pluralism, so no little kid with a minority religion of some sort is going to feel offended or feel left out or feel uncomfortable. But, yes, prayer in school on a voluntary basis worked for many, many years until the Supreme Court ruled differently And I’m glad we got this question because I think there’s been too much said about religion and politics. We don’t believe in denominationally moving in. It wasn’t our side that raised the question about our president whether he was a good Christian or not and so I, so that’s our position – separation of church and state, pluralism, respect for all.QUARLES: Vice-President Bush, four years ago you would have allowed federal financing of abortions in cases of rape and incest ass well as when the mother’s life was threatened. Does your position now agree with Reagan who in Sunday’s debate came very close to saying abortion is murder?BUSH: You know, there has been – I have to make a confession – an evolution in my position. There’s been 15 million abortions since 1973, and I don’t take that lightly. There’s been a million and a half this year. The president and I do favor a human rights amendment. I favor one that would have an exception for incest and rape, and he doesn’t, but we both – only for the life of the mother. And I agree with him on that. So yes, my position’s evolved, but I’d like to see the American who faced with 15 million abortions isn’t rethinking his or her position and I’ll just stand with the answer. I support the president’s position – and comfortably – from a moral standpoint.QUARLES: So you believe it’s akin to murder?BUSH: No, I support the president’s position.QUARLES: Fine. Congresswoman Ferraro, what are your views on the separation of church and state with regard to abortions, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of Philadelphia to have those letters read in the pulpits and urged the voters to fight abortion with their vote?FERRARO: Let me say first of all I believe very, very sincerely in the separation of church and state. I’m taking it from the historical viewpoint, if you go back to the 1600s when people came here, the reason they came to this country was to escape religious persecution, and that’s the same reason why people are coming here today in the 1940s to escape Nazism, now in the 1980s and 1984 when they can get our of the country to escape communism so they can come here and practice their religion. Our country is founded on the principle that our government should be neutral as far as religion is concerned. Now what’s happened over the past several years, and quite frankly I’m not going to let you lay on me the intrusion of state politics into religion or religion into politics by my comments with reference to the president’s policies, because it started in 1980 when this administration was running for office and the Reverend Jerry Falwell became very, very involved in the campaign. What has happened over the past four years has been I think a real fudging of that line with the separation of church and state. The actions of the archbishops let me say to you I feel that they have not only a right but a responsibility to speak up, and even though I’ve been the person that they’re speaking up about, l feel they do have the responsibility to do so, and I have no problem with it, no more than I did a priest who marched at the time of Vietnam and no more than I did at the time when Martin Luther King marched at the time of the civil rights marches. I have absolutely no problem with them speaking up, I think they have an obligation as well as a right. But what I do have a problem with is when the president of the United States gets up in Dallas and addresses a group of individuals and said to them that anybody who doesn’t support his constitutional amendment for prayer in the schools is intolerant of religion. Now there are numerous groups who don’t support that prayer in the school, numerous religious groups. Are they intolerant of religion? Is that what the president is saying? I also object, when I am told, that the Reverend Falwell has been told that he would pick two of our Supreme Court justices. That’s going a little bit far. In that instance, let me say to you it is more than a fudging at the line, it is a total intrusion, and I think that it’s in violation of our Constitution.QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, as a devout Catholic, does it trouble you that so many of the leaders of your church disagree with you, and do you think that you’re being treated unfairly in any way by the Catholic church?FERRARO: Let me tell you that I did not come to my position on abortion very lightly. I am a devout Catholic. When I was running for Congress 1978 I sat and met with a person I felt very close to, a monsignor currently a bishop. I spoke to him about my personal feelings that I would never have an abortion, but I was not quite sure if I were ever to become pregnant as result of a rape if I would be that self-righteous. I then spoke to him; he said, Gerry, that’s not good enough. There you can’t support that position. I said okay. That’s my religious view; I will accept the teaching of the church, but I cannot impose my religious views on someone else. I truly take an oath as a public official to represent all the people in my district, not only the Catholics. If there comes a time where I cannot practice my religion and do my job properly, I will resign my job.VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush, your rebuttal.BUSH: Well I respect that statement, I really and truly do. We have difference on a moral question here on abortion. I notice that Mr. Mondale keeps talking in the debate and now it’s come here about Mr. Falwell. And I don’t know where this canard could have come from about Mr. Falwell picking the Supreme Court justices. Ronald Reagan has made one super outstanding, the only one he’s made, appointment to the Supreme Court and that was Sandra Day O’Connor, and Mr. Falwell opposed her nomination. We still have respect for him, but he opposed it, and so I hope this lays to rest this slander against the president. We want justices who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate it.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal?FERRARO: Yes, I still find it very difficult to believe because in the platform, which this Republican party passed in Dallas – one of the things they was they said that this position on abortion would be a litmus test, not only for Supreme Court justices but for other federal justices. That, again, seems to me a blurring of the line of the separation between church and state.VANOCUR: The next questioning from Mr. Boyd.BOYD: Like many Americans, each of you has recently had an unhappy experience with the Internal Revenue Service. I’m going to prolong your ordeal. Congresswoman Ferraro, you disagree with the rule that says that a candidate must report the income or assets of his or her spouse if you get any benefit from them. Your husband’s tax return showed that yon did benefit because he paid the mortgage and the property taxes on your home. Now the ethics committee is examining this question, but it won’t report it’s findings until after the election. Would you be willing to ask that committee, which is controlled by Democrats, to hurry up its work and report before the election.FERRARO: Let me say to you that I already did that. I wanted them to move ahead. If you recall, I spent about an hour and 45 minutes speaking to 200 reporters on August 21, which is the day after I was required to file my financial statement, and I sat for as long as they had questions on the issue, and I believe that they were satisfied. I filed more information than any other candidate for a national office in the history of this country. Not only did I agree to file my tax returns, after a little bit of prodding my husband also agreed to file his with the – not only the ethics committee but the FEC. Bur the action that you’re speaking about with the ethics committee was started by a right-wing legal organization – foundation – knowing that I would have to – that there would be an automatic inquiry. We have filed the necessary papers, I have asked them to move along. Unfortunately, the House, I believe, went out of session today, so I don’t know if they will move. But quite frankly, I would like that to be taken care of anyway, because I just want it cleared up.BOYD: Since that famous August 21 press conference on your family finances, you filed a new report with the ethics committee, and this showed that your previous reports were full of mistakes and omissions. For example, you failed to report about twelve trips that were paid for by special interest groups. In at least eighteen cases your holdings were misstated. Do you think it showed good leadership or attention to duty to blame all this on sloppy work by your accountant?FERRARO: Well, what it showed was that – and it was truly that I hired an accountant who had been with our family for well over forty years. He was filling our those ethics forms. I did not spend the time with him – I just gave him my tax information and he did it. I have to tell you what we have done since I have hired a marvelous accountant. I’ve spent a lot of money having him go through all those ethics forms and he will be doing my taxes over the next eight years while we’re in the White House so that the American public can be sure it’s all been taken care of.BOYD: Vice-President Bush, last year you paid less than 13 percent of your income in federal taxes. According to the IRS, someone in your bracket normally pays about 28 percent of his income. Now what you did was perfectly legal, but do you think it was fair, and is there something wrong with our tax laws that allows such large deductions for wealthy taxpayers?BUSH: What that figure – and I kind of like the way Mrs. Ferraro and Mr. Zaccaro reported – because they reported federal taxes, state and local taxes – gives people a clearer picture. That year I happened to pay a lot of state and local taxes, which as you know are deducted from the other, and so I looked it up the other day, and we had paid – I think it’s 42 percent – of our gross income in taxes. Now Mr. Mondale the other night took what I – I’ll be honest – I think it was a cheap shot – at me, and we did a little looking around to see about his. We can’t find his 198I tax return – it may have been released. Maybe my opponent knows whether Mr. Mondale released it. But we did find estimates that his income for those three years is a million, four hundred thousand dollars, and I think he paid about the same percentage as I did in total taxes. He also made a reference that troubled me very much, Mr. Boyd. He started talking about my chauffeur, and you know, I’m driven to work by the Secret Service – so is Mrs. Ferraro – so is Mr. Mondale – they protected his life for four years and now they’ve done a beautiful job for Barbara and mine. They saved the life of the president of the United States. I think that was a cheap shot – telling the American people to try to divide class – rich and poor. But the big question isn’t whether Mrs. Ferraro is doing well. I think they’re doing pretty well, and I know Barbara and I are doing well. And it’s darn sure that Mr. Mondale is doing well, with a million four in income, but the question really is – after we get through this disclosure – is the tax cut fair? Are people getting a fair break, and the answer is the rich are paying 6 percent more on taxes and the poor are getting a better break. Those lower and middle-income people that have borne the burden for a long time. So yes, I favor disclosure. I’ve always disclosed. This year I had my taxes and everything I own in a blind trust – so blind – blinder than the president’s, so I didn’t even sign my tax return. But there seemed to be an interest in it so we went to the government ethics committee – they agreed to change the trust. The trust has been revealed, and I was sure glad to see that I had paid 42 percent of my gross income in taxes.BOYD: Mr. Vice-President, how can you claim that your home is in Maine for tax purposes and at the same time claim that your home is in Texas for voting purposes? Are you really a Texan or a New Englander.BUSH: I’m really a Texan. But I got one house. And under the law, every taxpayer is allowed, when he sells a house, and buys another house, to get the rollover. Everybody, if it turns out, and I may hire, I notice she said she has a new good accountant. I’d like to get his name and phone number because I think I’ve paid too much in the way of taxes. And residence, Mr. Boyd, legal residence, for voting, is very different. And the domicile, they call that, very different, than the house. That they say you’re living in the vice-president’s house. Therefore you don’t get what every – I’ve got problems – what every other taxpayer gets. I got problems with the IRS, but so do a lot of people out there. I think I’ve paid too much. Nothing ethical. I’d like to get some money back.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal please.FERRARO: Let me just say that I’d be happy to give the vice-president the name of my accountant, but I warn you, he’s expensive. I think the question is whether or not the tax cuts and the tax system that’s currently in our government, that our government uses, is fair; I think the tax system is unfair. But it’s not something that we can address in the short term. The tax cuts that Vice-President Bush and I got last, three years ago, that this president gave out, no, that’s not fair. If you earn $200,000 a year, you got a $25,000 tax cut. If you earned between $20,000 and $40,000, you may have gotten about $1,000 between ten and twenty, close to a hundred dollars and if you made less than $10,000 with all the budget cuts that came down the line, you suffered a loss of $400. That’s not fair. That’s basically unfair and not only is it unfair, but economically it has darn near destroyed this country. There’s a $750 billion tax cut over a five-year period of time. That’s one of the reasons we’re facing these enormous deficits that we have today.VANOCUR: Mr. Vice-President.BUSH: No, I think I’ve said all I want to say. I do, I didn’t fully address myself to Mr. Boyd’s question no disclosure, I led the fight, I think, in 1968, in the House – I was in the House of Representatives for a couple of terms – and I led the fight for disclosure. I believe in it. Before I went into this job, I disclosed everything we had. We didn’t have any private corporations, but I disclosed absolutely everything. Arthur Andersen made out an assets and liabilities statement that I believe went further than any other one. And then, to protect the public interest, we went into this blind trust. I believe in the blind trust because I believe a public official in this kind of job ought not to know whether he’s gonna benefit, directly or indirectly, by some holding he might have or something of that nature. And, no, I support full disclosure.VANOCUR: Thank you. That ends the part of this debate devoted to domestic affairs. We will now turn to foreign affairs and will begin the questioning with Mr. Mashek.MASHEK: Vice-President Bush, since your administration came to power the President has threatened a stern response against terrorism, yet murderous attacks have continued in Lebanon and the Middle East. Who’s to blame, and you’ve been director of the Central Intelligence Agency. What can be clone to stop it?BUSH: Terrorism is very, very difficult to slop. And I think everybody knows that. We had ambassadors killed in Sudan and the Lebanon some time ago, a long time ago. When you see the Israeli building in Lebanon after the death of our marines you see that, hit by terrorism, the Israelis, with all their experience fighting terrorism, you know it’s difficult. When you see Khomeini wraith his radical Islam resorting to government-sponsored terrorism, it’s very difficult. The intelligence business can do a good job, and I’m always one that defends the Central Intelligence Agency. I believe we ought to strengthen it and I believe we still have the best foreign intelligence business in the world. But it is very difficult to get the source information that you need to go after something as shadowy as international terror. There was a difference between Iran and what happened in Lebanon. In Iran you had a government holding a U.S. embassy; the government sanctioning the takeover of that embassy by those students; the government negotiating with the United States government for their release. In Lebanon, in the terror that happened at the embassy, you have the government there, Mr. Gemayel, that wants to help fight against terrorism. But because of the melee in the Middle East, it’s there today and has been there yesterday and the day before, and everyone that’s had experience in that area knows, it is a very different thing. So what we’ve got to do is use absolutely the best security possible. I don’t think you can go assigning blame. The president, of course, is the best I’ve ever seen at accepting that. He’s been wonderful about it in absolutely everything that happens. But I think fair-minded people that really understand international terror know that it’s very hard to guard against. And the answer then really lies in the Middle East and terrorism happening all over the world, is a solution to the Palestine question, the follow on to Camp David under the umbrella of the Reagan September of 1982 initiative. That will reduce terror, it won’t eliminate it.MASHEK: You mention Khomeini. Some Republicans charge the previous administration with being almost helpless against Khomeini and Libya’s Quaddafi. Why hasn’t your administration done something to take action against Arab states that foment this kind of terrorism?BUSH: What we’ve done is to support Arab stores that want to stand up against international terror, quite different. We believe in supporting, without jeopardizing the security of Israel in any way, because they are our one strategic ally in the area, they are the one democracy in the area and our relations with them has never been better. But we do believe in reaching out to the, what they call the GCC, those Gulf Cooperative Council State, those moderate Arab states in that world, and helping them with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical Islam perpetuated by Khomeini. And because we’ve done that and because the Saudis chopped down a couple of those intruding airplanes a while back, I think we have helped keep the peace in the Persian Gulf.MASHEK: Congresswoman Ferraro, you and former Vice-President Mondale have criticized the president over the bombings in Lebanon, but what would you do to prevent such attacks?FERRARO: Let me first say that terrorism is a global problem, and let me say secondly that the – Mr. Bush has referred to the embassy that was held in Iran, Well, I was at the White House in January, I guess it was, in ’81, when those hostages, all fifty-two of them, came home alive. It was at that time that President Reagan gave a speech welcoming them home – as America did, we were so excited to see them back. But what he said was: The United States has been embarrassed for the last time. We’re going to stand tall and if this ever happens again, there’s going to be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong that our country has founded – has suffered. In April of J983 I was in Beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. Two weeks later, that embassy was bombed. At that time – take a look at the crazy activities of terrorists, you can’t blame that on anybody. They’re going to do crazy things and you just don’t know what’s going to happen. The following October, there was another bombing and that bombing took place at the marine barracks, where there were 242 young men who were killed. Right after that bombing occurred, there was a commission set up called the Long Commission. That commission did a study of the security arrangements around where the marines were sleeping and found that there was negligence, that they did not have proper gates up, proper precautions to stop those trucks from coming in. And so the Long Commission issued a report, and President Reagan got up and he said: I’m commander in chief. I take responsibility. And we all waited for something to be done when he look responsibility. Well, last month we had our third bombing, The first time, the first embassy, there was no gate up, The second time, with our Marines, the gate was open. The third time, the gate was there but it had not been installed. And what was the president’s reaction? Well, the security arrangements were not in, our people were placed in that embassy in an unsecured time, and the marines who were guarding it were left to go away and there were other people guarding the embassy. Again the president said: I assume responsibility. I’d like to know what that means. Are we going to take proper precautions before we put Americans in situations where they’re in danger, or are we just going to walk away, throwing our arms in the air now – quite a reversal from the first time, from the first time when he said he was going to do something? Or is this President going to take some action?MASHEK: Some Democrats cringe at the words spying and covert activity. Do you believe both of them have a legitimate role in countering terrorist activity around the world?FERRARO: I think they have a legitimate role in gathering information. And what has happened was the CIA, in the last bombing, had given information to our administration with reference to the actual threats that that embassy was going to be bombed. So it wasn’t the CIA that was at fault. There’s legitimate reason for the CIA to be in existence, and that’s to gather intelligence information for our security. But when I see the CIA doing things like they’re doing down in Central America – supporting a covert war – no, I don’t support that kind of activity. The CIA is there, it’s meant to protect our government; not there to subvert other governments.VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush.BUSH: Well, I’m surprised. I think I just heard Mrs. Ferraro say that she would do away with all covert actions, and if so, that has very serious ramifications, as the intelligence community knows. This is serious business. And sometimes it’s quiet support for a friend, and so I’ll leave that one there. But let me help you with the difference, Mrs. Ferraro, between Iran and the embassy in Lebanon. Iran – we were held by a foreign government. In Lebanon you had a wanton, terrorist action where the government opposed it. We went to Lebanon to give peace a chance, to stop the bombing of civilians in Beirut, to remove 13,000 terrorists from Lebanon – and we did. We saw the formation of a government of reconciliation and for somebody to suggest, as our two opponents have, that these men died in shame – they better not tell the parents of those young marines. They gave peace a chance. And our allies were with us – the British, the French, and the Italians.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro.FERRARO: Let me just say, first of all, that I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy. I’ve been a member of Congress for six years; I was there when the embassy was held hostage in Iran, and I have been there and I’ve seen what has happened in the past several months; seventeen months of your administration. Secondly, please don’t categorize my answers, either. Leave the interpretation of my answers to the American people who are watching this debate. And let me say further that no one has ever said that those young men who were killed through the negligence of this administration and others ever died in shame. No one who has a child who is nineteen or twenty years old, a son, would ever say that at the loss of anybody else’s child.VANOCUR: Mr. White.WHITE: Congresswoman Ferraro, you’ve repeatedly said that you would not want your son to die in an undeclared war for an uncertain cause. But recently your running mate, Mr. Mondale, has suggested that it may become necessary to erect a military quarantine or blockade of Nicaragua. Under what circumstances would you advocate the use of military force, American combat forces, in Central America?FERRARO: I would advocate the use of force when it was necessary to protect the security of our country, protect our security interest or protect our people or protect the interests of our friends and neighbors. When president – I’m jumping the gun a bit, aren’t I? – when Mr. Mondale, Mr. Mondale referred to the quarantine of Central America, a country in Central America, what he is referring to is a last resort after all other means of attempting to settle the situation down in that region of the world had been exhausted. Quite frankly now what is being done by this administration is an Americanizing of a regional conflict. They’re moving in militarily instead of promoting the Contadora process, which, as you know, is the process that is in place with the support of Mexico and Colombia and Panama and Venezuela. Instead of supporting the process, our administration has in Nicaragua been supporting covert activities to keep that revolution going in order to overthrow the Sandinista government; in El Salvador was not pushing the head of the government to move toward correction of the civil rights; human rights problems that existed there, and now this administration seems almost befuddled by the fact that Nicaragua is moving to participate in the Contadora process, and El Salvador is, through its President Duarte, is reaching out to the guerrillas in order to negotiate a peace. What Fritz Mondale and I feel about the situation down there is that what you do is you deal first through negotiation. That force is not a first resort but certainly a last resort in any instance.VANOCUR: A follow-up, please.WHITE: Many times in its history the United States has gone to war in order to defend freedom in other lands. Does your answer mean that you would be willing to forgo the use of military force even if it meant the establishment of a Soviet-back dictatorship so close to our own borders?FERRARO: No, I think what you have to do is work with the government – I assume you’re speaking about the government of Nicaragua – work with that government to achieve a pluralistic society. I mean they do have elections that are coming up on November 4. I think we have to work with them to achieve a peaceful solution to bring about a pluralistic country. No, I’m not willing to live with a force that could be a danger to our country. Certainly, I would see that our country would be there putting all kinds of pressure on the neighboring countries of Honduras, of Costa Rica, of El Salvador, to promote the kind of society that we can all live with and security in this country.WHITE: Vice-President Bush, both Cuba and Nicaragua are reported to be making extensive preparations to defend themselves against an American invasion, which they claim could come this fall. And even some of your Democratic opponents in Congress have suggested that the administration may be planning a December surprise invasion. Can you tell us under what circumstances a reelected Reagan administration would consider the use of force in Central American or the Caribbean? Bush: We don’t think we’re to be required to use force. Let me point out that there are 2,000 Cuban military and 7,500 so-called Cuban advisers in Nicaragua. There are 55 American military in El Salvador. I went down, on the instructions of the president, to speak to the commandants in El Salvador and told them that they had to move with Mr. Magana, then the president of El Salvador, to respect human rights. They have done that. They’re moving well. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but the difference between El Salvador and Nicaragua is like the difference between night and day. El Salvador went to the polls, Mr. Duarte was elected by 70 percent of the people in 70 percent voting in a certifiably free election. In Nicaragua, you have something very different. You have a Marxist-Leninist group, the Sandinistas, that came into power talking democracy. They have aborted their democracy. They have humiliated the Holy Father. They have cracked down on the only press organ there, La Prensa, censoring the press something that should concern every American. They have not had any human rights at all. They will not permit free elections. Mr. Cruz, who was to be the only viable challenger to Nicaragua, the Sandinistas, to the junta, to Mr. Ortega, went down there and found that the ground rules were so unfair that he couldn’t even wage a campaign. One country is devoid of human rights. The other is struggling to perfect their democracy. We don’t like it, frankly, when Nicaragua exports its revolution or serves as a conduit for supplies coming over from such “democracies” as North Korea, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union and Cube, to try to destabilize El Salvador. Yes, we’re concerned about that. Because we want to see this trend toward democracy continue. There have been something like thirteen countries since we’ve come in move toward the democratic route, and let me say that Grenada is not unrelated. And I have a big difference with Mrs. Ferraro on that one. We gave those four tiny Caribbean countries a chance. We saved the lives, and most of those thousand students said they were in jeopardy. Grenada was a proud moment because we did stand up for democracy. But in terms of threat of these countries, nuclear, I mean, weapons, no. There’s not that kind of a threat. It’s Mr. Mondale that proposed the quarantine, not Ronald Reagan.WHITE: Considering this country’s long respect for the rule of international law, was it right for the United States to be involved in mining the harbors of Nicaragua, a country we’re not at war with, and to subsequently refuse to allow the World Court to adjudicate that dispute and the complaint from Nicaragua?BUSH: I support what we’re doing. It was supported to the Congress and under the law. I support it. My only regret is that the aid for the contras, those people that are fighting, we call them freedom fighters. They want to see the democracy perfected in Nicaragua. Am I to understand from this assault on covert action that nowhere in the world would we do something that was considered just off base when Mrs. Ferraro said she’s never support it? Would she never support it if the violation of human rights was so great and quiet support was necessary for freedom fighters? Yes, we’re for the contras. And let me tell you another fact about the controls. Everyone that’s not for this, everyone who wants to let that Sandinista government prevail, just like that Castro did, all of that, the contras are not Somozistas. Less than 5 percent of the contras supported Somoza. These were people that wanted a revolution. These people that felt the revolution was betrayed. These are people that support human rights. Yes, we should support them.VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro.FERRARO: I spent time in Central America in January and had an opportunity to speak to the contras after the incident in Nicaragua and in El Salvador. Let me just say that the situation as it exists now, because of this administration’s policies, are not getting better. We’re not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn’t get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country.VANOCUR: Vice President Bush.BUSH: Well, I would simply like to make the distinction again between those countries that are searching for democracy and the handful of countries that have totally violated human rights and are going the Marxist route. Ortega, the commandante who is head of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, is an avowed Marxist. They don’t believe in the church. They don’t believe in free elections. They don’t believe in all of the values that we believe in. So it is our policy to support the democracy there, and when you have freedom fighters that want to protect that revolution, and go the democratic route, we believe in giving them support. We are for democracy in the hemisphere. We are for negotiations. $3 out of every $4 that we sent down there has been for economic aid to support the people’s chance to eat and live and be happy and enjoy life. And one-fourth only was rnilitary. You wouldn’t get that from listening to Mr. Mondale.VANOCUR: Miss Quarles.QUARLES: Vice President Bush, the last three Republican administrations, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, none of them soft on communism, met with the Soviets and got agreements on arms control. The Soviets haven’t changed that much. Can you tell us why President Reagan has not met with the Soviet ministers at all and only met with Prime Minister Gromyko less than a month ago?BUSH: Yes, I can. The, you mentioned the Gromyko meeting, those were broken off under the Carter-Mondale days. There had been three separate Soviet leaders. Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Andropov, and now Chernenko. During their, that, in three and a half years, three separate leaders. The Soviets have not been willing to talk. We are the ones that went to the table in INF. We had a good proposal, a moral proposal. Ban an entire generation of intermediate nuclear force weapons and if you won’t do that, don’t leave your allies in Europe in a monopoly position. The Soviets with 1,200 of these things, and the alliance with none. We didn’t think that’s the way to deter aggression and keep the peace. The president went, the first thing he did when he came into office was make a proposal on the most destabilizing weapons of all, START. And when the the strategic weapon and when the Soviets said, well, we don’t like that proposal, we said all right, we’ll be more flexible. I at the urging of the president went to Geneva and laid on the table a treaty to ban all chemical weapons. We don’t want them to have a monopoly. We said look, let’s come together. You come over here and see what we’re doing; we’ll go over there and see what you’re doing. But let’s save the kids of this world from chemical weapons. A brilliant proposal to get rid of all of them. And the Soviets nyet, nyet nyet. In the mutual balance force reduction to reduce conventional forces, they’re not even willing to tell us the base. Mrs. Ferraro knows that, and how many troops they have. There’s four sessions. We have had an agreement with them on the hot line. But Carter-Monad made an agreement, the Salt II agreement, but the Democratic Senate, they were a Democratic administration, the Democratic Senate wouldn’t even ratify that agreement. It was flawed, it was unverifiable and it was not good. Our president wants to reduce, not just to stop, he wants to reduce dramatically nuclear weapons. And when the Soviets know they’re going to have this strong president to deal with, and when this new administration, Mr. Chernenko, given more than a few months in office can solidify its position, then they’ll talk. But if they think the opposition, before they sit down, are going to give up the MX, give up the B-l, go for a freeze that locks in inferiority in Europe, all of these things, unilaterally, before they’re willing to talk, they may just sweat it out for four more weeks. Who knows.QUARLES: You were once quoted as saying that a nuclear war is winnable. Is that still your belief, and if not, under what circumstances would you use nuclear weapons if you were president?BUSH: No, I don’t think it’s winnable. I was quoted wrong, obviously, ’cause I never thought that. The Soviet planning, I did learn that when I was director of Central Intelligence, and I don’t think there’d be any disagreement, is based on that ugly concept. But I agree with the president: It should never be fought. Nuclear weapons should never be fought with, and that’s our approach. So, therefore, let’s encourage the Soviets to come to the table as we did at the Gromyko meeting. I wish everybody could have seen that one – the President, giving the facts to Gromyko in all of these nuclear meetings – excellent, right on top of that subject matter. And I’ll bet you that Gromyko went back to the Soviet Union saying, “Hey, listen, this president is calling the shots; we’d better move.” But do you know why I think we’ll get an agreement? Because I think it is in the interest of the Soviet Union to make it, just as it is in the United States. They’re not deterred by rhetoric. I listened to the rhetoric for two years at the United Nations. I’ve lived in a Communist country. It’s not rhetoric that decides agreements, it’s self-interest of those countries.QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, you and Mr. Mondale are for a verifiable nuclear freeze. Some Democrats have said that verification may not be possible. How would you verify such an agreement and make sure that the Soviets are not cheating?FERRARO: Let me say first of all that I don’t think there is any issue that is more important in this campaign, in this election, than the issue of war and peace. And since today is Eleanor Roosevelt’s 100th birthday, let me quote her. She said, “It is not enough to want peace, you must believe in it. And it is not enough to believe in it, you must work for it.” This administration’s policies have indicated quite the opposite. The last time I heard Vice President Bush blame the fact that they didn’t meet with the Soviet leader, and this is the first president in forty years not to meet with a Soviet counterpart. He said the reason was because there are three Soviet leaders in the past three and a half years. I went and got a computer printout. It’s five pages of the leaders, world leaders, that the Soviet leaders have met with, and they’re not little people. They’re people like Mitterrand of France and Kohl of Germany and President Kiprianou of Cyprus – you go down the list, five pages of people that the Soviet leaders have managed to meet with and somehow they couldn’t meet with the president of the United States. In addition to not meeting with his Soviet counterpart, this is the first president – and you’re right – since the start of negotiating arms control agreements who have not negotiated an arms control agreement, But not only has he not negotiated one, he’s been opposed to every single one that every other president has negotiated, including Eisenhower, including Ford, and including Nixon. Now, let me just say that with reference to the vice-president’s comments about the intent and the desire of the United Sites and this administration, the Soviet Union did walk out of the talks. I agree. But it seems to me in 1982, when the administration presented its Start proposal, that it wasn’t a realistic proposal. And that is the comment that was made by Secretary Haig after he left office, because what it dealt with was that it dealt just with land-based nuclear missiles, which is where the Soviets had the bulk of their missiles. But that aside, in 1982, I believe it was, their own negotiator, Nitze, came out with a proposal called the “walk-in-the-woods proposal” which would have limited the number of nuclear arms in Europe. That proposal was turned down by the administration – a proposal presented by its own administrator. Now I’m delighted that they met with Mr. Gromyko, but they could have had that opportunity to meet with him in 1981 when he came to the UN, which he had done with every other president before, and in 1982 as well. I guess my –VANOCUR: Congresswoman, I’m sorry. Speaking of limits, I have to impose a limit on you, Vice President Bush?BUSH: Well, I think there’s quite a difference between Mr. Kyprianou in Cyprus and the leader of the free world, Ronald Reagan, in terms of meeting. And the Soviet Union – the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union will meet with a lot of different people. We’ve been in very close touch with Mr. Mitterrand, Mr. Kohl, and others that have met with the leaders of the Soviet Union. But that’s quite different than meeting with the president of the United States. The Soviets say we’ll have a meeting when we think there can be progress and yet they left those talks. I’d like to correct my opponent on the walk in the woods. It was the Soviet Union that was unwilling to discuss the walk in the woods. They were the ones that gunned it down first and the record is very, very clear on that. Miss Ferraro mentioned the inflexibility of our position on strategic arms. Yes, we offered first to get rid of all those – we tried to reduce the SS-18’s and those weapons. But then we said if that’s not good enough, there is flexibility, let’s talk about the bombers and planes. So that’s a very important point in terms of negotiation.VANOCUR: Congresswoman, he that taketh away has to give back. I robbed you of your rebuttal. Therefore, you will have two minutes to rebut. Forgive me.FERRARO: I – You robbed me of my follow-up, that’s what you robbed me, so why don’t I let her give me the follow-up.VANOCUR: All right, and then give your rebuttal.QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, most polls show that the American – Americans feel that the Republicans, more than the Democrats are better able to keep the United States out of war. We’ve had four years of relative peace under President Reagan. How can you convince the American public that the world would be a safer place under Carter-Mondale? [sic]FERRARO: I think first of all, you have to take a look at the current situation. We now have 50,000 nuclear warheads; we are building at the rate of five or six a day between us and we have been doing that since this administration came into office. I think what you can do is look at what they’ve done and recognize that they’re not going to do very much in the future. And so, since they’ve done nothing, do we continue to build because an arms race doesn’t lead to anything, it leads to another arms race and that’s that. Vice President Monad has indicated that what he would do, first of all, as soon as he. gets into office, is contact his Soviet counterpart and set up an annual summit meeting. That’s number one. I don’t think you can start negotiating until you start talking. Secondly, he would issue a challenge, and the challenge would be in the nature of temporary, mutual, verifiable, moratoria to halt testing in the air, in the atmosphere, that would respond with a challenge from the Soviet Union, we hope, to sit down and negotiate a treaty. That was done in 1960. I don’t know what your lights are doing, Sander.VANOCUR: You have another minute.FERRARO: Okay. I’m watching them blinking. So I have another minute. What that would do is it would give us the opportunity to sit down and negotiate a treaty. That was done in 1960 by President Kennedy – in 1963. What he did was he issued a challenge to the Soviet Union. He said we will not test in space – in the atmosphere, if you will not. They did not. In two months they sat down and they negotiated a treaty. We do not now have to worry about that type of testing. It can be done; it will be done, if only you have the will to do it. Again, remember it is mutual; it is verifiable and it is a challenge that once that challenge is not met, if testing were to resume, then we would continue testing as well.VANOCUR: Our last series of questions on foreign affairs from Mr. Boyd.BOYD: Congresswoman Ferraro, you have had little or no experience with military matters and yet you might someday find yourself commander-in-chief of the armed forces. How can you convince the American people and the potential enemy that you would know what to do to protect this nation’s security, and do you think in any way that the Soviets might be tempted to try to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman?FERRARO: Are you saying that I would have to have fought in the war in order to love peace?BOYD: I’m not saying that, I’m asking you – you know what I asked.FERRARO: All right. I think what happens is when you try to equate whether or not I have had military experience, that’s the natural conclusion. It’s about as valid as saying that you would have to be black in order to despise racism, that you’d have to be female in order to be terribly offended by sexism. And that’s just not so. I think if you take a look at where I’ve been, both in the Congress and where I intend to go, the type of person I am – I think that the people of this country can rely upon the fact that I will be a lender. I don’t think the Soviet Union for one minute can sit down and make determination on what I will do if I’m ever in a position to have to do something with reference to the Soviet Union. Quite frankly I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to secure this country and make sure that security is maintained. Secondly, if the Soviet Union were to ever believe that they could challenge the United States with any sort of nuclear forces or otherwise, if I were in a position of leadership in this country, they would be assured that they would be met with swift, concise and certain retaliation. Let me just say one other thing now. The most important thing, though I think as a leader that what one has to do is get to the point where you’re not put into that position. And the way you to that position of rnoving away from having to make a decision – armed force or anything else – is by moving toward arms control. And that’s not what’s been done over the past four years. I think that if you were to take a look at the failures of this administration that would have to be number one. I will not put myself in that position as a leader in this country. I will move immediately toward arms control negotiations.BOYD: For my follow, I’m going to borrow a leaf from the Sunday night debate between your principals and ask you what is the single question you would most like to ask your opponent here on foreign policy?FERRARO: Oh, I don’t have a single-most question. I guess the concern that I have is a concern not only as a vice-presidential candidate but as a citizen in this country. My concern is that we are not doing anything to stop the arms race, and if seems to me that if we keep talking about military inferiority – which we do not have, we are at a comparable level with the Soviet Union; our Joint Chiefs of Staff have said they’d never exchange our military power for theirs. I guess the thing that I’d want is a commitment that pretty soon they’re going to do something about making this a safer world for all of us.BOYD: Vice-President Bush, four years ago President Reagan insisted that a military buildup would bring the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Since then, we have spent almost a trillion dollars on defense but the Soviets are still building their military forces as rapidly as we are, and there are no negotiations. Was the president’s original premise, his whole strategy, wrong?BUSH: No, I think his strategy not only was correct but is correct. You’ve got to go back where we were. Clearly, when we came into office, the American people recognized that we had slipped into positions of inferiority on various things. Some of our planes, as the president points out, were older than the pilots; ships that couldn’t go out to sea. And you had a major problem with the military. Actually, the morale wasn’t very good either. So we have had to strengthen the military and we’re well on the way to getting that job done. America is back in terms of military strength, in terms of our ability to deter aggression and keep the peace. At the same time, however, we have made proposals and proposals and proposals – sound proposals – on reducing nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks were good proposals, and it’s the Soviets who left the table. The Intermediate Nuclear Force Talks were sound talks, and I wish the Soviet Union had continued them. The chemical weapon treaty to ban all chemical weapons, it was our initiative, not the Soviets. And we wish they would think anew and move forward to verification so everybody would know whether the other side was keeping its word. But, much more important, you’d reduce the level of terror. Similarly, we’re reducing – trying to talk to them, and are talking to them, in Vienna, about conventional force reduction. We’ve talked to them about human rights. I’ve met with Mr. Andropov and Mr. Chernenko, and we mention and we try to do something about the human rights question. The suppression of Soviet Jews is absolutely intolerable and so we have to keep pushing forward on the moral grounds as well as on the arms reduction ground. But it is my view that because this president has been strong, and because we’ve addressed the imbalances – and I think we’re very close to getting that job done – the Soviets are more likely to make a deal. The Soviets made an ABM treaty when they felt we were going to deploy an ABM system. So I am optimistic for the future, once they realize that they will have this strong, principled president to negotiate with, strong leadership, and yet with demonstrable flexibility on arms control.BOYD: And now, I’ll give you a chance, Mr. Vice-President, to ask the question you’d most like to ask your opponent.BUSH: I have none I’d like to ask of her, but I’d sure like to use the time to talk about the World Series or something of that nature. Let me put it this way – I don’t have any questions, but we are so different from – the Reagan-Bush administration is so different from the Carter-Mondale [sic] administration that the American people are going to have the clearest choice. It’s a question of going back to the failed ideas of the past, where we came in – 21% percent on those interest rates, inflation, despair, malaise, no leadership, blaming the American people for failed leadership. Or another option – keep this recovery going until it benefits absolutely everybody. Peace at home – peace abroad – prosperity – opportunity. I’d like to hear her talk on those things, but I think the yellow light is flashing and so we’ll leave it there.BOYD: Nothing on the World Series? Congresswoman Ferraro?FERRARO: I think the vice-president’s comment about the Carter-Mondale administration really typifies this administration. It’s an administration that looks backwards, not forwards and into the future. I must say that I’m also tickled by their comments on human rights. The Soviet Union in 1979 allowed 51,000 people to emigrate, because, in large measure, this administration’s policies over the past four years, 1,313 people got out of the Soviet Union in 1983 and 1984. That’s not a great record on human rights and certainly not a record on human rights achievements. This administration spent a trillion dollars on defense, but it hasn’t gotten a trillion dollars on national security.VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush, your rebuttal?BUSH: No rebuttal.VANOCUR: Well, we then can go to the closing statements. Each statement will be four minutes in length and we’ll begin with the vice-president.BUSH: Well, in a couple of weeks, you, the American people, will be faced, three weeks, with a choice. It’s the clearest choice in some fifty years. And the choice is, do we move forward with strength and with prosperity or do we go back to weakness, despair, disrespect. Ronald Reagan and I have put our trust in the American people. We’ve moved some of the power away from Washington, D.C., and put it back with the people. We’re pulling together. The neighborhoods are safer ’cause crime is going down. Your sons and daughters are doing better in school. Test scores are going up. There’s a new opportunity lying out there in the future. Science, technology and space offering opportunity that, to everybody, all the young ones coming up. And abroad there’s new leadership and respect. And Ronald Reagan is clearly the strong leader of the free world. And I’ll be honest with you. It’s a joy to serve with a president who does not apologize for the United States of America. Mr. Mondale, on the other hand, has one idea. Go out and tax the American people. And then he wants to repeal indexing, to wipe out the one protection that those at the lowest end of the economic scale have protecting them against being rammed into higher and higher tax brackets. We just owe our country too much to go back to that kind of an approach. I’d like to say something to the young people. I started a business. I know what it is to have a dream and have a job and work hard to employ others and really to participate in the American dream. Some of you out there are finishing high school or college and some of you are starting out in the working place. And we want for you America’s greatest gift. And that is opportunity. And then, peace. Yes, I did serve in combat. I was shot down when I was a young kid, scared to death. And all that did, saw friends die, but that heightened my convictions about peace. It is absolutely essential that we guarantee the young people that they will not know the agony of war. America’s gift, opportunity and peace. Now we do have some unfinished business. We must continue to go ahead. The world is too complex to go back to vacillation and weakness. We’ve too much going on to go back to the failed policies of the past. The future is too bright not to give it our best shot. Together we can go forward and lift America up to meet her greatest dreams. Thank you very much.VANOCUR: Thank you very much. I must say now in matters of equity you will be allowed applause at the end of your closing statement, so if you begin now, please.FERRARO: I hope somebody wants to applaud. Being the candidate for vice-president of my party is the greatest honor I have ever had. But it’s not only a personal achievement for Geraldine Ferraro – and certainly not only the bond that I feel as I go across this country with women throughout the country. I wouldn’t be standing here if Fritz Mondale didn’t have the courage and my party didn’t stand for the values that it does – the values of fairness and equal opportunity. Those values make our country strong and the future of this country and how strong it will be is what this election is all about. Over the last two months I’ve been traveling all over the country talking to the people about the future. I was in Kentucky and I spoke to the Dyhouse family. He works for a car dealer and he’s worried about the deficits and how high interest rates are going to affect his job. Every place I go I see young parents with their children and they say to me what are we going to do to stop this nuclear arms race. I was in Dayton, Ohio, a week and a half ago and I sat with the Allen family who live next door to a toxic dump and they’re very, very concerned about the fact that those toxics are seeping into the water that they and their neighbors drink. Now those people love this country and they’re patriotic. But it’s not the patriotism that you’re seeing in the commercials as you watch television these days. Their patriotism is not only a pride in the country as it is, but a pride in this country that is strong enough to meet the challenges of the future. Do you know when we find jobs for the eight and a half million people who are unemployed in this country, you know we’ll make our economy stronger and that will be a patriotic act. When we reduce the deficits and we cut interest rates, and I know the president doesn’t believe that, but it’s so – we cut those interest rates young people can buy houses, that’s pro-family and that will be a patriotic act. When we educate our children – good Lord, they’re going to be able to compete in a world economy and that makes us stronger and that’s a patriotic act. When we stop the arms race, we make this a safer, saner world, and that’s a patriotic act, and when we keep the peace young men don’t die, and that’s a patriotic act. Those are the keys to the future and who can be the leader for the future? When Walter Mondale was attorney general of Minnesota, he led the fight for a man who could not afford to get justice because he couldn’t afford a lawyer; when he was in the Senate he fought for child nutrition programs, he wrote the Fair Housing Act, he even investigated the concerns and the abuses of migrant workers. And why did he do that? Those weren’t popular causes. You know, no one had ever heard of Clarence Gideon, the man without a lawyer. Children don’t vote and migrant workers exactly a powerful lobby in this country, but he did it because it was right. Fritz Mondale has said that he would rather lose a battle for decency than win one over self-interest. Now I agree with him. This campaign is not over. For our country, for our future, for the principles we believe in Walter Mondale and I have just begun to fight.VANOCUR: Thank you very much. I’d like to thank Vice-President Bush, Congresswoman Ferraro, the members of our panel for joining us in this League of Women Voters debate. I’d like to join you in thanking them, the city of Philadelphia and the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters’ next debate, the presidential debate, will take place in Kansas City on October 21. The subject will be foreign affairs award it will begin at 8 P.M., Eastern time. Again our thanks. We hope you’ll join us on the twenty-first.",
    "id": "2db125fe-0827-40a9-805b-1653bc858736"
  },
  {
    "year": 2012,
    "date": "October 3, 2012",
    "title": "The First Obama-Romney Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 3, 2012 Debate TranscriptPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY,R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, PARTICIPATE IN ACANDIDATES DEBATE, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER, COLORADOOCTOBER 3, 2012SPEAKERS: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAJIM LEHRER, MODERATORLEHRER: Good evening from the Magness Arena at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. I’m Jim Lehrer of the “PBS NewsHour,” and I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates between President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.LEHRER: This debate and the next three — two presidential, one vice presidential — are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight’s 90 minutes will be about domestic issues and will follow a format designed by the commission. There will be six roughly 15-minute segments with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment.Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the Internet and other means, but I made the final selections. And for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the candidates.The segments as I announced in advance will be three on the economy and one each on health care, the role of government and governing, with an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics and choices. Both candidates will also have two-minute closing statements.The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent — no cheers, applause, boos, hisses, among other noisy distracting things, so we may all concentrate on what the candidates have to say. There is a noise exception right now, though, as we welcome President Obama and Governor Romney.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let’s start the economy, segment one, and let’s begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?LEHRER: You have two minutes. Each of you have two minutes to start. A coin toss has determined, Mr. President, you go first.OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, for this opportunity. I want to thank Governor Romney and the University of Denver for your hospitality.There are a lot of points I want to make tonight, but the most important one is that 20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me.And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people.(LAUGHTER)You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost, the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen up.And because of the resilience and the determination of the American people, we’ve begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has come roaring back. And housing has begun to rise.But we all know that we’ve still got a lot of work to do. And so the question here tonight is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going.Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations, that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view.I think we’ve got to invest in education and training. I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.Now, it ultimately is going to be up to the voters — to you — which path we should take. Are we going to double on top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says America does best when the middle class does best? And I’m looking forward to having that debate.LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It’s an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president. I’m pleased to be at the University of Denver, appreciate their welcome, and also the Presidential Commission on these debates.And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I’m sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine, here — here with me. So I…(LAUGHTER)Congratulations.This is obviously a very tender topic. I’ve had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm and she said, “I’ve been out of work since May. Can you help me?”Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, “Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He’s lost his most recent job and we’ve now just lost our home. Can you help us?”And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it’s going to take a different path. Not the one we’ve been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That’s not what I’m going to do.My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs.Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America. Crack down on China, if and when they cheat.Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We’re far away from that now.Number four, get to us a balanced budget.Number five, champion small business. It’s small business that creates the jobs in America, and over the last four years, small business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business because new business startups are down to a 30-year low.ROMNEY: Now, I’m concerned that the path that we’re on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work.That’s not the right answer for America. I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trick-down approach, as he said yours is.OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do. First, we’ve got to improve our education system and we’ve made enormous progress drawing on ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools. We’ve got a program called Race to the Top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country, raising standards, improving how we train teachers.So now I want to hire another 100,000 new math and science teachers, and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so that people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now. And I want to make sure that we keep tuition low for our young people.When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.OBAMA: So all of this is possible. Now, in order for us to do it, we do have to close our deficit, and one of the things I’m sure we’ll be discussing tonight is, how do we deal with our tax code? And how do we make sure that we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also, how do we have enough revenue to make those investments?And this is where there’s a difference, because Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign.LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we’re going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can.But, first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you’d like to ask the president directly about something he just said?ROMNEY: Well, sure. I’d like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece.First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle- income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up. Food prices are up. Health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family. Middle-income families are being crushed.ROMNEY: And so the question is how to get them going again. And I’ve described it. It’s energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan.But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I’ll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we’ve got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We’ve got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.The second area, taxation, we agree, we ought to bring the tax rates down. And I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.The third area, energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies.Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I’m president, I’ll double them, and also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada.And, by the way, I like coal. I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the government. My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And I — and to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any — any language to the contrary is simply not accurate. LEHRER: Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, I think — let’s talk about taxes, because I think it’s instructive. Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage, I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that’s exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.And the reason is, because I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who’s going off to college, which means they’re spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits, and then hire more workers.Now, Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.But I’m going to make an important point here, Jim.LEHRER: All right.OBAMA: When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of, you take those all away, you don’t come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending.OBAMA: And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit or — or — or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.Now, that’s not my analysis. That’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And — and that kind of top — top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making $3 million is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that’s not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let’s just stay on taxes.(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Just — let’s just stay on taxes for (inaudible).(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: What is the difference…ROMNEY: Well, but — but virtually — virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I’d say absolutely not. I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that — that is not the case. All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.There are all these studies out there. But let’s get at the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need. And you’d think, well, then why lower the rates?ROMNEY: And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people. For me, this is about jobs. This is about getting jobs for the American people.(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: That’s where we started. Yeah.Do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan?OBAMA: Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is, “Never mind.”And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you described, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we cannot only reduce the deficit, we cannot only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we’re also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.OBAMA: And we do have a difference, though, when it comes to definitions of small business. Under — under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they’re the job creators, they’d be burdened.But under Governor Romney’s definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. Now, I know Donald Trump doesn’t like to think of himself as small anything, but — but that’s how you define small businesses if you’re getting business income.And that kind of approach, I believe, will not grow our economy, because the only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things that are helping America grow. And I think that would be a mistake.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: Jim, let me just come back on that — on that point, which is these…LEHRER: Just for the — just for record…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: … the small businesses we’re talking about…LEHRER: Excuse me. Excuse me. Just so everybody understands, we’re way over our first 15 minutes.ROMNEY: It’s fun, isn’t it?LEHRER: It’s OK, it’s great. No problem. Well, you all don’t have — you don’t have a problem, I don’t have a problem, because we’re still on the economy. We’re going to come back to taxes. I want move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too.OK, but go ahead, sir.ROMNEY: You bet. Well, President, you’re — Mr. President, you’re absolutely right, which is that, with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one-quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is to take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.Now, and — and I’ve talked to a guy who has a very small business. He’s in the electronics business in — in St. Louis. He has four employees. He said he and his son calculated how much they pay in taxes, federal income tax, federal payroll tax, state income tax, state sales tax, state property tax, gasoline tax. It added up to well over 50 percent of what they earned. And your plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35 percent to 40 percent. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs.I don’t want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions, the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way, get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions, to create more jobs, because there’s nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. That’s by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.OBAMA: Jim, I — you may want to move onto another topic, but I — I would just say this to the American people. If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion — just to give you a sense, over 10 years, that’s more than our entire defense budget — and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney’s plan may work for you.But I think math, common sense, and our history shows us that’s not a recipe for job growth. Look, we’ve tried this. We’ve tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.OBAMA: Bill Clinton tried the approach that I’m talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well. So, in some ways, we’ve got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans and I believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they’ve got some money in their pockets, and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we’re not blowing up the deficit.ROMNEY: Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word.(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Well, you’re going to get the first word in the next segment.ROMNEY: All right. Well, but he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word (inaudible) I hope. Let me just make this comment.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: I think first of all, let me — let me repeat — let me repeat what I said. I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one.So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that’s not my plan.Number two, let’s look at history. My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working.My priority is putting people back to work in America. They’re suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence. Look at the evidence of the last four years. It’s absolutely extraordinary. We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country. It’s just — it’s — we’ve got — when the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today; economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before.Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today.LEHRER: All right. Let’s talk — we’re still on the economy. This is, theoretically now, a second segment still on the economy, and specifically on what to do about the federal deficit, the federal debt.And the question, you each have two minutes on this, and Governor Romney, you — you go first because the president went first on segment one. And the question is this, what are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?ROMNEY: Good. I’m glad you raised that, and it’s a — it’s a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way.The presidents would — president would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth. And you could never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. Obamacare’s on my list.I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect, by the way.OBAMA: I like it.ROMNEY: Good. OK, good. So I’ll get rid of that.I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That’s number one.Number two, I’ll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to the state.ROMNEY: Number three, I’ll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget.The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as al prior presidents combined.LEHRER: Mr. President, two minutes.OBAMA: When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for; and then a massive economic crisis.And despite that, what we’ve said is, yes, we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we didn’t slip into a Great Depression, but what we’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we are cutting out those things that are not helping us grow.So 77 government programs, everything from aircrafts that the Air Force had ordered but weren’t working very well, 18 government — 18 government programs for education that were well-intentioned, not weren’t helping kids learn, we went after medical fraud in Medicare and Medicaid very aggressively, more aggressively than ever before, and have saved tens of billions of dollars, $50 billion of waste taken out of the system.And I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget. That’s the largest cut in the discretionary domestic budget since Dwight Eisenhower.Now, we all know that we’ve got to do more. And so I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It’s on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. Governor Romney earlier mentioned the Bowles-Simpson commission. Well, that’s how the commission — bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested we have to do it, in a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. And this is a major difference that Governor Romney and I have.Let — let me just finish their point, because you’re looking for contrast. You know, when Governor Romney stood on a stage with other Republican candidates for the nomination and he was asked, would you take $10 of spending cuts for just $1 of revenue? And he said no.Now, if you take such an unbalanced approach, then that means you are going to be gutting our investments in schools and education. It means that Governor Romney…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: … talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities.LEHRER: Mr. President, I’m sorry.OBAMA: And — and that is not a right strategy for us to move forward.LEHRER: Way over the two minutes.OBAMA: Sorry.LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles? Do you support Simpson-Bowles?ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.LEHRER: No, I mean, do you support Simpson-Bowles?ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.OBAMA: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it, and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan…ROMNEY: But you’ve been — but you’ve been president four years…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: You’ve been president four years. You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later. We still have trillion-dollar deficits. The CBO says we’ll have a trillion-dollar deficit each of the next four years. If you’re re-elected, we’ll get to a trillion-dollar debt.ROMNEY: I mean, you have said before you’d cut the deficit in half. And this — I love this idea of $4 trillion in cuts. You found $4 trillion of ways to reduce or to get closer to a balanced budget, except we still show trillion-dollar deficits every year. That doesn’t get the job done.Let me come back and say, why is it that I don’t want to raise taxes? Why don’t I want to raise taxes on people? And actually, you said it back in 2010. You said, “Look, I’m going to extend the tax policies that we have now; I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone, because when the economy is growing slow like this, when we’re in recession, you shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone.”Well, the economy is still growing slow. As a matter of fact, it’s growing much more slowly now than when you made that statement. And so if you believe the same thing, you just don’t want to raise taxes on people. And the reality is it’s not just wealthy people — you mentioned Donald Trump. It’s not just Donald Trump you’re taxing. It’s all those businesses that employ one-quarter of the workers in America; these small businesses that are taxed as individuals.You raise taxes and you kill jobs. That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.I’ll make one more point.(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: (inaudible) answer the taxes thing for a moment.ROMNEY: OK.LEHRER: Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, we’ve had this discussion before.LEHRER: About the idea that in order to reduce the deficit, there has to be revenue in addition to cuts.OBAMA: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He’s ruled out revenue.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Absolutely. (CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That’s how we get growth and how we balance the budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you’ll never get there. You’ll never balance the budget by raising taxes.Spain — Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We’re now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don’t want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they’re working.LEHRER: But — but Mr. President, you’re saying in order to — to get the job done, it’s got to be balanced. You’ve got to have…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: If — if we’re serious, we’ve got to take a balanced, responsible approach. And by the way, this is not just when it comes to individual taxes. Let’s talk about corporate taxes.Now, I’ve identified areas where we can, right away, make a change that I believe would actually help the economy.The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don’t get.Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money, when they’re making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn’t we want to eliminate that? Why wouldn’t we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is, if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it.When it comes to corporate taxes, Governor Romney has said he wants to, in a revenue neutral way, close loopholes, deductions — he hasn’t identified which ones they are — but that thereby bring down the corporate rate.Well, I want to do the same thing, but I’ve actually identified how we can do that. And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense. And all that raises revenue.And so if we take a balanced approach, what that then allows us to do is also to help young people, the way we already have during my administration, make sure that they can afford to go to college.OBAMA: It means that the teacher that I met in Las Vegas, a wonderful young lady, who describes to me — she’s got 42 kids in her class. The first two weeks she’s got them, some of them sitting on the floor until finally they get reassigned. They’re using text books that are 10 years old.That is not a recipe for growth. That’s not how America was built. And so budgets reflect choices.Ultimately, we’re going to have to make some decisions. And if we’re asking for no revenue, then that means that we’ve got to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff.And the magnitude of the tax cuts that you’re talking about, Governor, would end up resulting in severe hardship for people, but more importantly, would not help us grow.As I indicated before, when you talk about shifting Medicaid to states, we’re talking about potentially a 30 — a 30 percent cut in Medicaid over time.Now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is, you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we’re talking about a family who’s got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that’s a big problem.And governors are creative. There’s no doubt about it. But they’re not creative enough to make up for 30 percent of revenue on something like Medicaid. What ends up happening is some people end up not getting help.ROMNEY: Jim, let’s — we’ve gone on a lot of topics there, and so it’s going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools…LEHRER: Come back to…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: … to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let’s go through them one by one.First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it’s actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that’s been in place for a hundred years. Now…OBAMA: It’s time to end it.ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.ROMNEY: But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this — this is not — this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure.The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.LEHRER: Let’s…ROMNEY: But — but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.And, finally, Medicaid to states? I’m not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is, I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.And I remember, as a governor, when this idea was floated by Tommy Thompson, the governors — Republican and Democrats — said, please let us do that. We can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor.So — so let’s state — one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. Don’t have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of Medicaid they have to have. Let states do this.And, by the way, if a state gets in trouble, well, we can step in and see if we can find a way to help them.LEHRER: Let’s go.ROMNEY: But — but the right — the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government.LEHRER: (inaudible) and we’re going on — still on the economy, on another — but another part of it…OBAMA: OK.LEHRER: All right? All right. This is segment three, the economy. Entitlements. First — first answer goes to you, two minutes, Mr. President. Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?OBAMA: You know, I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound.But — but I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare, and then talk about Medicare, because that’s the big driver of our deficits right now.You know, my grandmother — some of you know — helped to raise me. My grandparents did. My grandfather died a while back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected president. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice.And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.And that’s the perspective I bring when I think about what’s called entitlements. You know, the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who’ve worked hard, like my grandmother, and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this.OBAMA: So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? And in Medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we’re going to deal with our long-term deficits, but to do that, let’s look where some of the money’s going.$716 billion we were able to save from the Medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies by making sure that we weren’t overpaying providers. And using that money, we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600, and we were also able to make a — make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money through the — throughout the system.So the way for us to deal with Medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. When it comes to Social Security, as I said, you don’t need a major structural change in order to make sure that Social Security is there for the future.LEHRER: We’ll follow up on this.First, Governor Romney, you have two minutes on Social Security and entitlements.ROMNEY: Well, Jim, our seniors depend on these programs, and I know anytime we talk about entitlements, people become concerned that something’s going to happen that’s going to change their life for the worse.And the answer is neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you’re 60 or around 60 or older, you don’t need to listen any further.But for younger people, we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring. Oh, I just thought about one. And that is, in fact, I was wrong when I said the president isn’t proposing any changes for current retirees. In fact he is on Medicare. On Social Security he’s not.But on Medicare, for current retirees, he’s cutting $716 billion from the program. Now, he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers. Actually just going to them and saying, “We’re going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody’s going to get a lower rate.” That’s not just going after places where there’s abuse. That’s saying we’re cutting the rates. Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won’t take anymore Medicare patients under that scenario.We also have 50 percent of doctors who say they won’t take more Medicare patients.This — we have 4 million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts. I can’t understand how you can cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients of Medicare.Now, you point out, well, we’re putting some back. We’re going to give a better prescription program. That’s $1 — that’s $1 for every $15 you’ve cut. They’re smart enough to know that’s not a good trade.I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare. By the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it.But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake.And with regards to young people coming along, I’ve got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question.LEHRER: Mr. President?OBAMA: First of all, I think it’s important for Governor Romney to present this plan that he says will only affect folks in the future.And the essence of the plan is that you would turn Medicare into a voucher program. It’s called premium support, but it’s understood to be a voucher program. His running mate…LEHRER: And you don’t support that?OBAMA: I don’t. And let me explain why.ROMNEY: Again, that’s for future…OBAMA: I understand.ROMNEY: … people, right, not for current retirees.OBAMA: For — so if you’re — if you’re 54 or 55, you might want to listen ’cause this — this will affect you.The idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, is that we would give a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance.The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year.Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it. But there’s still a problem, because what happens is, those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors. They recruit them, leaving the older, sicker seniors in Medicare. And every health care economist that looks at it says, over time, what’ll happen is the traditional Medicare system will collapse.OBAMA: And then what you’ve got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care.So, I don’t think vouchers are the right way to go. And this is not my own — only my opinion. AARP thinks that the — the savings that we obtained from Medicare bolster the system, lengthen the Medicare trust fund by eight years. Benefits were not affected at all. And ironically, if you repeal Obamacare, and I have become fond of this term, “Obamacare,” if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care. They’re now going to have to be paying copays for basic checkups that can keep them healthier.And the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren’t making seniors any healthier. And I don’t think that’s the right approach when it comes to making sure that Medicare is stronger over the long term.LEHRER: We’ll talk about — specifically about health care in a moment. But what — do you support the voucher system, Governor?ROMNEY: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare. And the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program.LEHRER: And what about the vouchers?(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: So that’s — that’s number one.Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice.They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them. So they don’t have to pay additional money, no additional $6,000. That’s not going to happen. They’ll have at least two plans.ROMNEY: And by the way, if the government can be as efficient as the private sector and offer premiums that are as low as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional Medicare or they’ll be able to get a private plan.I know my own view is I’d rather have a private plan. I’d just assume not have the government telling me what kind of health care I get. I’d rather be able to have an insurance company. If I don’t like them, I can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. But people make their own choice.The other thing we have to do to save Medicare? We have to have the benefits high for those that are low income, but for higher income people, we’re going to have to lower some of the benefits. We have to make sure this program is there for the long term. That’s the plan that I’ve put forward.And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. This is an idea that’s been around a long time, which is saying, hey, let’s see if we can’t get competition into the Medicare world so that people can get the choice of different plans at lower cost, better quality. I believe in competition.OBAMA: Jim, if I — if I can just respond very quickly, first of all, every study has shown that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance does, which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it.And private insurers have to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that. That’s what they do. And so you’ve got higher administrative costs, plus profit on top of that. And if you are going to save any money through what Governor Romney’s proposing, what has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere.And when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies. And over time, if traditional Medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they’re stuck.And this is the reason why AARP has said that your plan would weaken Medicare substantially. And that’s why they were supportive of the approach that we took.One last point I want to make. We do have to lower the cost of health care, not just in Medicare and Medicaid… LEHRER: Talk about that in a minute.OBAMA: … but — but — but overall.LEHRER: OK.OBAMA: And so…ROMNEY: That’s — that’s a big topic. Can we — can we stay on Medicare?OBAMA: Is that a — is that a separate topic?(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Yeah, we’re going to — yeah, I want to get to it.OBAMA: I’m sorry.LEHRER: But all I want to do is go very quickly…ROMNEY: Let’s get back to Medicare.LEHRER: … before we leave the economy…ROMNEY: Let’s get back to Medicare.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: The president said that the government can provide the service at lower cost and without a profit.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: If that’s the case, then it will always be the best product that people can purchase.LEHRER: Wait a minute, Governor.ROMNEY: But my experience — my experience the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at a lower cost.LEHRER: All right. Can we — can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice — a clear choice between the two…ROMNEY: Absolutely.LEHRER: … of you on Medicare?ROMNEY: Absolutely.OBAMA: Absolutely.LEHRER: All right. So to finish quickly, briefly, on the economy, what is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much? And in your case, Mr. President, is there — should there be more?Beginning with you. This is not a new two-minute segment to start. And we’ll go for a few minutes, and then we’re going to go to health care, OK?ROMNEY: Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have — I need to know the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn’t have people opening up banks in their — in their garage and making loans. I mean, you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become excessive.LEHRER: Is it excessive now, do you think?ROMNEY: In some places, yes. Other places, no.LEHRER: Like where?(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: No, it can become out of date. And what’s happened with some of the legislation that’s been passed during the president’s term, you’ve seen regulation become excessive, and it’s hurt — it’s hurt the economy. Let me give you an example.Dodd-Frank was passed. And it includes within it a number of provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they’re effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that’s been given to — to New York banks I’ve ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There’ve been 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd- Frank.So there’s one example. Here’s another. In Dodd-Frank…LEHRER: Do you want to repeal Dodd-Frank?ROMNEY: Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world. You need transparency, you need to have leverage limits for…LEHRER: Well, here’s a specific…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: But let’s — let’s mention — let me mention the other one. Let’s talk…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: No, let’s not. Let’s let him respond — let’s let him respond to this specific on Dodd-Frank and what the governor just said.OBAMA: I think this is a great example. The reason we have been in such a enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board.Now, it wasn’t just on Wall Street. You had loan officers were — that were giving loans and mortgages that really shouldn’t have been given, because the folks didn’t qualify. You had people who were borrowing money to buy a house that they couldn’t afford. You had credit agencies that were stamping these as A1 great investments when they weren’t.But you also had banks making money hand over fist, churning out products that the bankers themselves didn’t even understand, in order to make big profits, but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable.So what did we do? We stepped in and had the toughest reforms on Wall Street since the 1930s. We said you’ve got — banks, you’ve got to raise your capital requirements. You can’t engage in some of this risky behavior that is putting Main Street at risk. We’ve going to make sure that you’ve got to have a living will so — so we can know how you’re going to wind things down if you make a bad bet so we don’t have other taxpayer bailouts.OBAMA: In the meantime, by the way, we also made sure that all the help that we provided those banks was paid back every single dime, with interest.Now, Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.And, you know, I appreciate and it appears we’ve got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation. But in the past, Governor Romney has said he just want to repeal Dodd- Frank, roll it back.And so the question is: Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate. But that’s not what I believe.ROMNEY: Sorry, but that’s just not — that’s just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That’s why I’d have regulation. But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn’t thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.Let me mention another regulation in Dodd-Frank. You say we were giving mortgages to people who weren’t qualified. That’s exactly right. It’s one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, except they didn’t ever go on and define what a qualified mortgage was.It’s been two years. We don’t know what a qualified mortgage is yet. So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It’s hurt the housing market because Dodd-Frank didn’t anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It’s not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn’t come out with a clear regulation.I will make sure we don’t hurt the functioning of our — of our marketplace and our business, because I want to bring back housing and get good jobs.LEHRER: All right. I think we have another clear difference between the two of you. Now, let’s move to health care where I know there is a clear difference, and that has to do with the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. And it’s a two-minute new — new segment, and that means two minutes each. And you go first, Governor Romney.LEHRER: You want it repealed. You want the Affordable Care Act repealed. Why?ROMNEY: I sure do. Well, in part, it comes, again, from my experience. You know, I was in New Hampshire. A woman came to me and she said, look, I can’t afford insurance for myself or my son. I met a couple in Appleton, Wisconsin, and they said, we’re thinking of dropping our insurance, we can’t afford it.And the number of small businesses I’ve gone to that are saying they’re dropping insurance because they can’t afford it, the cost of health care is just prohibitive. And — and we’ve got to deal with cost.And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost. And as a matter of fact, when the president ran for office, he said that, by this year, he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a family. Instead, it’s gone up by that amount. So it’s expensive. Expensive things hurt families. So that’s one reason I don’t want it.Second reason, it cuts $716 billion from Medicare to pay for it. I want to put that money back in Medicare for our seniors.Number three, it puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.Fourth, there was a survey done of small businesses across the country, said, what’s been the effect of Obamacare on your hiring plans? And three-quarters of them said it makes us less likely to hire people. I just don’t know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the — at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.And the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state: craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state. And then let’s focus on getting the costs down for people, rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium.LEHRER: Mr. President, the argument against repeal? OBAMA: Well, four years ago, when I was running for office, I was traveling around and having those same conversations that Governor Romney talks about. And it wasn’t just that small businesses were seeing costs skyrocket and they couldn’t get affordable coverage even if they wanted to provide it to their employees. It wasn’t just that this was the biggest driver of our federal deficit, our overall health care costs, but it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick, millions of families, all across the country.If they had a pre-existing condition, they might not be able to get coverage at all. If they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit. And so as a consequence, they’re paying their premiums, somebody gets really sick, lo and behold, they don’t have enough money to pay the bills, because the insurance companies say that they’ve hit the limit.So we did work on this, alongside working on jobs, because this is part of making sure that middle-class families are secure in this country.And let me tell you exactly what Obamacare did. Number one, if you’ve got health insurance, it doesn’t mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. They can’t impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance — your insurance plan until you’re 26 years old. And it also says that you’re going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care.Number two, if you don’t have health insurance, we’re essentially setting up a group plan that allows you to benefit from group rates that are typically 18 percent lower than if you’re out there trying to get insurance on the individual market.Now, the last point I’d make before…LEHRER: Two minutes — two minutes is up, sir.OBAMA: No, I think — I had five seconds before you interrupted me, was …(LAUGHTER)… the irony is that we’ve seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model and as a consequence people are covered there. It hasn’t destroyed jobs. And as a consequence, we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs, as opposed to just leaving millions of people out in the cold.LEHRER: Your five seconds went away a long time ago.All right, Governor. Governor, tell — tell the president directly why you think what he just said is wrong about Obamacare?ROMNEY: Well, I did with my first statement.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary — elected a Republican senator to stop Obamacare, you pushed it through anyway.So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer and drove it through.What we did in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together; 200 legislators in my legislature, only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes. You’ve raised them by $1 trillion under Obamacare. We didn’t cut Medicare. Of course, we don’t have Medicare, but we didn’t cut Medicare by $716 billion.ROMNEY: We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive. We didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put — put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted.Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don’t want Medicare — don’t want Obamacare. It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.I think something this big, this important has to be done on a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.OBAMA: Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. This was a bipartisan idea. In fact, it was a Republican idea. And Governor Romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the nation.And I agree that the Democratic legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate, but the fact of the matter is, we used the same advisers, and they say it’s the same plan.It — when Governor Romney talks about this board, for example, unelected board that we’ve created, what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out, how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall?Because there — there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis. One is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves, to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they just give up, and their workers are no longer getting insured, and that’s been the trend line.Or, alternatively, we can figure out, how do we make the cost of care more effective? And there are ways of doing it.So at Cleveland Clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average. And the reason they do is because they do some smart things. They — they say, if a patient’s coming in, let’s get all the doctors together at once, do one test instead of having the patient run around with 10 tests. Let’s make sure that we’re providing preventive care so we’re catching the onset of something like diabetes. Let’s — let’s pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they’ve — they’ve engaged in.Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.And the fact of the matter is that, when Obamacare is fully implemented, we’re going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it’s true — but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you’re already getting a rebate.Let me make one last point. Governor Romney says, we should replace it, I’m just going to repeal it, but — but we can replace it with something. But the problem is, he hasn’t described what exactly we’d replace it with, other than saying we’re going to leave it to the states.OBAMA: But the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he’s offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there’s no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody who’s got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance. In fact, it’s estimated that by repealing Obamacare, you’re looking at 50 million people losing health insurance…LEHRER: Let’s…OBAMA: … at a time when it’s vitally important.LEHRER: Let’s let the governor explain what you would do…ROMNEY: Well…LEHRER: … if Obamacare is repealed. How would you replace it?(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Well, actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That’s already offered in the private marketplace. You don’t have to have the government mandate that for that to occur.But let’s come back to something the president and I agree on, which is the key task we have in health care is to get the cost down so it’s more affordable for families. And then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in — in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be.Your example of the Cleveland Clinic is my case in point, along with several others I could describe.This is the private market. These are small — these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how to do better and better jobs. I used to consult to businesses — excuse me, to hospitals and to health care providers. I was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the American people.In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don’t need to have a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. We instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on target such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job, for keeping costs down, and that’s happening. Innermountain Healthcare does it superbly well, Mayo Clinic is doing it superbly well, Cleveland Clinic, others.ROMNEY: But the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have.That’s the wrong way to go. The private market and individual responsibility always work best.OBAMA: Let me just point out first of all this board that we’re talking about can’t make decisions about what treatments are given. That’s explicitly prohibited in the law. But let’s go back to what Governor Romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions.Well, actually Governor, that isn’t what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what’s already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can’t deny you if you’ve — if it’s been under 90 days.But that’s already the law and that doesn’t help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. There’s a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn’t a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that “insurers, you’ve got to take everybody.”Now, that also means that you’ve got more customers. But when — when Governor Romney says that he’ll replace it with something, but can’t detail how it will be in fact replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts was because there isn’t a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions problem.OBAMA: It just reminds me of, you know, he says that he’s going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. That’s how it’s going to be paid for, but we don’t know the details. He says that he’s going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we don’t know exactly which ones. He won’t tell us. He now says he’s going to replace Obamacare and ensure that all the good things that are in it are going to be in there and you don’t have to worry.And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it — is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?No. The reason is, is because, when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems and we’ve got to make choices. And the choices we’ve made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle-class families all across the country.LEHRER: We’re going to move to…ROMNEY: No. I — I have to respond to that.LEHRER: No, but…ROMNEY: Which is — which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and — and lay down a piece of legislation and say, “It’s my way or the highway,” I don’t get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You’ve said the same thing, you’re going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base.Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I’m going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what — what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That’s one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way. There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth. And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on — on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That’s part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. And I said that at that time.The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.LEHRER: That is a terrific segue to our next segment, and is the role of government. And — and let’s see. Role of government. And it is — you are first on this, Mr. President. And the question is this. Do you believe, both of you — but you had the first two minutes on this, Mr. President — do you believe there’s a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?OBAMA: Well, I definitely think there are differences.LEHRER: And do you — yeah.OBAMA: The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function. And as commander-in-chief, that is something that I’ve worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.But I also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed.Look, the genius of America is the free enterprise system and freedom and the fact that people can go out there and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions.OBAMA: But as Abraham Lincoln understood, there are also some things we do better together. So, in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, let’s help to finance the Transcontinental Railroad, let’s start the National Academy of Sciences, let’s start land grant colleges, because we want to give these gateways of opportunity for all Americans, because if all Americans are getting opportunity, we’re all going to be better off. That doesn’t restrict people’s freedom. That enhances it.And so what I’ve tried to do as president is to apply those same principles.And when it comes to education what I’ve said is we’ve got to reform schools that are not working. We use something called Race to the Top. Wasn’t a top-down approach, Governor. What we’ve said is to states, we’ll give you more money if you initiate reforms. And as a consequence, you had 46 states around the country who have made a real difference.But what I’ve also said is let’s hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. And hard-pressed states right now can’t all do that. In fact we’ve seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years, and Governor Romney doesn’t think we need more teachers. I do, because I think that that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help.It can’t do it all, but it can make a difference. And as a consequence we’ll have a better trained workforce and that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we’ve got a skilled workforce.LEHRER: Two minutes, Governor, on the role of government. Your view?ROMNEY: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools, great teachers.So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.ROMNEY: First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.Second, in that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another.We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. And we — we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a — a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working.And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is 1 out of 6 people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: We know that the path we’re taking is not working. It’s time for a new path.LEHRER: All right. Let’s go through some specifics in terms of what — how each of you views the role of government. How do — education. Does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in America?ROMNEY: Well, the primary responsibility for education is — is, of course, at the state and local level. But the federal government also can play a very important role. And I — and I agree with Secretary Arne Duncan, he’s — some ideas he’s put forward on Race to the Top, not all of them, but some of them I agree with and — and congratulate him for pursuing that. The federal government can get local and — and state schools to do a better job.My own view, by the way, is I’ve added to that. I happen to believe, I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or Title I — these are disabled kids or — or — or poor kids or — or lower-income kids, rather, I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice.So all federal funds, instead of going to the — to the state or to the school district, I’d have go, if you will, follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their — their — their student.LEHRER: How do you see the federal government’s responsibility to, as I say, to improve the quality of public education in this country?OBAMA: Well, as I’ve indicated, I think that it has a significant role to play. Through our Race to the Top program, we’ve worked with Republican and Democratic governors to initiate major reforms, and they’re having an impact right now.LEHRER: Do you think you have a difference with your views and — and those of Governor Romney on — about education and the federal government?OBAMA: You know, this is where budgets matter, because budgets reflect choices. So when Governor Romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it we’re having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference.You know, his — his running mate, Congressman Ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that Governor Romney’s talked about. And it wasn’t very detailed. This seems to be a trend. But — but what it did do is to — if you extrapolated how much money we’re talking about, you’d look at cutting the education budget by up to 20 percent.OBAMA: When it comes to community colleges, we are seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. And one of the things I suspect Governor Romney and I probably agree on is getting businesses to work with community colleges so that they’re setting up their training programs…LEHRER: Do you — do you agree, Governor?OBAMA: Let me just finish the point.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: The — where they’re partnering so that they’re designing training programs. And people who are going through them know that there’s a job waiting for them if they complete it. That makes a big difference, but that requires some federal support.Let me just say one final example. When it comes to making college affordable, whether it’s two-year or four-year, one of the things that I did as president was we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, even though the loans were guaranteed. So there was no risk for the banks or the lenders, but they were taking billions out of the system.And we said, “Why not cut out the middleman?” And as a consequence, what we’ve been able to do is to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans. And this is an example of where our priorities make a difference.Governor Romney, I genuinely believe cares about education, but when he tells a student that, you know, “you should borrow money from your parents to go to college,” you know, that indicates the degree to which, you know, there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that folks like myself, folks like Michelle, kids probably who attend University of Denver, just don’t have that option.And for us to be able to make sure that they’ve got that opportunity and they can walk through that door, that is vitally important not just to those kids. It’s how we’re going to grow this economy over the long term.LEHRER: We’re running out of time, gentlemen.(CROSSTALK) LEHRER: Governor?ROMNEY: Mr. President, Mr. President, you’re entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts. All right, I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and — and grants that go to people going to college. I’m planning on (inaudible) to grow. So I’m not planning on making changes there.But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into — into green jobs. And I — look, I’m all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have — that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.Look, the right course for America’s government, we were talking about the role of government, is not to become the economic player, picking winners and losers, telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that has existed in this country for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world.The right answer for government is say, How do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective? How do we get schools to be more competitive? Let’s grade them. I propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a — to a school that he’s being more successful.I don’t want to cut our commitment to education. I wanted to make it more effective and efficient. And by the way, I’ve had that experience. I don’t just talk about it. I’ve been there. Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation. This is not because I didn’t have commitment to education. It’s because I care about education for all of our kids.LEHRER: All right, gentlemen…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Excuse me (inaudible). Excuse me, sir. We’ve got — we’ve got — barely have three minutes left. I’m not going to grade the two of you and say your answers have been too long or I’ve done a poor job.OBAMA: You’ve done a great job.LEHRER: Oh, well, no. But the fact is government — the role of government and governing, we’ve lost a pod in other words. So we only have three — three minutes left in the — in the debate before we go to your closing statements. And so I want to ask finally here, and remember, we’ve got three minutes total time here — and the question is this. Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected, in your case, if re-elected, in your case, what would you do about that?Governor?ROMNEY: Jim, I had the great experience — it didn’t seem like it at the time — of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done. We drove our schools to be number one in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.LEHRER: But what would you do as president?ROMNEY: We — as president, I will sit on day one — actually, the day after I get elected — I’ll sit down with leaders — the Democratic leaders, as well as Republican leaders, and continue — as we did in my state — we met every Monday for a couple hours, talked about the issues and the challenges in the — in the — in our state in that case. We have to work on a collaborative basis, not because we’re going to compromise our principle, but because there’s common ground.And the challenges America faces right now — look, the reason I’m in this race is there are people that are really hurting today in this country. And we face — this deficit could crush the future generations. What’s happening in the Middle East, there are developments around the world that are of real concern.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: And Republicans and Democrats both love America. But we need to have leadership — leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done and could not care less if — if it’s a Republican or a Democrat. I’ve done it before. I’ll do it again.LEHRER: Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think Governor Romney’s going to have a busy first day, because he’s also going to repeal Obamacare, which will not be very popular among Democrats as you’re sitting down with them.(LAUGHTER)But, look, my philosophy has been, I will take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican, as long as they’re advancing the cause of making middle-class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. That’s how we cut taxes for middle- class families and small businesses. That’s how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn’t advancing that cause. That’s how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world. That’s how we repealed “don’t ask/don’t tell.” That’s how we ended the war in Iraq, as I promised, and that’s how we’re going to wind down the war in Afghanistan. That’s how we went after Al Qaida and bin Laden.So we’ve — we’ve seen progress even under Republican control of the House of Representatives. But, ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader is, A, being able to describe exactly what it is that you intend to do, not just saying, “I’ll sit down,” but you have to have a plan.Number two, what’s important is occasionally you’ve got to say no, to — to — to folks both in your own party and in the other party. And, you know, yes, have we had some fights between me and the Republicans when — when they fought back against us reining in the excesses of Wall Street? Absolutely, because that was a fight that needed to be had.When — when we were fighting about whether or not we were going to make sure that Americans had more security with their health insurance and they said no, yes, that was a fight that we needed to have.LEHRER: All rightOBAMA: And so part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you are for, but also being willing to say no to some things. And I’ve got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party.LEHRER: That brings us to closing statements. It was a coin toss. Governor Romney, you won the toss and you elected to go last, so you have a closing two minutes, Mr. President.OBAMA: Well, Jim, I want to thank you, and I want to thank Governor Romney, because I think was a terrific debate, and I very much appreciate it. And I want to thank the University of Denver.You know, four years ago, we were going through a major crisis. And yet my faith and confidence in the American future is undiminished. And the reason is because of its people, because of the woman I met in North Carolina who decided at 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter and now has a job from that new training that she’s gotten; because a company in Minnesota who was willing to give up salaries and perks for their executives to make sure that they didn’t lay off workers during a recession.The auto workers that you meet in Toledo or Detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world, not just because of a paycheck, but because it gives them that sense of pride, that they’re helping to build America. And so the question now is how do we build on those strengths. And everything that I’ve tried to do, and everything that I’m now proposing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system or developing American energy or making sure that we’re closing loopholes for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses and companies that are creating jobs here in the United States, or closing our deficit in a responsible, balanced way that allows us to invest in our future.All those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination, is — is channeled and — and they have an opportunity to succeed. And everybody’s getting a fair shot. And everybody’s getting a fair share — everybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.You know, four years ago, I said that I’m not a perfect man and I wouldn’t be a perfect president. And that’s probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I’ve kept. But I also promised that I’d fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class. I’ve kept that promise and if you’ll vote for me, then I promise I’ll fight just as hard in a second term.LEHRER: Governor Romney, your two-minute closing.ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim, and Mr. President. And thank you for tuning in this evening.This is a — this is an important election and I’m concerned about America. I’m concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years.I — I know this is bigger than an election about the two of us as individuals. It’s bigger than our respective parties. It’s an election about the course of America. What kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children.And there really are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening, and over the course of this month we’re going to have two more presidential debates and a vice presidential debate. We’re talk about those two paths.But they lead in very different directions. And it’s not just looking to our words that you have to take in evidence of where they go. You can look at the record.There’s no question in my mind that if the president were to be reelected you’ll continue to see a middle-class squeeze with incomes going down and prices going up.I’ll get incomes up again.You’ll see chronic unemployment. We’ve had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent.If I’m president I will create — help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes.If the president’s reelected, Obamacare will be fully installed. In my view that’s going to mean a whole different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. Many will lose it. You’re going to see health premiums go up by some $2,500 per family.If I’m elected we won’t have Obama. We’ll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured and we’ll focus on getting the cost of health care down.If the president were to be reelected you’re going to see a $716 billion cut to Medicare. You’ll have 4 million people who will lose Medicare Advantage. You’ll have hospital and providers that’ll no longer accept Medicare patients.I’ll restore that $716 billion to Medicare.And finally, military. The president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military. The secretary of defense has said these would be even devastating.I will not cut our commitment to our military. I will keep America strong and get America’s middle class working again.Thank you, Jim.LEHRER: Thank you, Governor.Thank you, Mr. President.The next debate will be the vice presidential event on Thursday, October 11th at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. For now, from the University of Denver, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.Â",
    "id": "d5f7881e-d311-4292-8419-98223f181023"
  },
  {
    "year": 2000,
    "date": "October 11, 2000",
    "title": "The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 11, 2000 Debate TranscriptOctober 11, 2000The Second Gore-Bush Presidential DebateMODERATOR: Good evening, from Wake Chapel at Wake Forest University at Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I’m Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. Welcome to this second election 2000 debate between the Republican candidate for president, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, and the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore. These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The format and the rules are those negotiated by representatives of the two campaigns. Only the subjects tonight and the questions are mine. The format tonight is that of a conversation. The only prevailing rule is that no single response can ever, ever exceed two minutes. The prevailing rule for the audience here in the hall is as always, absolute quiet, please. Good evening, Governor Bush, Vice President Gore. The end of our 90 minutes last week in Boston, the total time each of you took was virtually the same. Let’s see if we can do the same tonight, or come close. Governor Bush, the first question goes to you. One of you is about to be elected the leader of the single-most powerful nation in the world, economically, financially, militarily, diplomatically, you name it. Have you formed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous power?BUSH: I have, I have. First question is what’s in the best interests of the United States? What’s in the best interests of our people? When it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation’s interests? Peace in the Middle East is in our nation’s interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation’s interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation’s interest. I’ve thought a lot about what it means to be the president. I also understand that an administration is not one person, but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the president to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self, and so I’ve thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy. I haven’t started naming names except for one person, and that’s Mr. Richard Cheney who I thought did a great job the other night. He’s a vice presidential nominee who represents — I think people got to see why I picked him. He’s man of solid judgment and he’s going to be a person to stand by my side. One of the things I’ve done in Texas is I’ve been able to put together a good team of people. I’ve been able to set clear goals. The goals ought to be an education system that leaves no child behind, Medicare for our seniors, a Social Security system that’s safe and secure, foreign policy that’s in our nation’s interest, and a strong military, and then bring people together to achieve those goals. That’s what a Chief Executive Officer does. So I’ve thought long and hard about the honor of being the President of the United States.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: Yes, Jim. I’ve thought a lot about that particular question, and I see our greatest national strength coming from what we stand for in the world. I see it as a question of values. It is a great tribute to our founders that 224 years later this nation is now looked to by the peoples on every other continent and the peoples from every part of this earth as a kind of model for what their future could be. And I don’t think that’s just the kind of exaggeration that we take pride in as Americans. It’s really true, even the ones that sometimes shake their fists at us. As soon as they have a change that allows the people to speak freely, they’re wanting to develop some kind of blueprint that will help them be like us more, freedom, free markets, political freedom. So I think first and foremost our power ought to be wielded to in ways that form a more perfect union. The power of example is America’s greatest power in the world. And that means, for example, standing up for human rights. It means addressing the problems of injustice and inequity, along the lines of race and ethnicity here at home, because in all these other places around the world where they’re having these terrible problems, when they feel hope, it is often because they see in us a reflection of their potential. So we’ve got to enforce our civil rights laws. We’ve got to deal with things like racial profiling. And we have to keep our military strong. We have the strongest military, and I’ll do whatever is necessary, if I’m president, to make sure that it stays that way. But our real power comes, I think, from our values.MODERATOR: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say, should they fear us, should they welcome our involvement, should they see us as a friend, everybody in the world? How would you project us around the world, as president?BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or how you’re raised or where you’re from, that you can succeed. I don’t think they’ll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And it’s — our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don’t think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We’re a freedom-loving nation and if we’re an arrogant nation they’ll view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation they’ll respect us.MODERATOR: A humble nation.GORE: I agree with that. I agree with that. I think that one of the problems that we have faced in the world is that we are so much more powerful than any single nation has been in relationship to the rest of the world than at any time in history, that I know about, anyway. That there is some resentment of U.S. power. So I think that the idea of humility is an important one. But I think that we also have to have a sense of mission in the world. We have to protect our capacity to push forward what America’s all about. That means not only military strength and our values, it also means keeping our economy strong. You know, in the last, or two decades ago, it was routine for leaders of foreign countries to come over here and say you guys have got to do something about these horrendous deficits because it’s causing tremendous problems for the rest of the world, and we were lectured to all the time. The fact that we have the strongest economy in history today is not good enough. We need to do more. But the fact that it is so strong enables us to project the power for good that America can represent.MODERATOR: Does that give us — does our wealth, our good economy, our power, bring with it special obligations to the rest of the world?BUSH: Yes, it does. Take, for example, Third World debt. I think we ought to be forgiving Third World debt under certain conditions. I think, for example, if we’re convinced that a Third World country that’s got a lot of debt would reform itself, that the money wouldn’t go into the hands of a few but would go to help people, I think it makes sense for us to use our wealth in that way, or to trade debt for valuable rain forest lands, makes that much sense, yes. We do have an obligation, but we can’t be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions but we can’t put our troops all around the world. We can lend money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn’t be lending money to corrupt officials. So we got to be guarded in our generosity.MODERATOR: Let’s go through some of the specifics now. New question. Vice President Gore, the governor mentioned the Middle East. Here we’re talking at this stage in the game about diplomatic power that we have. What do you think the United States should do right now to resolve that conflict over there?GORE: The first priority has to be on ending the violence, dampening down the tensions that have arisen there. We need to call upon Syria to release the three Israeli soldiers who have been captured. We need to insist that Arafat send out instructions to halt some of the provocative acts of violence that have been going on. I think that we also have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he is taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats, and he needs to understand that he’s not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing — he’s dealing with us if he is making the kind of threats that he’s talking about there. The use of diplomacy in this situation has already, well, it goes hour-by-hour and day-by-day now. It’s a very tense situation there. But in the last 24 hours there has been some subsiding of the violence there. It’s too much to hope that this is going to continue, but I do hope that it will continue. Our country has been very active with regular conversations with the leaders there. And we just have to take it day-to-day right now. But one thing I would say where diplomacy is concerned, Israel should feel absolutely secure about one thing. Our bonds with Israel are larger than agreements or disagreements on some details of diplomatic initiatives. They are historic, they are strong, and they are enduring. And our ability to serve as an honest broker is something that we need to shepherd.MODERATOR: Governor?BUSH: Well, I think during the campaign, particularly now during this difficult period, we ought to be speaking with one voice, and I appreciate the way the administration has worked hard to calm the tensions. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace. I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the Middle East. I want everybody to know should I be the president Israel’s going to be our friend. I’m going to stand by Israel. Secondly, that I think it’s important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It’s important to be friends with people when you don’t need each other so that when you do there’s a strong bond of friendship. And that’s going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it’s unraveling, let’s put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it’s important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resolute in your determination. One of the reasons why I think it’s important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace to be able to say to the Saddam Hussein’s of the world or the Iranians, don’t dare threaten our friends. It’s also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we’re now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing. I hope to get a sense of should I be fortunate to be the president how my administration will react to the Middle East.MODERATOR: So you don’t believe, Vice President Gore, that we should take sides and resolve this right now? A lot of people pushing hey, the United States should declare itself and not be so neutral in this particular situation.GORE: Well, we stand with Israel, but we have maintained the ability to serve as an honest broker. And one of the reasons that’s important is that Israel cannot have direct dialogue with some of the people on the other side of conflicts, especially during times of tension, unless that dialogue comes through us. And if we throw away that ability to serve as an honest broker, then we have thrown — we will have thrown away a strategic asset that’s important not only to us but also to Israel.MODERATOR: You agree with that, Governor?BUSH: I do. I do think this, though. When it comes to timetables it can’t be the United States timetable as to how discussions take place. It’s got to be a timetable that all parties can agree to, like the Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, any lasting peace is going to have to be a peace that’s good for both sides. And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration’s worked hard to keep the parties at the table. I will try to do the same thing. But it won’t be on my timetable, it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East.MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?GORE: I haven’t heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.BUSH: That’s hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don’t know — there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn’t as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don’t want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it’s going to be hard, it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?BUSH: I do.GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after — I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that’s the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they’re too weak to do it, but that’s what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor’s not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I’m told, except for three where they notified, and they’re trying to break out of the box, there’s no question about it. I don’t think they should be allowed to.MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you’re not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher.MODERATOR: Let’s go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?BUSH: I think it’s a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn’t necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation’s strategy, and so I think it’s good public policy, I think it worked, and I’m pleased I took — made the decision I made. I’m pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom took hold in that part of the world, but there’s a lot of work left to be done, however.MODERATOR: But you think it would not have happened — do you think that Milosevic would not have fallen if the United States and NATO had not intervened militarily? Is this a legitimate use of our military power?BUSH: Yes, I think it is. Absolutely. I don’t think he would have fallen had we not used the force. And I know there are some in our party that disagree with that sentiment. I supported the president. I thought he made the right decision to do so. I didn’t think he necessarily made the right decision to take land troops off the table right before we committed ourselves offensively, but nevertheless, it worked. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. It is important for NATO to have it work. It’s important for NATO to be strong and confident and to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO, and NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future. Now, there’s more work to do. Remains to be seen, however, whether or not there’s going to be a political settlement in Kosovo, and I certainly hope there is one. I’m on record as saying at some point in time I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.GORE: Well, I’ve been kind of a hard-liner on this issue for more than eight years. When I was in the senate before I became vice president I was pushing for stronger action against Milosevic. He caused the death of so many people. He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. And unfortunately now he is trying to reassert himself in Serbian politics. Already just today the members of his political party said that they were going to ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia, and that they question his legitimacy, and he’s still going to try to be actively involved. He is an indicted war criminal. He should be held accountable. Now, I did want to pick up on one of the statements earlier, and maybe I have heard, maybe I have heard the previous statements wrong, Governor. In some of the discussions we’ve had about when it’s appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you’ve laid down have given me the impression that if it’s something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be, that that wouldn’t be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops. Now, have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that to me can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it’s based on our values. Now, have I got that wrong?BUSH: Trying to figure out who the questioner was. If I think it’s in our nation’s strategic interest I’ll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that’s why I took the position I took. I think it’s important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.MODERATOR: Well, let’s stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?GORE: Can you run through the list again?MODERATOR: Sure. Lebanon.GORE: I thought that was a mistake.MODERATOR: Grenada.GORE: I supported that.MODERATOR: Panama.GORE: I supported that.MODERATOR: Persian Gulf.GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.MODERATOR: Somalia.GORE: Of course, and that again — no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.MODERATOR: Bosnia.GORE: Oh, yes.MODERATOR: Haiti.GORE: Yes.MODERATOR: And then Kosovo.GORE: Yes.MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.BUSH: Make a couple comments.MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.MODERATOR: What about Lebanon?BUSH: Yes.MODERATOR: Grenada.BUSH: Yes.MODERATOR: Panama?BUSH: Yes. Some of them I’ve got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.MODERATOR: I do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously. And Bosnia. And you have already talked about Kosovo. But the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it’s a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that’s a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seems like we’re having a great love fest tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.MODERATOR: Do you have any second thoughts on that, based on what you said a moment ago about genocide?GORE: I’d like to come back to the question of nation building, but let me address the question directly, first. Fine. We did, actually, send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. My wife Tipper, who is here, actually went on a military plane with General Sholicatchvieli on one of those flights. But I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason, Jim. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not our national security interest is involved, if we can really make the difference with military forces. If we tried everything else, if we have allies. In the Balkans we have allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. Now, we have tried — our country has tried to create an Africa crisis response team there, and we’ve met some resistance. We have had some luck with Nigeria, but in Sierra Leon, and now that Nigeria has become a democracy, and we hope it stays that way, then maybe we can build on that. But because we had no allies and because it was very unclear that we could actually accomplish what we would want to accomplish about putting military forces there, I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was, but I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.MODERATOR: So what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait a minute, why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans, but not Africa, when 600,000 people’s lives are at risk?BUSH: Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we’ve got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some — Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. It’s an important continent. But there’s got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won’t be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can’t be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that’s where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I’m worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I’m not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor’s views on nation building, the use of military, our military, for nation building as he described and defined it?GORE: I don’t think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that. But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world is getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now — the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn’t be, doesn’t mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Now, both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other’s position in a maximalist extreme way, but I think there is a difference here. This idea of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II. During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I, we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II. And acting upon that lesson in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did. We got intimately involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe. And what did we do in the late ’40’s and ’50’s and ’60’s? We were nation building. And it was economic. But it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there. We had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back.MODERATOR: You said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation building, that the United States military is overextended now. Where is it overextended? Where are there U.S. military that you would bring home if you become president?BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can’t do that. We’ve got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we’re in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that’s the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can’t do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think — you know, I’ve supported the administration in Columbia. I think it’s important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But —MODERATOR: The use of the military, there — some people are now suggesting that if you don’t want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?BUSH: I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korean peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.GORE: I don’t disagree with that. I certainly don’t disagree that we ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete. That’s what we did in Haiti. There are no more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti now. And Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. That’s really about all we can do. But if you have a situation like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out and flotillas forming to come across the water, and all kinds of violence there, right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think that we did the right thing there. And as for this idea of nation building, the phrase sounds grandiose. And, you know, we can’t be — we can’t allow ourselves to get overextended. I certainly agree with that. And that’s why I’ve supported building up our capacity. I’ve devoted in the budget I’ve proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as the governor has proposed. I think that it’s in better shape now than he generally does. We’ve had some disagreements about that. He said that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that’s not what the joint chiefs say. But there’s no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness and military strength. And we have to also be very cautious in the way we use our military.MODERATOR: In the non-military area of influencing events around the world, the financial and economic area, the World Bank President Wolfensohn said recently, Governor, that U.S. contributions to overseas development assistance is lower now almost than it has ever been. Is that a problem for you? Do you think — what is your — what is your idea about what the United States’ obligations are? I’m talking about financial assistance and that sort of thing to other countries, the poor countries.BUSH: Well, I mentioned Third World debt.MODERATOR: Sure.BUSH: That’s a place where we can use our generosity to influence in a positive way, influence nations. I believe we ought to have foreign aid, but I don’t think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of foreign aid. I think foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform. I think a lot of times we just spend aid and say we feel better about it and it ends up being spent the wrong way, and there’s some pretty egregious examples recently. One being Russia, where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn’t help the nation. I think the IMF has got a role in the world, but I don’t want to see the IMF out there as a way to say to world bankers, if you make a bad loan, we’ll bail you out. It needs to be available for emergency situations. I thought the President did the right thing with Mexico and was very strongly supportive of the administration in Mexico. But I don’t think the IMF ought to be a stop loss for people who ought to be able to evaluate risks themselves. So I’ll look at every place where we’re investing money. I just want to make sure the return is good.MODERATOR: Do you think we’re meeting our obligations properly?GORE: No, I would make some changes. I think there need to be reforms in the IMF. I’ve generally supported it, but I’ve seen them make some calls that I thought were highly questionable. And I think that there’s a general agreement in many parts of the world now that there ought to be changes in the IMF. The World Bank I think is generally doing a better job, but I think one of the big issues here that doesn’t get nearly enough attention is the issue of corruption. The governor mentioned it earlier. I’ve worked on this issue. It’s an enormous problem and corruption in official agencies, like militaries and police departments around the world, customs officials, that’s one of the worst forms of it. And we have got to again lead by example and help these other countries that are trying to straighten out their situations find the tools in order to do it. I just think, Jim, that this is an absolutely unique period in world history. The world’s coming together, as I said, they’re looking to us. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said okay, the United States is going to be the leader. And the world benefitted tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years. I think that in the aftermath of the Cold War, it’s time for us to do something very similar, to step up to the plate, to provide the leadership on the environment, leadership to make sure the world economy keeps moving in the right direction. Again, that means not running big deficits here and not squandering our surplus. It means having intelligent decisions that keep our prosperity going and shepherds that economic strength so that we can provide that leadership role.BUSH: Let me comment on that. I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. We can help. And maybe it’s just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, “we do it this way, so should you.” I think we can help. I know we’ve got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces. But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said here is some IMF money, and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin’s pocket, and others, and yet we played like there was reform. The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They’re going to have to make the decision themselves. Mr. Putin is going to have to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of law and normal accounting practices so that if countries and/or entities invest capital, there’s a reasonable rate of return, a way to get the money out of the economy. But Russia has to make the decision. We can work with them on security matters, for example, but it’s their call to make. So I’m not exactly sure where the vice president is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, “we do it this way, so should you.” Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you’re coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.MODERATOR: Lets move on. No, let’s move on.GORE: Far be it from me to suggest otherwise. (LAUGHTER)MODERATOR: First, a couple of follow-ups from the vice presidential debate last week. Vice President Gore, would you support or sign, as president, a federal law banning racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of government?GORE: Yes, I would. The only thing an executive order can accomplish is to ban it in federal law enforcement agencies, but I would also support a law in the Congress that would have the effect of doing the same thing. I just — I think that racial profiling is a serious problem. I remember when the stories first came out about the stops in New Jersey by the highway patrol there. And I know it’s been going on a long time. In some ways this is just a new label for something that has been going on for years. But I have to confess that it was the first time that I really focused on it in a new way. And I was surprised at the extent of it. And I think we’ve now got so many examples around the country that we really have to find ways to end this. Imagine what it — what it is like for someone to be singled out unfairly, unjustly, and feel the unfair force of law simply because of race or ethnicity. Now, that runs counter to what the United States of America is all about at our core. And it’s not an easy problem to solve. But if I am entrusted with the presidency, it will be the first Civil Rights Act of the 21st century.BUSH: Yeah, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That’s just flat wrong, and that’s not what America is all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don’t want to federalize the local police forces. I want to — obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs divisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don’t there needs to be a consequence at the federal level. But it’s very important that we not overstep our bounds and I think most people — most police officers are good, dedicated, honorable citizens who are doing their job, putting their lives at risk who aren’t bigoted or aren’t prejudiced. I don’t think they ought to be held guilty. But I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it and say to the local folks, get it done. And if you can’t, there will be a federal consequence.MODERATOR: And that could be a federal law?BUSH: Yeah.MODERATOR: And you would agree?GORE: I would agree. And I also agree that most police officers, of course, are doing a good job and hate this practice also. I talked to an African-American police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts not long ago who raised this question and said that in his opinion one of the biggest solutions is in the training. And not only the training in police procedures, but human relations. And I think that racial profiling is part of a larger issue of how we deal with race in America. And as for singling people out because of race, you know, James Byrd was singled out because of his race in Texas. And other Americans have been singled out because of their race or ethnicity. And that’s why I think we can embody our values by passing a hate crimes law. I think these crimes are different. I think they’re different because they’re based on prejudice and hatred, which gives rise to crimes that have not just a single victim, but they’re intended to stigmatize and dehumanize a whole group of people.MODERATOR: You have a different view of that.BUSH: No, I don’t, really.MODERATOR: On hate crimes laws?BUSH: No. We’ve got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what’s going to happen to them? They’re going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it’s the right cause. It’s the right decision. Secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn’t just an issue at local police forces. It’s an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we’re going to have to deal with it more and more. I believe, though — I believe, as sure as I’m sitting here, that most Americans really care. They’re tolerant people. They’re good, tolerant people. It’s the very few that create most of the crises, and we just have to find them and deal with them.MODERATOR: What — if you become president, Governor, are there other areas, racial problem areas, that you would deal with as president involving discrimination? Like you said, Arab-Americans, but also Hispanics, Asians, as well as Blacks in this country.BUSH: Let me tell you where the biggest discrimination comes. In public education when we just move children through the schools. My friend, Phyllis Hunter, is here. She had one of the greatest lines of all lines. She said, reading is the new civil right. She’s right. And to make sure our society is as hopeful as it possibly can be, every single child in America must be educated. I mean every child. It starts with making sure every child learns to read. K-2 diagnostic testing so we know whether or not there’s a deficiency. Curriculum that works and phonics needs to be an integral part of our reading curriculum. Intensive reading laboratories, teacher retraining. I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. We can do better in our public schools. We can close an achievement gap, and it starts with making sure we have strong accountability, Jim. One of the cornerstones of reform, and good reform, is to measure. Because when you measure you can ask the question, do they know? Is anybody being profiled? Is anybody being discriminated against? It becomes a tool, a corrective tool. And I believe the federal government must say that if you receive any money, any money from the federal government for disadvantaged children, for example, you must show us whether or not the children are learning. And if they are, fine. And if they’re not, there has to be a consequence. And so to make sure we end up getting rid of basic structural prejudice is education. There is nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, what would be on your racial discrimination elimination list as president?GORE: Well, I think we need tough enforcement of the civil rights laws. I think we still need affirmative action. I would pass a hate crimes law, as I said, and I guess I had misunderstood the governor’s previous position. The Byrd family may have a misunderstanding of it in Texas also. But I would like to shift, if I could, to the big issue of education.MODERATOR: Hold on one second. What is the misunderstanding? Let’s clear this up.GORE: Well, I had thought that there was a controversy at the end of the legislative session where the hate crimes law in Texas was — failed, and that the Byrd family, among others, asked you to support it, Governor, and it died in committee for lack of support. Am I wrong about that?BUSH: Well, you don’t realize we have a hate crimes statute? We do. GORE: I’m talking about the one that was proposed to deal —BUSH: No — well, what the Vice President must not understand is we’ve got a hate crimes bill in Texas. And secondly, the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment. The death penalty.MODERATOR: They were prosecuted under the murder laws, were they not, in Texas?BUSH: In this case when you murder somebody it’s hate, Jim. The crime is hate. And they got the ultimate punishment. I’m not exactly sure how you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty. We happen to have a statute on the books that’s a hate crimes statute in Texas.GORE: May I respond?MODERATOR: Sure.GORE: I don’t want to jump in. I may have been misled by all the news reports about this matter, because the law that was proposed in Texas that had the support of the Byrd family and a whole lot of people in Texas did, in fact, die in committee. There may be some other statute that was already on the books, but certainly the advocates of the hate crimes law felt that a tough new law was needed. And it’s important, Jim, not only — not just because of Texas, but because this mirrors the national controversy. There is pending now in the Congress a national hate crimes law because of James Byrd, because of Matthew Shepard, who was crucified on a split rail fence by bigots, and because of others. And that law has died in committee also because of the same kind of opposition.MODERATOR: And you would support that bill.GORE: Absolutely.MODERATOR: Would you support a national hate crimes law?BUSH: I would support the Orrin Hatch version of it, not the Senator Kennedy version. But let me say to you, Mr. Vice President, we’re happy with our laws on our books. That bill did — there was another bill that did die in committee. But I want to repeat, if you have a state that fully supports the law like we do in Texas, we’re going to go after all crime. And we’re going to make sure people get punished for the crime. And in this case we can’t enhance the penalty any more than putting those three thugs to death. And that’s what’s gonna happen in the State of Texas.MODERATOR: New subject, new question. Another vice presidential debate follow-up. Governor, both Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney said they were sympathetically rethinking their views on same sex relationships. What’s your position on that?BUSH: I’m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the Vice President supported it when the President signed that bill and supports it now. But I think marriage is a sacred institution. I’m going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I’ve had a record of doing so in the State of Texas. I’ve been a person that had been called a uniter, not a divider, because I accept other people’s points of view. But I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions, and I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. And I think the three of us have one view and the Governor has another view.MODERATOR: Is that right?BUSH: I’m not sure what kind of view he’s describing to me. I can just tell you, I’m a person who respects other people. I respect their — I respect — on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he doesn’t. I’m not sure where he’s coming from. But I will be a tolerant person. I’ve been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman.MODERATOR: Do you believe in general terms that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans?BUSH: Yes. I don’t think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.GORE: Well, there’s a law pending called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I strongly support it. What it says is that gays and lesbians can’t be fired from their job because they’re gay or lesbian. And it would be a federal law preventing that. Now, I wonder if the — it’s been blocked by the opponents in the majority in the Congress. I wonder if the Governor would lend his support to that law.MODERATOR: Governor?BUSH: The question —MODERATOR: Well, but it’s a logical response.BUSH: Well, I have no idea. I mean, he can throw out all kinds — I don’t know the particulars of this law. I will tell you I’m the kind of person, I don’t hire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, I would like to take the issue a little further. I don’t really think it’s any of my — you know, any of my concerns what — how you conduct your sex life. And I think that’s a private matter. And I think that’s the way it ought to be. But I’m going to be respectful for people, I’ll tolerate people, and I support equal rights but not special rights for people.MODERATOR: Special rights, how does that affect gays and lesbians?BUSH: Well, it would be if they’re given special protective status. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fully enforce laws and fully protect people and fully honor people, which I will do as the President of the United States.MODERATOR: New subject, new question, Vice President Gore. How do you see the connection between controlling gun sales in this country and the incidence of death by accidental or intentional use of guns?GORE: Jim, I hope that we can come back to the subject of education because the governor made an extensive statement on it and I have a very different view than the one he expressed. But that having been said, I believe that — well, first of all, let me say that the governor and I agree on some things where this subject is concerned. I will not do anything to affect the rights of hunters or sportsmen. I think that homeowners have to be respected and their right to have a gun if they wish to. The problem I see is that there are too many guns getting into the hands of children, and criminals, and people who, for whatever reason, some kind of history of stalking or domestic abuse really should not be able to get guns. I think these assault weapons are a problem. So I favor closing the gun show loophole. In fact, I cast the tie-breaking vote to close it, but then the majority in the House of Representatives went the other way. That’s still pending. If we could get agreement on that, maybe they could pass that in the final days of this Congress. I think we ought to restore the three-day waiting period under the Brady Law. I think we should toughen the enforcement of gun laws so that the ones that are already on the books can be enforced much more effectively. Some of the restrictions that have been placed by the Congress in the last couple of years. I think — in the last few years I think have been unfortunate. I think that we ought to make all schools gun free. Have a gun-free zone around every school in this country. I think that measures like these are important. Child safety trigger locks on a mandatory basis, and others.MODERATOR: Governor?BUSH: Well, it starts with enforcing law. When you say loud and clear to somebody if you’re going to carry a gun illegally, we’re going to arrest you. If you’re going to sell a gun illegally, you need to be arrested. If you commit a crime with a gun, there needs to be absolute certainty in the law. And that means that the local law enforcement officials need help at the federal level. Programs like Project Exile where the federal government intensifies arresting people who illegally use guns. And we haven’t done a very good job of that at the federal level recently. And I’m going to make it a priority. Secondly, I don’t think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I support instant background checks at gun shows. One of the reasons we have an instant background check is so that we instantly know whether or not somebody should have a gun or not. In Texas I tried to do something innovative. There’s a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in the future. I support that. But I said if you want a trigger lock to make your gun safe, come and get one for free. So we’re distributing in our State of Texas for free. I think we ought to raise the age at which a juvenile can carry a handgun from 18 to 21. I disagree with the vice president on this issue. He is for registration of guns. I think the only people that are going to show up to register or get a license — I guess licensing like a driver’s license for a gun, the only people that are going to show up are law-abiding citizens. The criminal is not going to show up and say hey, give me my I.D. card. It’s the law-abiding citizens who will do that. An I don’t think that is going to be an effective tool to make the — keep our society safe.MODERATOR: All right. So on guns, somebody wants to cast a vote based on your differences, where are the differences?GORE: Well, I’m not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases.MODERATOR: What’s that mean?GORE: A photo license I.D. like a driver’s license for new handguns and, you know, the Los Angeles —MODERATOR: Excuse me, you would have to get the license — a photo I.D. to go in and before you could buy the gun?GORE: Correct.MODERATOR: All right. Who would issue the —GORE: The state. The state. I think states should do that for new handguns, because too many criminals are getting guns. There was a recent investigation of the number in Texas who got — who were given concealed weapons permits in spite of the fact that they had records. And the “Los Angeles Times” spent a lot of ink going into that. But I am not for doing anything that would affect hunters or sportsmen, rifles, shotguns, existing handguns. I do think that sensible gun safety measures are warranted now. Look, this is the year — this is in the aftermath of Columbine, and Paducah, and all the places in our country where the nation has been shocked by these weapons in the hands of the wrong people. The woman who bought the guns for the two boys who did that killing at Columbine said that if she had had to give her name and fill out a form there, she would not have bought those guns. That conceivably could have prevented that tragedy.MODERATOR: Back to the question about the differences on gun control. What are they, Governor, from your point of view, between you and the Vice President?BUSH: Well, I’m not for photo licensing. Let me say something about Columbine. Listen, we’ve got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I’m sure every state in the union has got them. You can’t carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school. But Columbine spoke to a larger issue. It’s really a matter of culture. It’s a culture that somewhere along the line we’ve begun to disrespect life. Where a child can walk in and have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else’s life? So gun laws are important, no question about it, but so is loving children, and character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, we love you. So there’s a — this is a society that — of ours that’s got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong. And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on — not certainly only in this debate, but just in general on law. But there’s a larger law. Love your neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. And that’s where our society must head if we’re going to be a peaceful and prosperous society.GORE: I also believe in the Golden Rule. And I agree with a lot of the other things that the governor has said. We do have a serious problem in our culture. Tipper and I have worked on the problem of violence in entertainment aimed at children. She’s worked on it longer than I have. But I feel very strongly about that. And if I’m elected president, I will do something about that. But I think that we — I think we have to start with better parenting. But I don’t think that we can ignore the role played by guns. I mean, the fact is that there — even though no state wants them, there are guns in some schools. And the reason it’s so difficult for schools to control that is because in recent years there has been a flood of cheap handguns that are so widely available that kids are finding ways to get ahold of them. And I think that if you look at the situation as it exists here in the United States compared to any other country in the world, it seems to me pretty obvious that while we respect the rights of hunters and sportsmen, we do need some common sense gun safety steps to stem this flood of guns that are getting into the wrong hands.BUSH: Yeah, no question about that, but there also needs to be strong enforcement of the law. Some kid who feels like — doesn’t matter where the gun comes from, it could be a cheap gun, expensive gun. What matters is something in this person’s head says there is not going to be a consequence. So in my state we toughen up the juvenile justice laws. We added beds. We’re tough. We believe in tough love. We say, if you get caught carrying a gun, you’re automatically detained. And that’s what needs to happen. We’ve got laws. If laws need to be strengthened, like instant background checks, that’s important.MODERATOR: New question. As I was saying. Both of you — Governor, both of you have talked much about Medicare and health care for seniors. What about the more than 40 million younger Americans who do not have health insurance right now? What would you do about that?BUSH: Well, I’ve got a plan to do something about that. It’s to make health care affordable and available this way. First, there’s some who should be buying health care who choose not to. There’s some —MODERATOR: Some of the 40 million.BUSH: Some of the healthy folks, healthy young kids say I’ll never get sick, therefore I don’t need health care right now. For those what I think we need to do is to develop an investment-type vehicle that would be an incentive for them to invest, like medical savings accounts with rollover capacity. In other words, you say to a youngster, it will be in your financial interest to start saving for future illness, but for the working folks that do want to have health care that can’t afford it, a couple of things we need to do. One, we need more community health centers. I’ve developed — put out money in my budget to expand community health centers all around the country. These are places where people can get primary care. Secondly — and they’re good. They’re very important parts of the safety net of health care. Secondly, that you get a $2,000 rebate from the government if you’re a family of $30,000 or less — it scales down as you get higher — that you can use to purchase health care in the private markets. It will be a huge down payment for a pretty darn good system. If you allow — also allow — convince states to — allow states to allow the mother to match some of the children’s health insurance money with it, the pool purchasing power. And to make health care more affordable, allow business associations like the National Federal of Independent Business or the Chamber of Commerce or the National Restaurant Association to write association plans across jurisdictional lines so that small businesses have got the capacity to have national pooling to drive the cost of insurance down. I think that’s the very best way to go. It empowers people, it trusts people, it makes — and it’s a practical way to encourage people to purchase health care insurance.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: It’s one of my top priorities, Jim, to give every single child in the United States affordable health care within the next four years. I would like to see eventually in this country some form of universal health care, but I’m not for a government-run system. In fact, I’m for shrinking the size of government. I want a smaller and smarter government. I have been in charge of this reinventing government streamlining project that’s reduced the size of government by more than 300,000 people in the last several years. And the budget plan that I’ve put out, according to the “Los Angeles Times” again, the way these things are typically measured as a percentage of the GDP, will bring government spending down to the lowest level in 50 years. So I want to proceed carefully to cover more people. But I think we should start by greatly expanding the so-called child health insurance or CHIP program to give health insurance to every single child in this country. I think it’s intolerable that we have so many millions of children without any health insurance. So it’s one of my top priorities. Now, I know that we have some disagreements on this. And I’m sorry to tell you that, you know, there is a record here. And Texas ranks 49th out of the 50 states in health care — in children with health care. 49th for women with health care, and 50th for families with health care. So it is a priority for me. I guarantee you. I’m not aware of any program — well, I’ll just leave it at that. I think it ought to be a top priority.MODERATOR: Governor, did the — are the vice president’s figures correct about Texas?BUSH: First of all, let me say he’s not for a government-run health care system? I thought that’s exactly what he and Mrs. Clinton and them fought for in 1993 was a government-run health care system. It was fortunately stopped in its tracks. Secondly, we spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the State of Texas. Our rate of uninsured, the percentage of uninsured in Texas has gone down, while the percentage of uninsured in America has gone up. Our CHIPS program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. It may come as a shock for somebody who has been in Washington for so long. But actually limited government can work in the second largest state in the union. And therefore Congress passes the bill after our session in 1997 ended, we passed an enabling legislation in 1999. We’ve signed up over 110,000 children to the CHIPS program. For comparable states our size, we’re signing them up as fast as any other state. You can quote all the numbers you want, but I’m telling you we care about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get health care in the State of Texas, and we’re doing a better job than they are at the national level for reducing uninsured.MODERATOR: Is he right?GORE: Well, I don’t know about all these percentages that he throws out, but I do know that — I speculate that the reason why he didn’t answer your question directly as to whether my numbers were right, the facts were right about Texas ranking dead last in families with health insurance and 49th out of 50 for both children and women, is because those facts are correct. And as for why it happened, I’m no expert on the Texas procedures, but what my friends there tell me is that the governor opposed a measure put forward by Democrats in the legislature to expand the number of children that would be covered. And instead directed the money toward a tax cut, a significant part of which went to wealthy interests. He declared the need for a new tax cut for the oil companies in Texas an emergency need, and so the money was taken away from the CHIP program. There’s — you don’t have to take my word for this. There is now a federal judge’s opinion about the current management of this program ordering the State of Texas to do — you should read that judge’s language about this. I believe there are 1.4 million children in Texas who do not have health insurance. 600,000 of whom, and maybe some of those have since gotten it, but as of a year ago 600,000 of them were actually eligible for it but they couldn’t sign up for it because of the barriers that they had set up.MODERATOR: Let’s let the governor respond to that. Are those numbers correct? Are his charges correct?BUSH: If he’s trying to allege that I’m a hard-hearted person and I don’t care about children, he’s absolutely wrong. We’ve spent $4.7 billion a year in the State of Texas for uninsured people. And they get health care. Now, it’s not the most efficient way to get people health care. But I want to remind you, the number of uninsured in America during their watch has increased. He can make any excuse he wants, but the facts are that we’re reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our population. And as the percentage of the population is increasing nationally, somehow the allegation that we don’t care and we’re going to give money for this interest or that interest and not for children in the State of Texas is totally absurd. Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There’s only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me. And I was able to do so with a lot of Democrat votes, nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote, about 27% of the African-American vote, because people know I’m a conservative person and a compassionate person. So he can throw all the kinds of numbers around. I’m just telling you our state comes together to do what is right. We come together both Republicans and Democrats.MODERATOR: Let me put that directly to you, Vice President Gore. The reason you brought this up, is it — are you suggesting that those numbers and that record will reflect the way Governor Bush will operate in this area of health insurance as president?GORE: Yes, yes. But it’s not a statement about his heart. I don’t claim to know his heart. I think he’s a good person. I make no allegations about that. I believe him when he says that he has a good heart. I know enough about your story to admire a lot of the things that you have done as a person. But I think it’s about his priorities. And let me tell you exactly why I think that the choice he made to give a tax cut for the oil companies and others before addressing this — I mean, if you were the governor of a state that was dead last in health care for families, and all of a sudden you found yourself with the biggest surplus your state had ever had in its history, wouldn’t you want to maybe use some of it to climb from 50th to, say, 45 or 40 or something or maybe better? I would. Now, but here is why it’s directly relevant, Jim. Because by his own budget numbers, his proposals for spending on tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy are more than the new spending proposals that he has made for health care and education and national defense all combined. According to his own numbers. So it’s not a question of his heart, as far as I know. It’s a question of priorities and values. See, you know —MODERATOR: Let me ask —BUSH: First of all, that’s simply not true what he just said, of course. And secondly, I repeat to you —MODERATOR: What is not true, Governor?BUSH: That we spent — the top 1% receive 223 as opposed to 445 billion in new spending. The top — let’s talk about my tax plan. The top 1% will pay one-third of all the federal income taxes. And in return, get one-fifth of the benefits, because most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. That stands in stark contrast, by the way, to a man who is going to leave 50 million — 50 million Americans out of tax relief. We just have a different point of view. It’s a totally different point of view. He believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I believe everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. Let me go back to Texas, for example, for a minute. We pay 4.7 billion. I can’t emphasize to you how much. I signed a bill that puts CHIPS in place. The bill finally came out at the end of the 1999 session. We’re working hard to sign up children. We’re doing it faster than any other state our size, comparable state. We’re making really good progress. And our state cares a lot about our children. My priority is going to be the health of our citizens. These folks have had eight years to get something done in Washington, D.C. on the uninsured. They have not done it. They’ve had eight years to get something done on Medicare. And they have not got it done. And my case to the American people is, if you’re happy with inactivity, stay with the horse. The horse is up here now. But if you want change, you need to get somebody that knows how to bring Republicans and Democrats together to get positive things done for America.MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Vice President Gore, on the environment. In your 1992 book you said, quote, “We must make the rescue of our environment the central organizing principle for civilization and there must be a wrenching transformation to save the planet.” Do you still feel that way?GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the consequences of what’s called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already many people see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they’ve never seen before in their lifetimes. And what’s happening is the level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are breathing down our necks on this. They’re moving very rapidly because they know that it is a fast-growing world market. Some of these other countries, particularly in the developing world, their pollution is much worse than anywhere else and their people want higher standards of living. And so they’re looking for ways to satisfy their desire for a better life and still reduce pollution at the same time. I think that holding onto the old ways and the old argument that the environment and the economy are in conflict is really outdated. We have to be bold. We have to provide leadership. Now it’s true that we disagree on this. The governor said that he doesn’t think this problem is necessarily caused by people. He’s for letting the oil companies into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become the smoggiest city in the country. And Texas is number one in industrial pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I’ll tell you this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that strengthen our economy.MODERATOR: Governor?BUSH: Well, let me start with Texas. We are a big industrial state. We reduced our industrial waste by 11%. We cleaned up more brown fields than any other administration in my state’s history, 450 of them. Our water is cleaner now.MODERATOR: Explain what a brown field is to those who don’t follow this.BUSH: A brown field is an abandoned industrial site that just sits idle in some of our urban centers. And people are willing to invest capital in the brown fields don’t want to do so for fear of lawsuit. I think we ought to have federal liability protection, depending upon whether or not standards have been met. The book you mentioned that Vice President Gore wrote, he also called for taxing — big energy taxes in order to clean up the environment. And now that the energy prices are high, I guess he’s not advocating those big energy taxes right now. I believe we ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund to — with half the money going to states so states can make the right decisions for environmental quality. I think we need to have clean coal technologies. I propose $2 billion worth. By the way, I just found out the other day an interesting fact, that there is a national petroleum reserve right next to — in Prudhoe Bay that your administration opened up for exploration in that pristine area. And it was a smart move because there’s gas reserves up there. We need gas pipelines to bring the gas down. Gas is a clean fuel that we can burn to — we need to make sure that if we decontrol our plants that there’s mandatory — that the plants must conform to clean air standards, the grandfathered plants, that’s what we did in Texas. No excuses. You must conform. In other words, there are practical things we can do. But it starts with working in a collaborative effort with states and local folks. If you own the land, every day is Earth Day. People care a lot about their land and care about their environment. Not all wisdom is in Washington, D.C. on this issue.MODERATOR: Where do you see the basic difference in very simple terms in two or three sentences between you and the governor on the environment? If a voter wants to make a choice, what is it?GORE: I’m really strongly committed to clean water and clean air, and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges like global warming. He is right that I’m not in favor of energy taxes. I am in favor of tax cuts to encourage and give incentives for the quicker development of these new kinds of technologies. And let me say again, Detroit is rearing to go on that. We differ on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as I have said. We differ on whether or not pollution controls ought to be voluntary. I don’t think you can — I don’t think you can get results that way. We differ on the kinds of appointments that we would make.MODERATOR: Would you say it’s a fundamental difference?GORE: I think it’s a fundamental difference. Let me give you an example.MODERATOR: Hold on one second.GORE: Okay, sure.MODERATOR: We’ve talked about supply. I just want to know for somebody — we’re getting close to the end of our time here. If somebody wanted to vote on the environment, how would you draw the differences, Governor?BUSH: Well, I don’t believe in command and control out of Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels and I think we ought to work with people at the local levels. And by the way, I just want to make sure — I can’t let him just say something and not correct it. The electric decontrol bill that I fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards, Mr. Vice President. That’s what we ought to do at the federal level when it comes to grandfathered plants for utilities. I think there’s a difference. I think, for example, take — when they took 40 million acres of land out of circulation without consulting local officials, I thought that was —MODERATOR: That was out in the west?BUSH: Out in the west, yeah. And so — on the logging issue. That’s not the way I would have done it. Perhaps some of that land needs to be set aside. But I certainly would have consulted with governors and elected officials before I would have acted unilaterally.MODERATOR: Would you believe the federal government still has some new rules and new regulations and new laws to pass in the environmental area or do you think —BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they’re based upon science and they’re reasonable. So long as people have input.MODERATOR: What about global warming?BUSH: I think it’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell you one thing I’m not going to do is I’m not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world’s air. Like Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as evidently 99 senators — I think it was 99 senators supported that position.MODERATOR: Global warming, the Senate did turn it down. I think —BUSH: 99 to nothing.GORE: Well, that vote wasn’t exactly — a lot of the supporters of the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way it was worded. But there’s no doubt there’s a lot of opposition to it in the Senate. I’m not for command and control techniques either. I’m for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with the citizen groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with. But I disagree that we don’t know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It’s pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this. Look, the world’s temperature is going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. What are we going to tell our children? I’m a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson when I’m in my later years that I didn’t turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is — it’s written in the book of Matthew, “Where your heart is, there is your treasure also.” And I believe that — that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that’s good for them.BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just — I think there has been — some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound scientist recently made a different —MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated — excuse me. Both of you have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought.GORE: I’ve been trying so hard not to.MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your alls rules you are not allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment ago.BUSH: Twice.MODERATOR: Now you just — twice, sorry. (LAUGHTER)GORE: That’s an interruption, by the way.MODERATOR: That’s an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did it so now —BUSH: I’m sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President.MODERATOR: You aren’t allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER) I’m sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about these things I’ve found out.BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules.MODERATOR: Yeah, right, exactly right. Go ahead.BUSH: What the heck. I — of course there’s a lot — look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there’s a lot — there’s differing opinions. And before we react, I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place. And I think to answer your question, I think both of us care a lot about the environment. We may have different approaches. We may have different approaches in terms of how we deal with local folks. I just cited an example of the administration just unilaterally acting without any input. And I remember you gave a very good answer to New Hampshire about the White Mountains, about how it was important to keep that collaborative effort in place. I feel very strongly the same place. It certainly wasn’t the attitude that took place out west, however.MODERATOR: New question. Last question. For you, Governor. And this flows somewhat out of the Boston debate. You, your running mate, your campaign officials have charged that Vice President Gore exaggerates, embellishes and stretches the facts, etcetera. Are you — do you believe these are serious issues? This is a serious issue that the voters should use in deciding which one of you two men to vote for on November 7?BUSH: Well, we all make mistakes. I’ve been known to mangle a syl-a-ble or two myself, you know, if you know what I mean. I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations. And yes, I think it’s something that people need to consider. This isn’t something new. I read a report, or a memo, from somebody in his 1988 campaign — I forgot the fellow’s name — warning then Senator Gore to be careful about exaggerating claims. I thought during his debate with Senator Bradley saying he authored the EITC when it didn’t happen. I mention the last debate —MODERATOR: EITC?BUSH: The Earned Income Tax Credit, sorry.MODERATOR: That’s all right.BUSH: A lot of initials from a guy who’s not from Washington, isn’t it? Anyway, he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and yet he didn’t. And so I think this is an issue. I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. I thought there was some exaggerations about the numbers. But the people are going to have to make up their mind on this issue. And I am going to continue to defend my record and defend my propositions against what I think are exaggerations. Exaggerations like, for example, only 5% of seniors receive benefits under my Medicare reform package. That’s what he said the other day, and that’s simply not the case. And I have every right in the world to defend my record and positions. That’s what debates are about and that’s what campaigns are about.MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?GORE: I got some of the details wrong last week in some of the examples that I used, Jim, and I’m sorry about that. And I’m going to try to do better. One of the reasons I regret it is that getting a detail wrong interfered several times with the point that I was trying to make. However many days that young girl in Florida stood in her classroom, however long, even if it was only one day, doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of overcrowded classrooms in America and we need to do something about that. There are seniors who pay more for their prescriptions than a lot of other people, more than their pets, sometimes. More sometimes than people in foreign countries. And we need to do something about that. Not with the measure that leaves the majority of them without any real basic help until the next president’s term of four years is over. But right away. And that means doing it under the Medicare program. I can’t promise that I will never get another detail wrong. I can promise you that I will try not to, and hard. But I will promise you this with all the confidence in my heart and in the world, that I will do my best if I’m elected president, I’ll work my heart out to get the big things right for the American people.MODERATOR: Does that resolve the issue, Governor?BUSH: That’s going to be up to the people, isn’t it?MODERATOR: Does it resolve it for you?BUSH: Depends on what he says in the future in the campaign.MODERATOR: Your folks are saying some awful things.BUSH: I hope they’re not awful things. I think they may be using the man’s own words.MODERATOR: Well, what I mean is calling him a serial exaggerator —BUSH: I don’t believe I’ve used those words.MODERATOR: No, but your campaign ads.BUSH: Maybe they have.MODERATOR: And your campaign officials have. And your campaign officials, Mr. Vice President, are now calling the governor a bumbler.BUSH: Wait a minute. (LAUGHTER)MODERATOR: I mean, my point is, should this — is this —GORE: I don’t use language like that and I don’t think that we should.MODERATOR: It’s in your commercial.GORE: I understand. The — I haven’t seen that, in my commercials?BUSH: You haven’t seen the commercial?MODERATOR: Your —GORE: I think that what — I think the point of that is that anybody would have a hard time trying to make a tax cut plan that is so large, that would put us into such big deficits, that gives almost half the benefits to the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think anybody would have a hard time explaining that clearly in a way that makes sense to the average person.BUSH: That’s the kind of exaggeration I was just talking about. (LAUGHTER)GORE: Well, I wasn’t the one having trouble explaining it.MODERATOR: Gentlemen, it’s time to go to the closing statements. And Vice President Gore, you have two minutes.GORE: Jim, one of the issues that I would like to close with in my statement is education, because it’s an example of the overall approach that I think is important. This race is about values, it’s about change, it’s about giving choices to the American people. And education is my number one priority, because I think that it’s the most important big major change that we can bring in our country. I agree with Governor Bush that we should have new accountability, testing of students. I think that we should require states to test all students, test schools and school districts, and I think that we should go further and require teacher testing for new teachers also. The difference is that while my plan starts with new accountability and maintains local control, it doesn’t stop there. Because I want to give new choices to parents. To send their kids to college with a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition per child per year. I want to reduce the size of the classrooms in this country. For one basic reason, so that students can get more one-on-one time with teachers. And the way to do that is first to recruit more teachers. I’ve a plan in my budget to recruit 100,000 new, highly qualified teachers and to help local school districts build new schools. I think that we have to put more emphasis on early learning and pre-school. Now, here is how that connects with all the rest of what we’ve been talking about. If you have — if you squander the surplus on a huge tax cut that goes mostly to those at the top, then you can’t make education the top priority. If the tax cut is your number one, two, three and four priority, you can’t do education. You can’t do both. You have to choose. I choose education and health care, the environment and retirement security, and I ask for your support.MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.BUSH: Jim, thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, thank you very much, and I would like to thank the folks here at Wake Forest, and I want to thank you all for listening. I’m running to get some things done for America. There’s too many issues left unresolved. There’s been too much finger pointing and too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future. I want to have an education system that sets high standards, local control of schools and strong accountability. No child should be left behind in America. I want to make sure we rebuild our military to keep the peace. I worry about morale in today’s military. The warning signs are clear. It is time to have a new commander in chief who will rebuild the military, pay our men and women more, make sure they’re housed better and have a focused mission for our military. Once and for all, I want to do something about Medicare. This issue has been too long on the table because it’s been a political issue. It’s time to bring folks together to say that all seniors will get prescription drug coverage. I want to do something about Social Security. It’s an important priority, because now is the time to act and we’re going to say to our seniors, our promises we’ve made to you will be promises kept. But younger workers, in order to make sure the system exists tomorrow, younger workers ought to be able to take some of your own money and invest it in safe securities to get a better rate of return on that money. And finally, I do believe in tax relief. I believe we can set our priorities. I don’t believe, like the vice president does, in huge government. I believe in limited government. By having a limited government and a focused government, we can send some of the money back to the people who pay the bills. I want to have tax relief for all people who pay the bills in America, because I think you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government can. Thank you for listening. I’m asking for your vote, and God bless.MODERATOR: And we will return next Tuesday night, October 17th, from Washington University in St. Louis for the third and final debate. Thank you, Vice President Gore, Governor Bush. See you next week. For now, from Winston-Salem, I’m Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "35978aa5-e78b-4f88-8ee0-52cea3a7731d"
  },
  {
    "year": 2004,
    "date": "September 30, 2004",
    "title": "The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 30. 2004 Debate TranscriptSeptember 30, 2004The First Bush-Kerry Presidential DebatePRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATE, SPONSORED BY THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, CORAL GABLES, FLORIDASPEAKERS: GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESU.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEJIM LEHRER, ANCHOR AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, PBS’S “THE NEWSHOUR”LEHRER: Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I’m Jim Lehrer of “The NewsHour” on PBS.And I welcome you to the first of the 2004 presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.Tonight’s will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them.The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a 90- second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time’s up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now, when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator Kerry.(APPLAUSE)LEHRER: Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry.As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you, Senator Kerry. You have two minutes.Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?KERRY: Yes, I do.But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the president will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You’ve been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you. And we admire your pluck and perseverance.I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe.I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we’re now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.I think that’s wrong, and I think we can do better.I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections.All of these, and especially homeland security, which we’ll talk about a little bit later.LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a 90-second rebuttal.BUSH: I, too, thank the University of Miami, and say our prayers are with the good people of this state, who’ve suffered a lot.September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day, our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer.We pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we’re after them.We’ve upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist.And the Taliban are no longer in power. Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction.Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.And, as well, we’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes.Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?BUSH: No, I don’t believe it’s going to happen. I believe I’m going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I’ve shown the American people I know how to lead.I have — I understand everybody in this country doesn’t agree with the decisions I’ve made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand.People out there listening know what I believe. And that’s how best it is to keep the peace.This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate. And that’s what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that’ll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will.We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren.The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty.And that’s what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It’s a phenomenal statistic. That if given a chance to be free, they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That’s why they’re fighting so vociferously.They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn’t. And they’re showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They’re trying to defeat us.And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy.LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator Kerry.KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.I’m proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower’s son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father — all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong.LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.“Colossal misjudgments.” What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.In fact, he first didn’t even want to do that. And it wasn’t until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you’ve got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind — his campaign has a word for that — and went to the United Nations.Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.We had Saddam Hussein trapped.He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. “Last resort.” You’ve got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, “I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.”I don’t believe the United States did that.And we pushed our allies aside.And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion — $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it’s in Iraq.And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world’s opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.The president moved the troops, so he’s got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden — than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don’t think so.LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.BUSH: My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president.I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm’s way.It’s the hardest decision a president makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn’t need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, “Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.” I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.That wasn’t going to work. That’s kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we’d turn away. But there was fortunately others beside myself who believed that we ought to take action.We did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.What about Senator Kerry’s point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?BUSH: Jim, we’ve got the capability of doing both.As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.We’re facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they’ll strike anywhere, with any means.And that’s why it’s essential that we have strong alliances, and we do.That’s why it’s essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaida, which we are.But to say that there’s only one focus on the war on terror doesn’t really understand the nature of the war on terror.Of course we’re after Saddam Hussein — I mean bin Laden. He’s isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer — the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.We’re making progress.But the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines — we’ve got help — we’re helping them there to bring — to bring Al Qaida affiliates to justice there.And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That’s why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave.The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We’ve got a plan to do so. And the main reason we’ll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He’s a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people.He doesn’t want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people.He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained. There will be elections in January. We’re spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong.That’s the plan for victory.And when Iraq if free, America will be more secure.LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don’t take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don’t send troops to war without the body armor that they need.I’ve met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they’re going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got it for a birthday present.I think that’s wrong. Humvees — 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren’t armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don’t have the armament.This president just — I don’t know if he sees what’s really happened over there. But it’s getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August.And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they’re blowing people up. And we don’t have enough troops there.BUSH: Can I respond to that?LEHRER: Let’s do one of these one-minute extensions. You have 30 seconds.BUSH: Thank you, sir. First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it’s the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.I don’t see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I’ve just outlined.LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don’t believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what’s necessary to make it so America isn’t doing this alone.LEHRER: We’ll come back to Iraq in a moment. But I want to come back to where I began, on homeland security. This is a two-minute new question, Senator Kerry.As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?KERRY: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I’ll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we’re shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America.The president hasn’t put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That’s why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn’t done the work that ought to be done.The president — 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X- rayed.Does that make you feel safer in America?This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren’t my values. I believe in protecting America first.And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut — and that’s who gets it — long before we do, I’m going to invest in homeland security and I’m going to make sure we’re not cutting COPS programs in America and we’re fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.The president also unfortunately gave in to the chemical industry, which didn’t want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure.And there’s an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That’s a whole other subject, but I see we still have a little bit more time.Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union — former Soviet Union for 13 years. I’m going to do it in four years. And we’re going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.BUSH: I don’t think we want to get to how he’s going to pay for all these promises. It’s like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that’s for another debate.My administration has tripled the amount of money we’re spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We’ve got 1,000 extra border patrol on the southern border; want 1,000 on the northern border. We’re modernizing our borders.We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police, $3.1 billion.We’re doing our duty to provide the funding.But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense.You know, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us.There’s a lot of good people working hard.And by the way, we’ve also changed the culture of the FBI to have counterterrorism as its number one priority. We’re communicating better. We’re going to reform our intelligence services to make sure that we get the best intelligence possible.The Patriot Act is vital — is vital that the Congress renew the Patriot Act which enables our law enforcement to disrupt terror cells.But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protection is to stay on the offense.LEHRER: Yes, let’s do a little — yes, 30 seconds.KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America’s papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.And the test is not whether you’re spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?We didn’t need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.BUSH: Of course we’re doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That’s my job.I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I’m in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There’s a lot of really good people working hard to do so.It’s hard work. But, again, I want to tell the American people, we’re doing everything we can at home, but you better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.And that’s what we’re doing. We’ve got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We’ll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to.And so the best indication about when we can bring our troops home — which I really want to do, but I don’t want to do so for the sake of bringing them home; I want to do so because we’ve achieved an objective — is to see the Iraqis perform and to see the Iraqis step up and take responsibility.And so, the answer to your question is: When our general is on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that their stability and that they’re on their way to, you know, a nation that’s free; that’s when.And I hope it’s as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won’t work. My opponent at one time said, “Well, get me elected, I’ll have them out of there in six months.” You can’t do that and expect to win the war on terror. My message to our troops is, “Thank you for what you’re doing. We’re standing with you strong. We’ll give you all the equipment you need. And we’ll get you home as soon as the mission’s done, because this is a vital mission.”A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that’s essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country.LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.KERRY: Thank you, Jim.My message to the troops is also: Thank you for what they’re doing, but it’s also help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today.You know, it’s interesting. When I was in a rope line just the other day, coming out here from Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said: We need you. You’ve got to help us over there.Now I believe there’s a better way to do this. You know, the president’s father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn’t is, he said — he wrote in his book — because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.That’s exactly where we find ourselves today. There’s a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn’t guard the nuclear facilities.We didn’t guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn’t guard the borders.Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it’s like to go out on one of those missions when you don’t know what’s around the corner.And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I’m going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right.LEHRER: All right, go ahead. Yes, sir?BUSH: I think it’s worthy for a follow-up.LEHRER: Sure, right.(CROSSTALK) LEHRER: We can do 30 seconds each here. All right.BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm’s way, “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a “great diversion.”As well, help is on the way, but it’s certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.Not what a commander in chief does when you’re trying to lead troops.LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. That’s what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don’t like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that’s what I did with that vote. And I’m going to lead those troops to victory.LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?KERRY: No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put — that I’m offering.I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from a position of strength. Then the president, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, “We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies.”He didn’t do any of those things. They didn’t do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinsheki, the Army chief of staff, said you’re going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him. The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, “Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.” That’s what we have here.And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They’ve always had stakes in it.The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep.But this president hasn’t even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he’s done the opposite. He pushed them away.When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, “No, no, we’ll go do this alone.”To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, “If you weren’t with us in the war, don’t bother applying for any construction.”That’s not a way to invite people.LEHRER: Ninety seconds.BUSH: That’s totally absurd. Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they’re now back in helping with elections.My opponent says we didn’t have any allies in this war. What’s he say to Tony Blair? What’s he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can’t expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what’s the message going to be: “Please join us in Iraq. For a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?”I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They’re not going to follow somebody who says, “This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.”They’re not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. They’re not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing because of politics in America.And finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there are summits being held. Japan is going to have a summit for the donors; $14 billion pledged. And Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account, to get them to contribute.And there’s going to be an Arab summit, of the neighborhood countries. And Colin Powell helped set up that summit.LEHRER: 30 seconds, Senator.KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That’s not a grand coalition. We can do better.LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there’s 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.And I honor their sacrifices. And I don’t appreciate it when a candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers.You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them coerced and the bribed. That’s not how you bring people together.Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I’m the president.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, “miscalculation,” of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we’d whip more of them going in.But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn’t.And now we’re fighting them now. And it’s hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it’s necessary work.And I’m optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I’m optimistic we’ll achieve — I know we won’t achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we’re not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.We’ve got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we’ll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are.And it’s not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan’s helping train police, UAE is helping train police.We’ve allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we’re making progress there.And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there’s going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We’re making progress.It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It’s hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free.But it’s necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place.LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.KERRY: What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.Now, I would not. So what I’m trying to do is just talk the truth to the American people and to the world. The truth is what good policy is based on. It’s what leadership is based on.The president says that I’m denigrating these troops. I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they’ve been willing to do.But you can’t tell me that when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn’t anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a genuine coalition to get this job done.You can’t tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started — it was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That’s it. And today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs. And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. The president is the one that said, “We can’t allow countries to get nuclear weapons.” They have. I’ll change that.LEHRER: New question. Senator Kerry, two minutes. You just — you’ve repeatedly accused President Bush — not here tonight, but elsewhere before — of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.KERRY: Well, I’ve never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then. And I try not to. I’ve been — but I’ll nevertheless tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people. And I’ll tell you exactly how.First of all, we all know that in his state of the union message, he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn’t exist.We know that he promised America that he was going to build this coalition. I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this.The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through that full process. He didn’t. He cut if off, sort of arbitrarily.And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts under way. They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards.Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said we will plan carefully. They obviously didn’t. He misled the American people when he said we’d go to war as a last resort. We did not go as a last resort. And most Americans know the difference.Now, this has cost us deeply in the world. I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people. I’ve worked with those leaders the president talks about, I’ve worked with them for 20 years, for longer than this president. And I know what many of them say today, and I know how to bring them back to the table.And I believe that a fresh start, new credibility, a president who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know — Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam.We need to be smarter about now we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. We need to rebuild our alliances.I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and the others did that more effectively, and I’m going to try to follow in their footsteps.LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn’t going to determine how we defend ourselves.Osama bin Laden doesn’t get to decide. The American people decide.I decided the right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn’t a mistake.He said I misled on Iraq. I don’t think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002.I don’t think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003.I don’t think he misled you when he said that, you know, anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn’t have the judgment to be president. I don’t think he was misleading.I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that’s not how a commander in chief acts.Let me finish.The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force.LEHRER: Thirty seconds. We’ll do a 30 second here.KERRY: I wasn’t misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.I’ve had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: The only thing consistent about my opponent’s position is that he’s been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.And I expect to win. It’s necessary we win.We’re being challenged like never before. And we have a duty to our country and to future generations of America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?BUSH: You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest — the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm’s way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife.You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She’s a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He’d been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.You know, it’s hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm’s way.I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband’s sacrifice was noble and worthy. Because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find Al Qaida wherever they hide.We must deal with threats before they fully materialize. And Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that we must spread liberty because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.Missy understood that. That’s what she told me her husband understood. So you say, “Was it worth it?” Every life is precious. That’s what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it’s worth it, Jim.I think it’s worth it, because I think — I know in the long term a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, will set such a powerful example in a part of the world that’s desperate for freedom. It will help change the world; that we can look back and say we did our duty.LEHRER: Senator, 90 seconds.KERRY: I understand what the president is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war.And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.And that’s one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line.That is noble. That’s the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility.Now, we have a choice here. I’ve laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster, by cutting — by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections.There’s only 25 percent of the people in there. They can’t have an election right now.The president’s not getting the job done.So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I’ve laid out in four points, each of which I can tell you more about or you can go to johnkerry.com and see more of it; or you have the president’s plan, which is four words: more of the same.I think my plan is better.And my plan has a better chance of standing up and fighting for those troops.I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are.LEHRER: All right, sir, go ahead. Thirty seconds.BUSH: Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, “This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,” the troops would wonder, how can I follow this guy?You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, “Well, this is just a grand diversion.” It’s not a grand diversion. This is an essential that we get it right.And so, the plan he talks about simply won’t work.LEHRER: Senator Kerry, you have 30 seconds. You have 30 seconds, right. And then the president.KERRY: Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It’s the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you’ve got to fix it and do something with it.Now that’s what we have to do. There’s no inconsistency. Soldiers know over there that this isn’t being done right yet. I’m going to get it right for those soldiers, because it’s important to Israel, it’s important to America, it’s important to the world, it’s important to the fight on terror.But I have a plan to do it. He doesn’t.LEHRER: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes.Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?KERRY: The time line that I’ve set out — and again, I want to correct the president, because he’s misled again this evening on what I’ve said. I didn’t say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I’ve set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it.As I understand it, we’re building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they’ve got a rather permanent concept to them.When you guard the oil ministry, but you don’t guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, “Wow, maybe they’re interested in our oil.”Now, the problem is that they didn’t think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.You’ve got to show you’re serious in that regard. But you’ve also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.But that’s how we’re going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves.Even the administration has admitted they haven’t done the training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.Now what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards. “Oops, we haven’t done the job. We have to start to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?”LEHRER: Ninety seconds.BUSH: There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There’s going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we’re getting the job done. It’s hard work. Everybody knows it’s hard work, because there’s a determined enemy that’s trying to defeat us.Now, my opponent says he’s going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He’s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility.You can’t change the dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That’s no way to treat somebody who’s courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do.I believe that 25 million people, the vast majority, long to have elections.I reject this notion — and I’m suggesting my opponent isn’t — I reject the notion that some say that if you’re Muslim you can’t free, you don’t desire freedom. I disagree, strongly disagree with that.LEHRER: Thirty seconds.KERRY: I couldn’t agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free.But I think the president, again, still hasn’t shown how he’s going to go about it the right way. He has more of the same.Now, Prime Minister Allawi came here, and he said the terrorists are pouring over the border. That’s Allawi’s assessment.The national intelligence assessment that was given to the president in July said, best-case scenario, more of the same of what we see today; worst-case scenario, civil war.I can do better.BUSH: Yes, let me…LEHRER: Yes, 30 seconds.BUSH: The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they’re coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They’re fighting us because they’re fighting freedom.They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them. And those are the stakes.And that’s why it is essential we not leave. That’s why it’s essential we hold the line. That’s why it’s essential we win. And we will. Under my leadership we’re going to win this war in Iraq.LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running — when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I’d be doing that.But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we’ll ever have to use troops.But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must — as a last resort.I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, “Let the inspectors work, or let’s, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work,” he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There’s just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force.But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we’ve affected the world in a positive way.Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs.Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it.So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force.LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, “The enemy attacked us.”Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s number one criminal and terrorist.They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.That’s the enemy that attacked us. That’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.LEHRER: Thirty seconds.BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he’s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.The world is more dangerous. I’d have made a better choice.LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, “Here, let me show you the photos.” And DeGaulle waved them off and said, “No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we’ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous — Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don’t know yet. But I’ll tell you this: As president, I’ll never take my eye off that ball. I’ve been fighting for proliferation the entire time — anti-proliferation the entire time I’ve been in the Congress. And we’ve watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.You don’t help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.LEHRER: Ninety seconds.BUSH: Let me — I’m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test,” you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn’t sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion — the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn’t join the International Criminal Court. This is a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.And I wouldn’t join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn’t a popular move. But it’s the right move not to join a foreign court that could — where our people could be prosecuted.My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it’s not in our best interest makes no sense. I’m interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I’m not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.BUSH: North Korea, first, I do. Let me say — I certainly hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea.And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world’s interest.And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China’s a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he’s not only doing injustice to America, he’d be doing injustice to China, as well.And I think this will work. It’s not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. That’s what he wants. He wants to unravel the six- party talks, or the five-nation coalition that’s sending him a clear message.On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.The IAEA is involved. There’s a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections.I hope we can do it. And we’ve got a good strategy.LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn’t talk at all to North Korea.While they didn’t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.That happened on this president’s watch.Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.LEHRER: I want to make sure — yes, sir — but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand — the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?BUSH: Right.LEHRER: And you’re willing to do it…KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.LEHRER: And you’re opposed to that. Right?BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That’s what we caught him doing. That’s where he was breaking the agreement.Secondly, he said — my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran — we’ve already sanctioned Iran. We can’t sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.And finally, we were a party to the convention — to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their foreign ministers into Iran.LEHRER: New question, two minutes.Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it’s been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.Why not?KERRY: Well, I’ll tell you exactly why not, but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran.Only the United States put the sanctions on alone, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about.In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that’s the difference between the president and me.And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action.I think the reason that we’re not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They’ve got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that’s going to require more than is on the table today.I also believe that it is — one of the reasons we can’t do it is we’re overextended.Ask the people in the armed forces today. We’ve got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We’ve got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they’re told you can’t get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.That’s why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.But I’ll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I’d be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.It’s a moral responsibility for us and the world.LEHRER: Ninety seconds.BUSH: Back to Iran, just for a second.It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C.In terms of Darfur, I agree it’s genocide. And Colin Powell so stated.We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We’re the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will commit more over time to help.We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the Bashir government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating a north-south agreement that we would have hoped would have brought peace to the Sudan.I agree with my opponent that we shouldn’t be committing troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so — precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out.My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.LEHRER: New question, President Bush. Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?BUSH: That’s a loaded question. Well, first of all, I admire Senator Kerry’s service to our country. I admire the fact that he is a great dad. I appreciate the fact that his daughters have been so kind to my daughters in what has been a pretty hard experience for, I guess, young girls, seeing their dads out there campaigning.I admire the fact that he served for 20 years in the Senate. Although I’m not so sure I admire the record.I won’t hold it against him that he went to Yale. There’s nothing wrong with that.My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this campaign, I’ve been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war in Iraq. He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq.You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.And that’s my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president.Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world.LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator.KERRY: Well, first of all, I appreciate enormously the personal comments the president just made. And I share them with him. I think only if you’re doing this — and he’s done it more than I have in terms of the presidency — can you begin to get a sense of what it means to your families. And it’s tough. And so I acknowledge that his daughters — I’ve watched them.I’ve chuckled a few times at some of their comments.(LAUGHTER)And…BUSH: I’m trying to put a leash on them.(LAUGHTER)KERRY: Well, I know. I’ve learned not to do that.(LAUGHTER)And I have great respect and admiration for his wife. I think she’s a terrific person…BUSH: Thank you.KERRY: … and a great first lady.But we do have differences. I’m not going to talk about a difference of character. I don’t think that’s my job or my business.But let me talk about something that the president just sort of finished up with. Maybe someone would call it a character trait, maybe somebody wouldn’t.But this issue of certainty. It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.It’s another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.What I worry about with the president is that he’s not acknowledging what’s on the ground, he’s not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.LEHRER: Thirty seconds.BUSH: Well, I think — listen, I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed.But what I won’t do is change my core values because of politics or because of pressure.And it is one of the things I’ve learned in the White House, is that there’s enormous pressure on the president, and he cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise, the world won’t be better off.LEHRER: Thirty seconds.KERRY: I have no intention of wilting. I’ve never wilted in my life. And I’ve never wavered in my life.I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force.But we didn’t need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There’s some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it’ll take 13 years to get it.I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago — six, seven years ago — called “The New War,” which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black market sale price was about $250 million.Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can’t cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense.You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.And we’re going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we’re going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation.This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with the nuclear test ban treaty. It’s our generation’s equivalent. And I intend to get it done.LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: Actually, we’ve increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I’ve been the president. Secondly, we’ve set up what’s called the — well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that’s why proliferation is one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer.My administration started what’s called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials.And we’ve been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm. It’s a central part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.I’ll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue with missile defenses. And we’ve got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We’ll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly.And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century.My opponent opposed the missile defenses.LEHRER: Just for this one-minute discussion here, just for whatever seconds it takes: So it’s correct to say, that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree, if you’re reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?BUSH: In the hands of a terrorist enemy.KERRY: Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation.But again, the test or the difference between us, the president has had four years to try to do something about it, and North Korea has got more weapons; Iran is moving towards weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to secure those weapons in Russia.I’m going to do it in four years, and I’m going to immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea.LEHRER: Your response to that?BUSH: Again, I can’t tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It’s precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It’s a big mistake to do that.We must have China’s leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves.And if you enter bilateral talks, they’ll be happy to walk away from the table. I don’t think that’ll work.LEHRER: All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It’s a new subject — new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you — do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?BUSH: No, I don’t think it’s OK, and said so publicly. I think that there needs to be checks and balances in a democracy, and made that very clear that by consolidating power in the central government, he’s sending a signal to the Western world and United States that perhaps he doesn’t believe in checks and balances, and I told him that.I mean, he’s also a strong ally in the war on terror. He is — listen, they went through a horrible situation in Beslan, where these terrorists gunned down young school kids. That’s the nature of the enemy, by the way. That’s why we need to be firm and resolved in bringing them to justice.That’s precisely what Vladimir Putin understands, as well.I’ve got a good relation with Vladimir. And it’s important that we do have a good relation, because that enables me to better comment to him, and to better to discuss with him, some of the decisions he makes. I found that, in this world, that it’s important to establish good personal relationships with people so that when you have disagreements, you’re able to disagree in a way that is effective.And so I’ve told him my opinion.I look forward to discussing it more with him, as time goes on. Russia is a country in transition. Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices. And I think it’s very important for the American president, as well as other Western leaders, to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and dreams. And I will continue working with him over the next four years.LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.KERRY: Well, let me just say quickly that I’ve had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them.It sort of brought home the transition to democracy that Russia was trying to make.I regret what’s happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail.And I think it’s very important to the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership.But we always have to stand up for democracy. As George Will said the other day, “Freedom on the march; not in Russia right now.”Now, I’d like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that’s one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.Just because the president says it can’t be done, that you’d lose China, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I mean, this is the president who said “There were weapons of mass destruction,” said “Mission accomplished,” said we could fight the war on the cheap — none of which were true.We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.BUSH: You know my opinion on North Korea. I can’t say it any more plainly.LEHRER: Well, but when he used the word “truth” again…BUSH: Pardon me?LEHRER: … talking about the truth of the matter. He used the word “truth” again. Did that raise any hackles with you?BUSH: Oh, I’m a pretty calm guy. I don’t take it personally.LEHRER: OK. All right.BUSH: You know, we looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion: that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.And I don’t hold it against him that he said grave threat. I’m not going to go around the country saying he didn’t tell the truth, when he looked at the same intelligence I did.KERRY: It was a threat. That’s not the issue. The issue is what you do about it.The president said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the U.N. and go to war as a last resort.Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn’t go to war as a last resort.Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq — $200 billion. It’s not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted.LEHRER: All right, that brings us to closing statements.And, again, as determined by a coin toss, Senator Kerry, you go first, and you have two minutes.KERRY: Thank you, Jim, very much.Thank you very much to the university, again.Thank you, Mr. President.My fellow Americans, as I’ve said at the very beginning of this debate, both President Bush and I love this country very much. There’s no doubt, I think, about that.But we have a different set of convictions about how we make our country stronger here at home and respected again in the world.I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know who’s the person who could be a commander in chief who could get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace.And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about their kids going to the school or anywhere else in the world, what kind of world they’re going to grow up in, let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man in war, and I will defend it as president of the United States.But I have a difference with this president. I believe when we’re strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances.I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side.I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland security, strengthening our military, cutting our finances, reaching out to the world, again building strong alliances.I believe America’s best days are ahead of us because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear.That’s the country that I’m going to fight for. And I ask you to give me the opportunity to make you proud. I ask you to give me the opportunity to lead this great nation, so that we can be stronger here at home, respected again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we deserve.Thank you. And God bless America.LEHRER: Mr. President, two minutes.BUSH: Thank you very much tonight, Jim. Senator.If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That’s not going to happen, so long as I’m your president.The next four years we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army.We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home.We’ll continue to build our alliances. I’ll never turn over America’s national security needs to leaders of other countries, as we continue to build those alliances. And we’ll continue to spread freedom. I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that the free Iraq is in this nation’s interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation’s interest.And I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.We’ve done a lot of hard work together over the last three and a half years. We’ve been challenged, and we’ve risen to those challenges. We’ve climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it’s a valley of peace.By being steadfast and resolute and strong, by keeping our word, by supporting our troops, we can achieve the peace we all want.I appreciate your listening tonight. I ask for your vote. And may God continue to bless our great land.LEHRER: And that ends tonight’s debate. A reminder, the second presidential debate will be a week from tomorrow, October 8th, from Washington University in St. Louis. Charles Gibson of ABC News will moderate a town hall-type event. Then, on October 13th, from Arizona State University in Tempe, Bob Schieffer of CBS News will moderate an exchange on domestic policy that will be similar in format to tonight’s.Also, this coming Tuesday, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, the vice presidential candidates, Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards, will debate with my PBS colleague, Gwen Ifill, moderating.For now, thank you, Senator Kerry, President Bush.From Coral Gables, Florida, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.(APPLAUSE)",
    "id": "b7fc484c-8c78-4c64-9673-70e5c087907f"
  },
  {
    "year": 2020,
    "date": "September 29, 2020",
    "title": "Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 29, 2020 Debate TranscriptPresidential Debate at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OhioSeptember 29, 2020PARTICIPANTS:Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) andPresident Donald Trump (R)MODERATOR:Chris Wallace (Fox News)WALLACE:Good evening from the Health Education Campus of Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic. I’m Chris Wallace of Fox News and I welcome you to the first of the 2020 presidential debates between President Donald J. Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission has designed the format, six roughly 15-minute segments with two-minute answers from each candidate to the first question, then open discussion for the rest of each segment. Both campaigns have agreed to these rules. For the record, I decided the topics and the questions in each topic. I can assure you none of the questions has been shared with the Commission or the two candidates.This debate is being conducted under health and safety protocols designed by the Cleveland Clinic, which is serving as the health security advisor to the Commission for all four debates. As a precaution, both campaigns have agreed the candidates will not shake hands at the beginning of tonight’s debate. The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. No cheers, no boos, or other interruptions so we, and more importantly you, can focus on what the candidates have to say. No noise except right now, as we welcome the Republican nominee, President Trump, and the Democratic nominee Vice President Biden.BIDEN:How you doing, man?TRUMP:How are you doing?BIDEN:I’m well.WALLACE:Gentlemen, a lot of people have been waiting for this night, so let’s get going. Our first subject is the Supreme Court. President Trump, you nominated Amy Coney Barrett over the weekend to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court. You say the Constitution is clear about your obligation and the Senate’s to consider a nominee to the Court. Vice President Biden, you say that this is an effort by the President and Republicans to jam through on an appointment in what you call an abuse of power. My first question to both of you tonight, why are you right in the argument you make and your opponent wrong? And where do you think a Justice Barrett would take the court? President Trump, in this first segment, you go first. Two minutes.TRUMP:Thank you very much, Chris. I will tell you very simply. We won the election. Elections have consequences. We have the Senate, we have the White House, and we have a phenomenal nominee respected by all. Top, top academic, good in every way. Good in every way. In fact, some of her biggest endorsers are very liberal people from Notre Dame and other places. So I think she’s going to be fantastic. We have plenty of time. Even if we did it after the election itself. I have a lot of time after the election, as you know. So I think that she will be outstanding. She’s going to be as good as anybody that has served on that court. We really feel that. We have a professor at Notre Dame, highly respected by all, said she’s the single greatest student he’s ever had. He’s been a professor for a long time at a great school.And we won the election and therefore we have the right to choose her, and very few people knowingly would say otherwise. And by the way, the Democrats, they wouldn’t even think about not doing it. The only difference is they’d try and do it faster. There’s no way they would give it up. They had Merrick Garland, but the problem is they didn’t have the election so they were stopped. And probably that would happen in reverse, also. Definitely would happen in reverse. So we won the election and we have the right to do it, Chris.WALLACE:President Trump, thank you. Same question to you, Vice President Biden. You have two minutes.BIDEN:Well, first of all, thank you for doing this and looking forward to this, Mr. President.TRUMP:Thank you, Joe.BIDEN:The American people have a right to have a say in who the Supreme Court nominee is and that say occurs when they vote for United States Senators and when they vote for the President of United States. They’re not going to get that chance now because we’re in the middle of an election already. The election has already started. Tens of thousands of people already voted and so the thing that should happen is we should wait. We should wait and see what the outcome of this election is because that’s the only way the American people get to express their view is by who they elect as President and who they elect as Vice President.Now, what’s at stake here is the President’s made it clear, he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. He’s been running on that, he ran on that and he’s been governing on that. He’s in the Supreme Court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which will strip 20 million people from having health insurance now, if it goes into court. And the justice, I’m not opposed to the justice, she seems like a very fine person. But she’s written, before she went in the bench, which is her right, that she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not Constitutional. The other thing that’s on the court, and if it’s struck down, what happens? Women’s rights are fundamentally changed. Once again, a woman could pay more money because she has a pre-existing condition of pregnancy. They’re able to charge women more for the same exact procedure a man gets.And that ended when we, in fact, passed the Affordable Care Act, and there’s a hundred million people who have pre-existing conditions and they’ll be taken away as well. Those pre-existing conditions, insurance companies are going to love this. And so it’s just not appropriate to do this before this election. If he wins the election and the Senate is Republican, then he goes forward. If not, we should wait until February.TRUMP:There aren’t a hundred million people with pre-existing conditions. As far as a say is concerned, the people already had their say. Okay, Justice Ginsburg said very powerfully, very strongly, at some point 10 years ago or so, she said a President and the Senate is elected for a period of time, but a President is elected for four years. We’re not elected for three years. I’m not elected for three years. So we have the Senate, we have a President-BIDEN:He’s elected to the next election.TRUMP:During that period of time, during that period of time, we have an opening. I’m not elected for three years. I’m elected for four years. Joe, the hundred million people is totally wrong. I don’t know where you got that number. The bigger problem that you have is that you’re going to extinguish 180 million people with their private health care, that they’re very happy with.BIDEN:That’s simply not true.TRUMP:Well, you’re certainly going to socialist. You’re going to socialist medicine-WALLACE:Gentlemen, we’re now into open discussion.BIDEN:Open discussion.WALLACE:Open discussion, yes, I agree. Go ahead, Vice President.BIDEN:Number one, he knows what I proposed. What I proposed is that we expand Obamacare and we increase it. We do not wipe any. And one of the big debates we had with 23 of my colleagues trying to win the nomination that I won, were saying that Biden wanted to allow people to have private insurance still. They can. They do. They will under my proposal.TRUMP:That’s not what you’ve said and it’s not what your party is saying.BIDEN:That is simply a lie.TRUMP:Your party doesn’t say it. Your party wants to go socialist medicine and socialist healthcare.BIDEN:The party is me. Right now, I am the Democratic Party.TRUMP:And they’re going to dominate you, Joe. You know that.BIDEN:I am the Democratic Party right now.TRUMP:Not according to Harris.BIDEN:The platform of the Democratic Party is what I, in fact, approved of, what I approved of. Now, here’s the deal. The deal is that it’s going to wipe out pre-existing conditions. And, by the way, the 200,000 people that have died on his watch, how many of those have survived? Well, there’s seven million people that contracted COVID. What does it mean for them going forward if you strike down the Affordable Care Act?TRUMP:Joe, you’ve had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn’t provide them proper healthcare in the military. So don’t tell me about this.BIDEN:I’m happy to talk about this.TRUMP:And if you were here, it wouldn’t be 200, it would be two million people because you were very late on the draw. You didn’t want me to ban China, which was heavily infected. You didn’t want me to ban Europe.WALLACE:All right, gentlemen, Mr. President.TRUMP:You would have been much later, Joe, much later.WALLACE:Mr. President.TRUMP:We’re talking about two million people.BIDEN:You’re not going to be able to shut him up.WALLACE:Mr. President, as the moderator, we are going to talk about COVID in the next segment. But go ahead.BIDEN:Let me finish. The point is that the President also is opposed to Roe V. Wade. That’s on the ballot as well and the court, in the court, and so that’s also at stake right now. And so the election is all-TRUMP:You don’t know what’s on the ballot. Why is it on the ballot? Why is it on the ballot? It’s not on the ballot.BIDEN:It’s on the ballot in the court.TRUMP:I don’t think so.BIDEN:In the court.TRUMP:There’s nothing happening there.BIDEN:Donald would you just be quiet for a minute.TRUMP:You don’t know her view on Roe V. Wade? You don’t know her view.WALLACE:Well, all right. All right. Let’s talk. We’ve got a lot to unpack here, gentlemen. We’ve got a lot of time. On healthcare, and then we’ll come back to Roe V. Wade.BIDEN:All right.WALLACE:Mr. President, the Supreme Court will hear a case a week after the election in which the Trump Administration, along with 18 state Attorney Generals are seeking to overturn Obamacare, to end Obamacare.TRUMP:That’s right.WALLACE:You have spent the last week-TRUMP:Because they want to give good healthcare.WALLACE:If I may ask my question, sir.BIDEN:Good healthcare.WALLACE:Over the last four years, you have promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, but you have never in these four years come up with a plan, a comprehensive plan, to replace Obamacare.TRUMP:Yes, I have. Of course, I have. The individual mandate.WALLACE:[crosstalk] when I finish I’m going to give an opportunity-TRUMP:Excuse me. I got rid of the individual mandate, which was a big chunk of Obamacare.WALLACE:That’s not a comprehensive place.TRUMP:That is absolutely a big thing. That was the worst part of Obamacare.WALLACE:I didn’t ask, sir.TRUMP:Chris, that was the worst part of Obamacare.WALLACE:You’re debating him not me. Let me ask my question.TRUMP:Well, I’ll ask Joe. The individual mandate was the most unpopular aspect of Obamacare.WALLACE:Mr. President.TRUMP:I got rid of it. And we will protect people.WALLACE:Mr. President, I’m the moderator of this debate and I would like you to let me ask my question and then you can answer.TRUMP:Go ahead.WALLACE:You, in the course of these four years, have never come up with a comprehensive plan to replace Obamacare, and just this last Thursday you signed a largely symbolic Executive Order to protect people with pre-existing conditions five days before this debate. So my question, sir, is what is the Trump healthcare plan?TRUMP:Well, first of all, I guess I’m debating you, not him, but that’s okay. I’m not surprised. Let me just tell you something. There’s nothing symbolic. I’m cutting drug prices. I’m going with Favored Nations, which no President has the courage to do because you’re going against big pharma. Drug prices will be coming down 80 or 90%. You could have done it during your 47-year period in government, but you didn’t do it. Nobody’s done it. So we’re cutting healthcare.WALLACE:What about pre-existing conditions?TRUMP:All of the things that we’ve done.BIDEN:He has not done healthcare.TRUMP:I’ll give you an example. Insulin, it was destroying families, destroying people, the cost. I’m getting it for so cheap it’s like water, you want to know the truth. So cheap. Take a look at all of the drugs that what we’re doing. Prescription drug prices, we’re going to allow our Governors now to go to other countries to buy drugs because when they paid just a tiny fraction of what we do.WALLACE:Okay, like I say, this is open discussion.TRUMP:This is big stuff.WALLACE:Sir, you’ll be happy. I’m about to pick up on one of your points to ask the Vice President, which is, he points out that you would like to add a public option to Obamacare.BIDEN:Yes.WALLACE:And the argument that he makes and other Republicans make is that that is going to end private insurance.BIDEN:It is not.WALLACE:If I start asking the question.TRUMP:That’s not what your party says, by the way.WALLACE:And it will end private insurance and create a government takeover of healthcare.BIDEN:It does not. It’s only for those people who are so poor they qualify for Medicaid they can get that free in most States, except Governors who want to deny people who are poor Medicaid. Anyone who qualifies for Medicaid would automatically be enrolled in the public option. The vast majority of the American people would still not be in that option. Number one. Number two.TRUMP:Joe, you agreed with Bernie Sanders, who’s far left, on the manifesto, we call it. And that gives you socialized medicine.BIDEN:Look, hey.TRUMP:Are you saying you didn’t agree?BIDEN:I’m not going to listen to him. The fact of the matter is I beat Bernie Sanders.TRUMP:Not by much.BIDEN:I beat him by a whole hell of a lot.TRUMP:Not by much.BIDEN:I’m here standing facing you, old buddy.TRUMP:If Pocahontas would have left two days early you would have lost every primary.BIDEN:All he knows how to do-TRUMP:On Super Tuesday, you got very lucky.BIDEN:Look he’s the deal. I got very lucky. I’m going to get very lucky tonight as well.TRUMP:With what?BIDEN:And tonight I’m going to make sure.TRUMP:With what?BIDEN:Because here’s the deal, here’s the deal. The fact is that everything he’s saying so far is simply a lie. I’m not here to call out his lies. Everybody knows he’s a liar.TRUMP:But you agree. Joe, you’re the liar. You graduated last in your class not first in your class.BIDEN:God, I want to make sure-WALLACE:Mr. President, can you let him finish, sir?BIDEN:No, he doesn’t know how to do that.TRUMP:You’d be surprised. You’d be surprised. Go ahead, Joe.BIDEN:The wrong guy, the wrong night, at the wrong time.TRUMP:Listen, you agreed with Bernie Sanders and the manifesto.BIDEN:There is no manifesto, number one.WALLACE:Please let him speak, Mr. President.BIDEN:Number two.TRUMP:He just lost the left.BIDEN:Number two.TRUMP:You just lost the left. You agreed with Bernie Sanders on a plan that you absolutely agreed to and under that plan [crosstalk], they call it socialized medicine.WALLACE:Mr. President.BIDEN:I’ll tell you what, he is not for any help for people needing healthcare.TRUMP:Who is, Bernie?BIDEN:Because he, in fact, already has cost 10 million people their healthcare that they had from their employers because of his recession. Number one. Number two, there are 20 million people getting healthcare through Obamacare now that he wants to take it away. He won’t ever look you in the eye and say that’s what he wants to do. Take it away.TRUMP:No, I want to give them better healthcare at a much lower price, because Obamacare is no good.BIDEN:He doesn’t know how. He doesn’t know how to do that.TRUMP:I’ve already fixed it.BIDEN:He has never offered a plan.TRUMP:We’ve already fixed it to an extent. Obamacare, as you might know but probably don’t, Obamacare is no good.WALLACE:Gentlemen, you realize if you’re both speaking at the same time. Let the President. Go ahead, sir.TRUMP:Obamacare is no good. We made it better and I had a choice to make very early on. We took away the individual mandate. We guaranteed pre-existing conditions, but took away the individual mandate. Listen, this is the way it is. And that destroyed … They shouldn’t even call it Obamacare, then I had a choice to make, do I let my people run it really well or badly? If I run it badly, they’ll probably blame him, but they’ll blame me. But more importantly, I want to help people. Okay. I said, “You’ve got to run it so well.” And I just had a meeting with them. They said the problem is, no matter how well you run Obamacare, it’s a disaster. It’s too expensive. Premiums are too high, that it doesn’t work. So we do want to get rid of it. Chris, we want to get rid of that and give something that’s cheaper and better.WALLACE:I understand that, sir. But I have to give you roughly equal time.TRUMP:Go ahead.WALLACE:Please let the Vice President talk, sir.TRUMP:Good.BIDEN:He has no plan for healthcare.TRUMP:Of course, we do.WALLACE:Please.BIDEN:He sends out wishful thinking. He has Executive Orders that have no power. He hasn’t lowered drug costs for anybody. He’s been promising a healthcare plan since he got elected. He has none, like almost everything else he talks about. He does not have a plan. He doesn’t have a plan. And the fact is this man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.WALLACE:All right, I have one final question for you.BIDEN:Sure.WALLACE:Mr. Vice President, if Senate Republicans, we were talking originally about the Supreme Court here, if Senate Republicans go ahead and confirm Justice Barrett there has been talk about ending the filibuster or even packing the court, adding to the nine justices there. You call this a distraction by the President. But, in fact, it wasn’t brought up by the President. It was brought up by some of your Democratic colleagues in the Congress. So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?BIDEN:Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You’re voting now. Vote and let your Senators know how strongly you feel.TRUMP:Are you going to pack the court?BIDEN:Vote now.TRUMP:Are you going to pack the court?BIDEN:Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators.TRUMP:He doesn’t want to answer the question.BIDEN:I’m not going to answer the question.TRUMP:Why wouldn’t you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left.BIDEN:Will you shut up, man?TRUMP:Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who’s on your list?WALLACE:Gentlemen, I think we’ve ended this-BIDEN:This is so un-Presidential.TRUMP:He’s going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.WALLACE:We have ended the segment. We’re going to move on to the second segment.BIDEN:That was really a productive segment, wasn’t it? Keep yapping, man.TRUMP:The people understand, Joe.BIDEN:They sure do.TRUMP:47 years, you’ve done nothing. They understand.WALLACE:All right, the second subject is COVID-19, which is an awfully serious subject. So let’s try to be serious about it. We have had more than seven million cases of coronavirus in the United States and more than 200,000 people have died. Even after we produce a vaccine, experts say that it could be months or even years before we come back to anything approaching normal. My question for both of you is, based on what you have said and done so far, and what you have said you would do starting in 2021, why should the American people trust you more than your opponent to deal with this public health crisis going forward? In this case, the question goes to you first, sir. Two minutes, uninterrupted.BIDEN:Good luck. 200,000 dead. As you said, over seven million infected in the United States. We, in fact, have 4% of the world’s population, 20% of the deaths. 40,000 people a day are contracting COVID. In addition to that, about between 750 and 1000 people a day are dying. When he was presented with that number, he said, “It is what it is.” Well, it is what it is because you are who you are. That’s why it is. The President has no plan. He hasn’t laid out anything. He knew all the way back in February how serious this crisis was. He knew it was a deadly disease. What did he do? He’s on tape as acknowledging he knew it. He said he didn’t tell us or give people a warning of it because he didn’t want to panic the American people. You don’t panic. He panicked. In addition to that, what did he do?BIDEN:He went in and we were insisting that the people we had in the ground in China should be able to go to Wuhan and determine for themselves how dangerous this was. He did not even ask Xi to do that.TRUMP:Wrong.BIDEN:He told us what a great job Xi was doing. He said we owe him a debt of gratitude for being so transparent with us. And what did he do then? He then did nothing. He waited and waited and waited. He still doesn’t have a plan.TRUMP:Wrong.WALLACE:Sir, it’s his two minutes.TRUMP:It’s so wrong.BIDEN:I laid out back in March, exactly what we should be doing. And I laid out again in July, what we should be doing. We should be providing all the protective gear possible. We should be providing the money the House has passed in order to be able to go out and get people the help they need to keep their businesses open. Open schools cost a lot of money. You should get out of your bunker and get out of the sand trap in your golf course and go in the Oval Office and bring together the Democrats and Republicans and fund what needs to be done now to save lives.TRUMP:So, if we would have listened to you.WALLACE:Wait, wait. You have two minutes, sir.TRUMP:If we would’ve listened to you, the country would have been left wide open, millions of people would have died, not 200,000. And one person is too much. It’s China’s fault. It should have never happened. They stopped it from going in, but it was China’s fault. And, by the way, when you talk about numbers, you don’t know how many people died in China. You don’t know how many people died in Russia. You don’t know how many people died in India. They don’t exactly give you a straight count, just so you understand. But if you look at what we’ve done, I closed it and you said, “He’s xenophobic. He’s a racist and he’s xenophobic,” because you didn’t think I should have closed our country. Wait a minute.WALLACE:Sir, it’s his two minutes.TRUMP:You didn’t think we should have closed our country because you thought it was terrible. You wouldn’t have closed it for another two months. By my doing it early, in fact, Dr. Fauci said, “President Trump saved thousands of lives.” Many of your Democrat Governors said, “President Trump did a phenomenal job.” We worked with the Governor. Oh really, go take a look. The Governors said I did a phenomenal job. Most of them said that. In fact, people that would not be necessarily on my side said that, “President Trump did a phenomenal job.” We did. We got the gowns. We got the masks. We made the ventilators. You wouldn’t have made ventilators. And now we’re weeks away from a vaccine. We’re doing therapeutics already. Fewer people are dying when they get sick. Far fewer people are dying. We’ve done a great job.TRUMP:The only thing I haven’t done a good job, and that’s because of the fake news, no matter what you say to them, they give you a bad press on it. It’s just fake news. They give you good press, they give me bad press because that’s the way it is, unfortunately. But let me just say something. I don’t care. I’ve gotten used to it. But I’ll tell you, Joe, you could never have done the job that we did. You don’t have it in your blood. You could’ve never done that, Joe.BIDEN:I know how to do the job. I know how to get the job done.TRUMP:Well, you didn’t do very well in Swine Flu. H1-N1, you were a disaster. Your own Chief of Staff said you were a disaster.BIDEN:14,000 people died, not 200,000.TRUMP:A far less lethal disease, by the way.WALLACE:Sir, you made a point. Let him answer it.BIDEN:And there was no one … We didn’t shut down the economy. This is his economy he shut down. The reason it’s shut down is because, look, you folks at home. How many of you got up this morning and had an empty chair at the kitchen table because someone died of COVID? How many of you are in a situation where you lost your mom or dad and you couldn’t even speak to them, you had a nurse holding a phone up so you could in fact say goodbye?TRUMP:We would have lost far more people, far more people. You would have been months late. You’re months behind me, Joe.BIDEN:His own CDC Director says we could lose as many as another 200,000 people between now and the end of the year. And he said, if we just wear a mask, we can save half those numbers. Just a mask. And by the way, in terms of the whole notion of a vaccine, we’re for a vaccine, but I don’t trust him at all. Nor do you. I know you don’t. What we trust is a scientist.TRUMP:You don’t trust Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer?WALLACE:Okay, gentlemen, gentlemen. Let me move on to questions about the future because you both have touched on two of the questions I’m going to ask. Focusing on the future first, President Trump, you have repeatedly either contradicted or been at odds with some of your governments own top scientists. The week before last, the Head of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Redfield said it would be summer before the vaccine would become generally available to the public. You said that he was confused and mistaken. Those were your two words. But Dr. Slaoui, the head of your Operation Warp Speed, has said exactly the same thing. Are they both wrong?TRUMP:Well, I’ve spoken to the companies and we can have it a lot sooner. It’s a very political thing because people like this would rather make it political than save lives.BIDEN:God.TRUMP:It is a very political thing. I’ve spoken to Pfizer, I’ve spoken to all of the people that you have to speak to, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and others. They can go faster than that by a lot. It’s become very political because the left… Or I don’t know if I call them left, I don’t know what I call them.WALLACE:So you’re suggesting that the head of your Operation Warp Speed, Dr. Slaoui-TRUMP:I disagree with him. No, I disagree with both of them. And he didn’t say that. He said it could be there, but it could also be much sooner. I had him in my office two days ago.WALLACE:He talked about the summer, sir, before it’s generally available, just like Dr. Redfield.TRUMP:Because he said it’s a possibility that we’ll have the answer before November 1st. It could also be after that.WALLACE:I’m talking about when it’s generally available, not-TRUMP:Well, we’re going to deliver it right away. We have the military all set up. Logistically, they’re all set up. We have our military that delivers soldiers and they can do 200,000 a day. They’re going to be delivering-BIDEN:This is the same man who told you-TRUMP:It’s all set up.BIDEN:… by Easter, this would be gone away. By the warm weather, it’d be gone. Miraculous, like a miracle. And by the way, maybe you could inject some bleach in your arm, and that would take care of it. This is the same man.TRUMP:That was said sarcastically, and you know that. That was said sarcastically.BIDEN:So here’s the deal. This man is talking about a vaccine. Every serious company is talking about maybe having a vaccine done by the end of the year, but the distribution of that vaccine will not occur until sometime beginning of the middle of next year to get it out, if we get the vaccine. And pray God we will. Pray God we will.WALLACE:Mr. Vice President, I want to pick up-TRUMP:You’ll have the vaccine sooner than that.WALLACE:I want to pick up on this question though. You say the public can trust the scientists, but they can’t trust President Trump. In fact, you said that again tonight. Your running mate, Senator Harris, goes further, saying that public health experts quote, “Will be muzzled, will be suppressed.” Given the fact that polls already show that people are concerned about the vaccine and are reluctant to take it, are you and your running mate, Senator Harris, contributing to that fear?BIDEN:No more than the question you just asked him. You pointed out he puts pressure and disagrees with his own scientists.WALLACE:But you’re saying you can’t-BIDEN:Everybody knows-WALLACE:Or Senator Harris is saying you can’t trust the scientist.BIDEN:Well, no, no. You can trust the scientist. She didn’t say that. You can trust the-WALLACE:She said that public health experts quote, “Will be muzzled, will be suppressed.”BIDEN:Yes. Well, that’s what he’s going to try to do, but there’s thousands of scientists out there, like here at this great hospital that don’t work for him. Their job doesn’t depend on him. They’re the people… And by the way-TRUMP:We spoke to the scientists that are in charge-BIDEN:By the way-TRUMP:… they will have the vaccine very soon.WALLACE:Let him finish.BIDEN:Do you believe for a moment what he’s telling you in light of all the lies he’s told you about the whole issue relating to COVID? He still hasn’t even acknowledged that he knew this was happening, knew how dangerous it was going to be back in February, and he didn’t even tell you. He’s on record as saying it. He panicked or he just looked at the stock market. One of the two. Because guess what? A lot of people died and a lot more are going to die unless he gets a lot smarter, a lot quicker-WALLACE:Mr. President?TRUMP:Did you use the word smart? So you said you went to Delaware State, but you forgot the name of your college. You didn’t go to Delaware State. You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class. Don’t ever use the word smart with me. Don’t ever use that word.BIDEN:Oh, give me a break.TRUMP:Because you know what? There’s nothing smart about you, Joe. 47 years you’ve done nothing.BIDEN:Well, let’s have this debate-TRUMP:Let me just tell you something, Joe. If you would have had the charge of what I was put through, I had to close the greatest economy in the history of our country. And by the way, now it’s being built again and it’s going up fast.WALLACE:We’ll get to the economy in the next segment, sir.TRUMP:It’s going up fast. I look forward to talking about it.WALLACE:Okay. When it comes to how the virus has been handled so far, the two of you have taken very different approaches, and this is going to affect how the virus is handled going forward by whichever of you ends up becoming the next president. I want to quickly go through several of those. Reopenings. Vice President Biden, you have been much more reluctant than President Trump about reopening the economy and schools. Why, sir?BIDEN:Because he doesn’t have a plan. If I were running it, I’d know what the plan is. You’ve got to provide these businesses the ability to have the money to be able to reopen with the PPE, as well as with the sanitation they need. You have to provide them classic-TRUMP:Tell that to Nancy Pelosi.BIDEN:Will he just shush for a minute?TRUMP:Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, and Schumer [crosstalk] Chuck.BIDEN:Nancy Pelosi and Schumer, they have a plan. He won’t even meet with them. The Republicans won’t meet in the Senate. He sits in his golf course. Well, I mean, literally, think about it. Think about it.TRUMP:You probably play more than I do, Joe.WALLACE:What about this question of reopenings and the fact-TRUMP:Well, he wants to shut down this country and I want to keep it open, and we did a great thing by shutting it down-BIDEN:You just admitted you’d shut it down.TRUMP:Wait a minute, Joe. Let me shut you down for a second, Joe, just for one second. He wants to shut down the country. We just went through it. We had to, because we didn’t know anything about the disease. Now we’ve found that elderly people with heart problems and diabetes and different problems are very, very vulnerable. We learned a lot. Young children aren’t, even younger people aren’t. We’ve learned a lot, but he wants to shut it down. More people will be hurt by continuing. If you look at Pennsylvania, if you look at certain states that have been shut down, they have Democrat governors, all, one of the reasons they shut down is because they want to keep it shut down until after the election on November 3rd.WALLACE:All right. I want to move onto another-TRUMP:Because it’s a political thing.WALLACE:I want to move onto another subject.BIDEN:I got to respond to that.WALLACE:I want to move-TRUMP:But those states-WALLACE:Gentlemen, I want to move onto another subject.TRUMP:Those states are not doing well that are shut down right now.BIDEN:I got to respond to that.TRUMP:He wants to shut down the whole country.WALLACE:President Trump, you have begun to increasingly question the effectiveness of masks as a disease preventer. And in fact, recently you have cited the issue of waiters touching their masks and touching plates. Are you questioning the efficacy of masks?TRUMP:No, I think masks are okay. You have to understand, if you look… I mean, I have a mask right here. I put a mask on when I think I need it. Tonight, as an example, everybody’s had a test and you’ve had social distancing and all of the things that you have to, but I wear masks-BIDEN:Just like your rally.TRUMP:… when needed. When needed, I wear masks.WALLACE:Okay. Let me ask-TRUMP:I don’t wear a mask like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from him and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen. I will say this-WALLACE:Vice President Biden, go ahead, sir.BIDEN:Look, the way to open businesses is give them the wherewithal to be able to open. We provided money, the-WALLACE:But I was asking you, sir, about masks.BIDEN:Well, masks make a big difference. His own head of the CDC said if we just wore masks between now, if everybody wore a mask and social distanced between now and January, we’d probably save up to 100,000 lives. It matters. It matters.TRUMP:And they’ve also said the opposite. They’ve also said-BIDEN:No serious person has said the opposite. No serious person.WALLACE:Okay. I want to ask you-TRUMP:Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci said the opposite.BIDEN:He did not say the opposite.WALLACE:I want to ask you, we’ve got a little more than a minute left in this segment.TRUMP:He said very strongly, “Masks are not good.” Then he changed his mind. He said, “Masks are good.”WALLACE:I want to ask-TRUMP:I’m okay with masks. I’m not fighting masks.WALLACE:I want to ask you both about one last subject because your different approaches has even affected the way that you have campaigned. President Trump, you’re holding large rallies with crowds packed together, thousands of people.TRUMP:Outside.WALLACE:Outside. Yes, sir. Agreed. Vice President Biden, you are holding much smaller events with-TRUMP:Because nobody will show up.WALLACE:… people with masks.TRUMP:Well, it’s true. Nobody shows up to his rallies.WALLACE:All right. In any case, why you holding the big rallies? Why you not? You go first, sir.TRUMP:Because people want to hear what I have to say. I mean-WALLACE:But are not worried about us spreading disease?TRUMP:… I’ve done a great job as a president, and I’ll have 25, 35,000 people show up at airports. We use airports and hangers and we have a lot of people-WALLACE:Are you not worried about the disease issues, sir?TRUMP:Well, so far we have had no problem whatsoever. It’s outside. That’s a big difference according to the experts. We do them outside, we have tremendous crowds, as you see, and literally on 24 hours notice. And Joe does the circles and has three people someplace.BIDEN:By the way, did you see one of the last big rallies he had? A reporter came up to him to ask him a question, he said, “No, no, no. Stand back, put on your mask, put on a mask. Have you been tested? I’m way far away from those other people.” That’s what he said, “I’m going to be okay.” He’s not worried about you. He’s not worried about the people out there [crosstalk].TRUMP:We’ve had no negative effect.BIDEN:No negative effect. Come on.TRUMP:We’ve had no negative effect, and we’ve had 35, 40,000 people at these rallies.WALLACE:All right. Do you want to just quickly finish up? Because I want to move on to our next-BIDEN:Yes, I would. He’s been totally irresponsible the way in which he has handled the social distancing and people wearing masks, basically encouraged them not to. He’s a fool on this.TRUMP:If you could get the crowds, you would have done the same thing. But you can’t. Nobody cares.WALLACE:Gentlemen, can we move on to the-TRUMP:Nobody cares.WALLACE:Gentlemen, can we move on to the economy?TRUMP:Yes.WALLACE:The economy is, I think it’s fair to say, recovering faster than expected from the shutdown-TRUMP:Much faster.WALLACE:… in the second quarter. The unemployment rate fell to 8.4% last month. The Federal Reserve says the hit to growth, which is going to be there, is not going to be nearly as big as they had expected. President Trump, you say we are in a V-shaped recovery. Vice President Biden, you say it’s more of a K-shape. What difference does that mean to the American people in terms of the economy? President Trump, in this segment you go first.TRUMP:So we built the greatest economy in history. We closed it down because of the China plague. When the plague came in, we closed it down, which was very hard psychologically to do. He didn’t think we should close it down and he was wrong. Again, two million people would be dead now instead of… Still, 204,000 people is too much. One person is too much. Should have never happened from China. But what happened is we closed it down and now we’re reopening and we’re doing record business. We had 10.4 million people in a four-month period that we’ve put back into the workforce. That’s a record the likes of which nobody’s ever seen before. And he wants to close down the… He will shut it down again. He will destroy this country.TRUMP:A lot of people, between drugs and alcohol and depression, when you start shutting it down, you take a look at what’s happening at some of your Democrat-run states where they have these tough shutdowns. And I’m telling you it’s because they don’t want to open it. One of them came out last week, you saw that, “Oh, we’re going to open up on November 9th.” Why November 9th? Because it’s after the election. They think they’re hurting us by keeping them closed. They’re hurting people. People know what to do. They can social distance. They can wash their hands, they can wear masks. They can do whatever they want, but they got to open these states up.TRUMP:When you look at North Carolina, when you look, and these governors are under siege, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and a couple of others, you got to open these states up. It’s not fair. You’re talking about almost it’s like being in prison. And you look at what’s going on with divorce, look at what’s going on with alcoholism and drugs. It’s a very, very sad thing. And he’ll close down the whole country. This guy will close down the whole country and destroy our country. Our country is coming back incredibly well, setting records as it does it. We don’t need somebody to come in and say, “Let’s shut it down.”WALLACE:All right. Your two minutes, sir. We’re now moved to you. As I said, posing the question, the president says it’s a V-shape recovery, you say it’s a K-shaped recovery. What’s the difference?BIDEN:The difference is millionaires and billionaires like him in the middle of the COVID crisis have done very well. Billionaires have made another $300 billion because of his profligate tax proposal, and he only focused on the market. But you folks at home, you folks living in Scranton and Claymont and all the small towns and working class towns in America, how well are you doing? This guy paid a total of $750 in taxes.TRUMP:That’s wrong.WALLACE:Sir, wait. No. Sir-TRUMP:[crosstalk].WALLACE:Yeah, I understand. You’ve agreed to the two minutes, so please let him have it.BIDEN:Do I get my time back? The fact is that he has in fact, worked on this in a way that he’s going to be the first president of the United States to leave office, having fewer jobs in his administration than when he became president. Fewer jobs than when he became president. First one in American history.BIDEN:Secondly, the people who have lost their jobs are those people who have been on the front lines. Those people who have been saving our lives, those people who have been out there dying. People who’ve been putting themselves in the way to make sure that we could all try to make it. And the idea that he is insisting that we go forward and open when you have almost half the states in America with a significant increase in COVID deaths and COVID cases in the United States of America, and he wants to open it up more. Why is he want to open it up? Why doesn’t he take care of the… You can’t fix the economy until you fix the COVID crisis. And he has no intention of doing anything about making it better for you all at home in terms of your health and your safety.BIDEN:Schools. Why aren’t schools open? Because it costs a lot of money to open them safely. They were going to give, his Administration going to give the teachers and school students masks, and then they decided no, couldn’t do that because it’s not a national emergency. Not a national emergency. They’ve done nothing to help small businesses. Nothing. They’re closing. One in six is now gone. He ought to get on the job and take care of the needs of the American people so we can open safely.WALLACE:All right. Your time is up, sir. We are going to get to-TRUMP:I have to respond to that.WALLACE:Well, you both had two minutes, sir.TRUMP:Excuse me, he made a statement.WALLACE:And so did you.TRUMP:No, people want their schools open. They don’t want to be shut down. They don’t want their state shut down. They want their restaurants. I look at New York. It’s so sad what’s happening in New York. It’s almost like a ghost town, and I’m not sure it can ever recover what they’ve done to New York. People want their places open. They want to get back to their lives.BIDEN:People want to be safe.TRUMP:They’ll be careful, but they want their schools open.BIDEN:People want to be safe.TRUMP:I’m the one that brought back football. By the way, I brought back Big Ten football. It was me and I’m very happy to do it-WALLACE:All right. Let’s-TRUMP:… and people of Ohio are very proud of me. And you know how I found out? When [crosstalk].WALLACE:Gentlemen, we’re going to get to your economic plans going forward in a moment, but first, Mr. President, as you well know, there’s a new report that in 2016, the year you were elected president, and 2017, your first year as president, that you paid $750 a year in federal income tax each of those years. I know that you pay a lot of other taxes, but I’m asking you this specific question. Is it true that you paid $750 in federal income taxes each of those two years?TRUMP:I paid millions of dollars in taxes, millions of dollars of income tax. And let me just tell you, there was a story in one of the papers that paid-BIDEN:Show us your tax returns.TRUMP:I paid $38 million one year, I paid $27 million one year.BIDEN:Show us your tax returns.TRUMP:You’ll see it as soon as it’s finished, you’ll see it. You know, if you wanted to, go to the Board of Elections. There’s 118 page or so report that says everything I have, every bank I have, I’m totally under leveraged because the assets are extremely good, and I built a great company.WALLACE:Sir, I’m asking you a specific question, which is-TRUMP:But let me tell you-WALLACE:I understand all of that.BIDEN:Release your tax return.WALLACE:I understand all of that-TRUMP:Let me-WALLACE:No, Mr. President, I’m asking you a question. Will you tell us how much you paid in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017?TRUMP:Millions of dollars.WALLACE:You paid millions of dollars in-TRUMP:Millions of dollars, yes.WALLACE:So not 750?TRUMP:Millions of dollars. And you’ll get to see it. And you’ll get to see it.BIDEN:When?TRUMP:But let me just tell you-BIDEN:In [crosstalk]?TRUMP:Chris, let me just say something, that it was the tax laws. I don’t want to pay tax. Before I came here, I was a private developer, I was a private business people. Like every other private person, unless they’re stupid, they go through the laws, and that’s what it is. He passed a tax bill that gave us all these privileges for depreciation and for tax credits. We built the building and we get tax credits, like the hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. Which by the way, was given to me by the Obama Administration, if you can believe that. Now the man got fired right after that happened, but that’s-WALLACE:Vice President Biden, you want to respond?BIDEN:Yeah, I do want to respond. Look, the tax code that put him in a position that he pays less tax than on the money a school teacher makes is because of him… He says he’s smart because he can take advantage of the tax code. And he does take advantage of the tax code. That’s why I’m going to eliminate the Trump tax cuts. And I’m going to eliminate those tax cuts.TRUMP:That’s okay.BIDEN:And make sure that we invest in the people who in fact need the help. People out there need help.TRUMP:But why didn’t you do it over the last 25 years?BIDEN:Because you weren’t president-TRUMP:Why didn’t you do it over the last 25 years?BIDEN:Because you weren’t president and screwing things up.TRUMP:You were a Senator and [crosstalk]-BIDEN:You’re the worst president America has ever had. Come on.TRUMP:Hey, Joe, let me just tell you, Joe. In 47 months, I’ve done more than you’ve done in 47 years, Joe. We’ve done things that you never even thought of doing.WALLACE:Okay. Gentlemen?TRUMP:Including fixing the broken military that you gave me, including taking care of your debts.WALLACE:Mr. President, we’re talking about the economy. I’d like to ask you about your plans going forward because Mr. Vice President, your economic plan-TRUMP:He has none.WALLACE:… if you were to be elected president focuses a lot on big government, big taxes, big spending. I want to focus first on the taxes. You propose more than $4 trillion over a decade in new taxes on individuals making more than $400,000 a year.WALLACE:… and on corporations. President Trump says that that kind of an increase in taxes is going to hurt the economy as it’s just coming out of a recession.BIDEN:Well, just take a look at what is the analysis done by Wall Street firms, points out that my economic plan would create 7 million more jobs than his in four years, number one. And number two, it would create an additional $1 trillion in economic growth, because it would be about buying American. The federal government spends $600 billion a year on everything from ships, to steel, to buildings and the like. And under my proposal, we’re going to make sure that every penny of that has to be made by a company-WALLACE:But respectfully, sir, I’m talking about taxes, not spending.BIDEN:By the way, I’m going to eliminate a significant number of the taxes. I’m going to make the corporate tax 28%. It shouldn’t be 21%. You have 91 companies federal, I mean, the fortune 500, who don’t pay a single penny in tax making billions of dollars.TRUMP:Why didn’t you do it before, when you were Vice-President with Obama?BIDEN:Because you in fact passed that, that was your tax proposal.TRUMP:I got it done. And you know what happened?BIDEN:Yeah, you got it done-TRUMP:Our economy boomed like it’s never boomed before.BIDEN:The economy-WALLACE:Mr. President-BIDEN:Let me finish.WALLACE:Mr. President, let me pick up on that. You would continue your free market approach, lower taxes, more deregulation, correct?BIDEN:Not lower tax for the American people.WALLACE:But let me-TRUMP:Excuse me.WALLACE:You talk about the economy booming. It turns out that in Obama’s final three years as president more jobs were created, a million and a half more jobs, than in the first three years of your presidency.TRUMP:They had the slowest economic recovery since 1929. It was the slowest recovery. Also, they took over something that was down here. All you had to do is turn on the lights and you pick up a lot. But they had the slowest economic recovery since 1929, and let me tell you about the stock market. When the stock market goes up, that means jobs. It also means 401ks. If you got in, if you ever became president with your ideas, you want to terminate my taxes. I’ll tell you what, you’ll lose. Half of the companies that have poured in here will leave. And plenty of companies that are already here, they’ll leave for other places. [crosstalk] They will leave and you will have a depression, the likes of which you’ve never seen.BIDEN:Look-WALLACE:Mr. Vice President.BIDEN:… we inherited the worst recession, short of a depression in American history. I was asked to bring it back. We were able to have an economic recovery that created the jobs you’re talking about. We handed him a booming economy, he blew it.TRUMP:It wasn’t booming.BIDEN:He blew it.TRUMP:It wasn’t booming. It was the weakest recovery since 1929.WALLACE:Wait, wait, is it fair to say he blew it when, in fact-TRUMP:When COVID came along.WALLACE:… when there was record low unemployment before COVID.BIDEN:Yeah, because what he did, even before COVID, manufacturing went in the hole. Manufacturing went in a hole-TRUMP:Excuse me, Chris, wait.BIDEN:… number one. Number two-TRUMP:Chris.BIDEN:Number three.TRUMP:They said it would take… No, you’re on number two.BIDEN:No.TRUMP:Chris, Chris. They said it would take-BIDEN:This guy-TRUMP:… a miracle to bring back manufacturing. I brought back 700,000 jobs. They brought back nothing. They gave up on manufacturing.BIDEN:We did not. [crosstalk]TRUMP:… standard fare.BIDEN:I’m the guy that brought back the automobile industry.TRUMP:He totally gave up on manufacturing.WALLACE:All right, let him-BIDEN:I was asked to bring back Chrysler and General Motors. We brought them back right here in the state of Ohio and Michigan. He blew it. They’re gone. He blew it. And in fact, they’re gone-TRUMP:Ohio had the best year it’s ever had last year. Michigan had the best year they’ve ever had.BIDEN:That is not true.TRUMP:Many car companies came in from Germany, from Japan, went to Michigan, went to Ohio and they didn’t come in with you. [crosstalk].WALLACE:Mr. Vice President, go ahead.BIDEN:And so you take a look at what he’s actually done. He’s done very little. His trade deals are the same way. He talks about these great trade deals. He talks about the art of the deal. China’s perfected the art of the steal. We have a higher deficit with China now than we did before. We have the highest trade deficit-TRUMP:China ate your lunch- [crosstalk].BIDEN:… with Mexico.TRUMP:China ate your lunch, Joe. And no wonder your son goes in and, wha–, he takes out billions of dollars. He takes out billions of dollars to manage. He makes millions of dollars. And also, while we’re at it, why is it just out of curiosity, the mayor of Moscow’s wife gave your son three and a half million dollars?BIDEN:That is not true.TRUMP:What did he do to deserve it? What did he do with Burisma-BIDEN:None of that is true.TRUMP:… to deserve $183,000?WALLACE:Sir, you’ve asked him a question, let him answer it.BIDEN:None of that is true.TRUMP:Oh really, he didn’t get three and a half million?WALLACE:Mr. President-BIDEN:Is totally-WALLACE:Mr. President, please. You’ve asked a question- [crosstalk]BIDEN:Totally discredited. Totally discredited. And by the way-TRUMP:Well wait, he didn’t get three and a half million dollars, Joe?BIDEN:Mr. Vice-TRUMP:He got three and a half million dollars-WALLACE:Mr. President.TRUMP:… dollars.BIDEN:That is not true.TRUMP:Oh, really?WALLACE:Mr. President, it’s an open discussion. Please- [crosstalk]TRUMP:It’s a fact.BIDEN:It is not a fact.WALLACE:Well, you have raised an issue, let the Vice President answer.BIDEN:It’s been totally discredited.TRUMP:Did Burisma pay him 183 thousand a month, with no experience in energy?WALLACE:Mr. President-BIDEN:My son did nothing wrong at Burisma-TRUMP:I think he did.BIDEN:The only guy that. . .WALLACE:Mr. President, let him answer. [crosstalk].BIDEN:He doesn’t want to let me answer, because he knows I have the truth. His position has been totally thoroughly discredited. . .TRUMP:By who?BIDEN:And you can-TRUMP:The media.BIDEN:by everybody. Well, by the media, by our allies.TRUMP:By the media, because they refuse to talk about it-BIDEN:By the World Bank-TRUMP:… because they’re embarrassed.BIDEN:By everyone, as discredited. And matter of fact [crosstalk] Matter of fact-WALLACE:Mr. President, please stop.BIDEN:Even the people who testified under oath-TRUMP:So let me ask you this, Joe- [crosstalk].WALLACE:No, no. Go ahead, Mr.– I’m listening to you.BIDEN:Even the people under-TRUMP:He got three and a half million dollars from Moscow.BIDEN:… testified, he testified under oath in his Administration said I did my job and I did it very well.TRUMP:Oh, really?BIDEN:I did it honorably.TRUMP:I’d like to know who they are.BIDEN:Well, I’ll give you the list of the people who-TRUMP:I’ll fire them.WALLACE:No, no. Go ahead, sir.BIDEN:I’m sure that you’ve already fired most of them, because they did a good job.TRUMP:Some people don’t do a good job.BIDEN:Well, here’s the- [crosstalk]WALLACE:Go ahead. You get the- [crosstalk] Wait a minute. You get the final word, Mr.-BIDEN:Well, it’s hard to get any word in with this clown. Excuse me, this person.TRUMP:Hey, hey, let me just say, thatBIDEN:No, no. Mr. President- [crosstalk]TRUMP:Three and a half million, Joe.BIDEN:That is simply not true.TRUMP:Why did he deserve three and a half million from Moscow?BIDEN:Look, here’s the deal. We want to talk about families and ethics. I don’t want to do that. I mean, his family, we could talk about all night. His family’s already-TRUMP:My family-WALLACE:No, no- [crosstalk].TRUMP:My family lost a fortune by coming down and helping us with government.BIDEN:And that’s such a- [crosstalk]WALLACE:Mr. President-TRUMP:Every single one of them lost a fortune by coming down and helping us with government.BIDEN:This is not about my family or his family. It’s about your family, the American people. [crosstalk]TRUMP:And he got three and a half million dollars for nothing.BIDEN:That’s not true. It doesn’t want to talk about what you need. You, the American people. It’s about you. That’s what we’re talking about here. [crosstalk]WALLACE:That’s the end of the segment. We’re moving on.BIDEN:He didn’t take that.WALLACE:Vice President-TRUMP:Chris, can I be honest? It’s a very important question-BIDEN:Try to be honest.WALLACE:No.TRUMP:He stood up-WALLACE:The answer to the question is no.TRUMP:… and he threatened Ukraine-WALLACE:Sir-TRUMP:… with a billion dollars-BIDEN:That is absolutely not true.WALLACE:Stop. [crosstalk] Gentlemen, I hate to raise my voice, but I- [crosstalk] Why should I be different than the two of you? So here’s the deal.BIDEN:That’s a good point.WALLACE:We have six segments. We have ended that segment. We’re going to go to the next segment. In that segment, you each are going to have two uninterrupted moments. In those two uninterrupted minutes, Mr. President, you can say anything you want. I’m going to ask a question about race, but if you want to answer about something else, go ahead. But we, I, I think that the country would be better served, if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions. I’m appealing to you, sir, to do that.TRUMP:Well, and him too.WALLACE:Well, frankly, you’ve been doing more interrupting than he has.TRUMP:Well, that’s all right, but he does plenty.WALLACE:Well, sir, less than-TRUMP:He does plenty.WALLACE:No, less than you have. Let’s please continue on. The issue of race. Vice-President Biden, you say that President Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville three years ago, when he talked about very fine people on both sides, was what directly led you to launch this run for president.TRUMP:Oh yeah, sure.WALLACE:President Trump, you have often said that you believe you will have done more for Black Americans than any president with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.TRUMP:That’s true.WALLACE:My question for the two of you, is why should voters trust you rather than your opponent to deal with the race issues facing this country over the next four years? Vice President Biden, you go first.BIDEN:It’s about equity and equality. It’s about decency. It’s about the Constitution. And we have never walked away from trying to require, acquire equity for everyone, equality for the whole of America. But we’ve never accomplished it, but we’ve never walked away from it like he has done. It is true, the reason I got in the race is when those people. . . Close your eyes, remember what those people look like coming out of the fields, carrying torches, their veins bulging, spewing–just spewing anti-Semitic bile and accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan. A young woman got killed, and they asked the president what he thought. He said, “There were very fine people on both sides.” No president’s ever said anything like that. [crosstalk].WALLACE:It is his-BIDEN:Now-WALLACE:… two minutes sir.BIDEN:… second point I’d make to you, is that when Floyd was killed, when Mr. Floyd was killed, there was a peaceful protest in front of the White House. What did he do? He came out of his bunker, had the military use tear gas on them so he could walk across to a church and hold up a Bible. And then what happened after that? The Bishop of that very church said that it was a disgrace. The general who was with him said “All he ever wants to do is divide people, not unite people at all.” This is a president who has used everything as a dog whistle, to try to generate racist hatred, racist division.This is a man who, in fact, you talk about helping African-Americans, one in 1000 African Americans has been killed because of the coronavirus. And if he doesn’t do something quickly, by the end of the year, one in 500 will have been killed. One in 500 African Americans. This man, this man is a savior of African-Americans? This man cares at all? This man’s done virtually nothing. Look, the fact is that you have to look at what he’s talks about. You have to look at what he did. And what he did has been disastrous for the African-American community.TRUMP:So-WALLACE:President Trump, you have two minutes. Why should Americans trust you over your opponent to deal with race issues?TRUMP:You did a crime bill, 1994, where you called them super-predators. African-Americans are super-predators and they’ve never forgotten it. They’ve never forgotten it.BIDEN:I’ve never said-WALLACE:No, no, sir. It’s his two minutes.TRUMP:So you did that, and they call you super-predator and I’m letting people out of jail now, that you have treated the African-American population community, you have treated the black community about as bad as anybody in this country. You did the 1990–and that’s why, if you look at the polls, I’m doing better than any Republican has done in a long time, because they saw what you did. You call them super-predators, and you’ve called them worse than that. Because you look back at your testimony over the years, you’ve called them a lot worse than that. As far as the church is concerned, and as far as the generals are concerned, we just got the support of 200–250 military leaders and generals, total support. Law enforcement, almost every law enforcement group in the United States. I have Florida. I have Texas. I have Ohio. I have every… Excuse me, Portland, the sheriff just came out today and he said, “I support President Trump.”I don’t think you have any law enforcement. You can’t even say the word law enforcement. Because if you say those words, you’re going to lose all of your radical left supporters. And why aren’t you saying those words, Joe? Why don’t you say the words law enforcement? Because you know what? If they called us in Portland, we would put out that fire in a half an hour. But they won’t do it, because they’re run by radical left Democrats. If you look at Chicago, if you look at any place you want to look, Seattle, they heard we were coming in the following day and they put up their hands and we got back Seattle. Minneapolis, we got it back, Joe, because we believe in law and order, but you don’t. The top 10 cities and just about the top 40 cities are run by Democrats, and in many cases radical left. And they’ve got you wrapped around their finger, Joe, to a point where you don’t want to say anything about law and order. And I’ll tell you what, the people of this country want and demand law and order and you’re afraid to even say it.WALLACE:All right. I want to return to the question of race. Vice President Biden, after the grand jury in the Breonna Taylor case decided not to charge any of the police with homicide, you said it raises the question, “Whether justice could be equally applied in America.” Do you believe that there is a separate but unequal system of justice for Blacks in this country?BIDEN:Yes, there is. There’s systemic injustice in this country, in education and work and in law enforcement and the way in which it’s enforced. But look, the vast majority of police officers are good, decent, honorable men and women. They risk their lives every day to take care of us. But there are some bad apples. And when they occur, when they find them, they have to be sorted out. They have to be held accountable. They have to be held accountable. And what I’m going to do as President of the United States is call a, a, together an entire group of people at the White House, everything from the civil rights groups, to the police officers, to the police chiefs, and we’re going to work this out.We’re going to work this out. So we change the way in which we have more transparency, in when these things happen. These cops aren’t happy to see what happened to George Floyd. These cops aren’t happy to see what happened to Breonna Taylor. Most don’t like it, but we have to have a system where people are held accountable when–and by the way, violence in response is never appropriate, never appropriate. Peaceful protest is, violence is never appropriate.WALLACE:All right, Mr.-TRUMP:What is peaceful protest? When they run through the middle of the town-WALLACE:President Trump-TRUMP:… and burn down your stores and kill people all over the place- [crosstalk].BIDEN:That is not peaceful protest.TRUMP:No it’s not, but you say it is.BIDEN:I did not say it is.WALLACE:President Trump, I’d like to continue with the issue of race. I promise we’re going to get to the issue of law and order in a moment.TRUMP:Fine.WALLACE:This month, your Administration, uh, directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory. Why did you decide to do that, to end racial sensitivity training? And do you believe that there is systemic racism in this country, sir?TRUMP:I ended it because it’s racist. I ended it because a lot of people were complaining that they were asked to do things that were absolutely insane. That it was a radical revolution that was taking place in our military, in our schools, all over the place. And you know it, and so does everybody else. And he would know it, oh it’s totally racial. [crosstalk]WALLACE:What is radical about racial sensitivity training?TRUMP:If you were a certain person, you had no status in life. It was sort of a reversal. And if you look at the people, we would pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach very bad ideas and frankly, very sick ideas. And, and really, they were teaching people to hate our country. And I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to allow that to happen. We have to go back to the core values of this country. They were teaching people that our country is a horrible place. It’s a racist place. And they were teaching people to hate our country. And I’m not going to allow that to happen.BIDEN:Nobody’s doing that.WALLACE:Vice President Biden.BIDEN:Nobody’s doing that. He’s the racist.TRUMP:You just don’t know.BIDEN:Here’s the deal. I know a lot more about this- [crosstalk].TRUMP:You don’t know.WALLACE:Let him finish.BIDEN:The fact is that there is racial insensitivity. People have to be made aware of what other people feel like, uh, what insults them, what is demeaning to them. It’s important that people know. Many people don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings. But it’s amazing, it makes a big difference. It makes a gigantic difference in the way a child is able to grow up and have a self-sense, a sense of self-esteem. It’s a little bit like how this guy and, and his friends look down on so many people. They look down their nose on people like Irish Catholics, like me, and grew up in Scranton. They look down on people who don’t have money. They look down on people who are of a different faith. They look down on people who are a different color. In fact, we’re all Americans. The only way we’re gonna bring this country together is bring everybody together. There’s nothing we cannot do, if we do it together. We can take this on, and we can defeat racism in America.WALLACE:Vice President… I mean, President Trump, sir.TRUMP:During the Obama-Biden Administration, there was tremendous division. There was hatred. You look at, uh, Ferguson, you look at, or you go to very…many places. Look at Oakland. Look what happened in Oakland. Look what happened in Baltimore. Look what happened a . . . Frankly, it was more violent than what I’m even seeing now.BIDEN:Oh my Lord.TRUMP:But the reason-BIDEN:This is ridiculous.TRUMP:… is that the Democrats that run these cities-BIDEN:Absolutely ridiculous.TRUMP:… don’t want to talk, like you, about law and order.BIDEN:Violent crime. . .TRUMP:And you still haven’t mentioned.BIDEN:Violent crime. . .TRUMP:Are you in favor of law and order?BIDEN:I’m in favor of law. You follow a little bit of order- [crosstalk].TRUMP:Are you in favor of law and order? [crosstalk]BIDEN:Yes I’m in favor of. . .WALLACE:You asked a question, let him finish. [crosstalk] Let him answer.BIDEN:Law and order with justice, where people get treated fairly.TRUMP:Okay.BIDEN:And the fact of the matter is, violent crime went down 17 percent, 15 percent in our Administration. It’s gone up on his watch.WALLACE:Okay.TRUMP:It went down much more in ours.WALLACE:All right, we’re done- [crosstalk] Mr. President, you’re going to be very happy because we’re now going to talk about law and order.TRUMP:The places we had trouble were Democratic-run cities. . .WALLACE:That’s exactly my question. There has been a dramatic increase in homicides in America this summer particularly, and you often blame that on Democratic mayors and Democratic governors. But in fact, there have been equivalent spikes in Republican-led cities, like Tulsa and Fort Worth. So the question is, is this really a party issue?TRUMP:I think it’s a party issue. You can bring in a couple of examples but if you look at Chicago, what’s going on in Chicago where, uh, 53 people were shot and eight died. Shot. If you look at New York where it’s going up, like nobody’s ever seen anything. The numbers are going up a 100, 150, 200 percent, uh, crime, it is crazy what’s going on . . .BIDEN:Republican cities, republican cities.TRUMP:. . . and he doesn’t want to say law and order because he can’t because he’ll lose his radical left supporters and once he does that, it’s over with. But if he ever got to run this country, and they ran it the way he would want to run it, we would have. . .BIDEN:By the way. . .TRUMP:. . . our suburbs would be gone. By the way, our suburbs would be gone. And you would see problems like you’ve never seen before.BIDEN:He wouldn’t know a suburb unless you took a wrong turn. He was, he was. . .TRUMP:Oh, I know suburbs so much better than you.WALLACE:Gentlemen wait a minute.BIDEN:I was raised in the suburbs. This is not 1950. All these dog whistles and racism don’t work anymore. Suburbs are by and large integrated. There’s as many people today driving their kids to soccer practice and/or black and white and Hispanic in the same car as there have been any time in the past. What’s, what really is a threat to the suburbs and their safety is his failure to deal with COVID. They’re dying in the suburbs. His failure to deal with the environment, they’re being flooded, they’re being burned out because his refusal to do anything. That’s why the suburbs are in trouble.WALLACE:I do want to talk about this issue of law and order though. And in the joint recommendation that came from the Biden-Bernie Sanders task force, you talked about quote re-imagining policing. First of all, what does re-imagining policing mean and do you support?BIDEN:It means. . .WALLACE:. . . If I might finish the question, what does re-imagining policing mean and do you support the Black Lives Matter call uh, for uh, community control of policing?BIDEN:Look, what I support is the police having the opportunity to deal with the problems they face and I’m totally opposed to defunding the police offices. As a matter of fact police, local police, the only one defunding, in his budget calls for a $400 million cut in local law enforcement assistance. They need more assistance. They need when they show up for a 9-11 call to have someone with them as a psychologist or psychiatrist to keep them from having to use force and be able to talk people down. We have to have community policing like we had before, where the officers get to know the people in the communities. That’s when crime went down, it didn’t go up. It went down. And so we have to be engaged with . . .TRUMP:That’s not what they are talking about, Chris. That’s not what it . . . He’s talking about defunding the police.BIDEN:That’s exactly. . . that is not true.TRUMP:He doesn’t have any law support. He has no law enforcement support.TRUMP:Almost nothing.BIDEN:That’s not true. That’s not. . . Oh, look. . .TRUMP:Oh, really, who do you have? Name one group that supports you. Name one group that came out and supported you. Go ahead. Think. We have time.BIDEN:We don’t have time to do anything except . . .TRUMP:No, no. Think about it. Name one law enforcement group that came out in support of you.BIDEN:Folks, folks. . .WALLACE:Now, gentleman. I think I’m going to take back the moderator’s role. . .TRUMP:There aren’t any. I don’t think there are any.WALLACE:. . . and I want to get to another subject, which is the issue of protests in many cities that have turned violent. In Portland, Oregon, especially we had a, more than a hundred straight days of protests, which I think you would agree, you talk about peaceful protests. Many of those turned into riots. Mr. Vice-President you say that people who commit crimes should be held accountable. The question I have, though, is as the Democratic nominee, and earlier tonight, you said that you are the Democratic Party right now, have you ever called the Democratic Mayor of Portland or the Democratic Governor of Oregon and said, “Hey, you gotta stop this, bring in the National Guard, do whatever it takes, but you’d stop the days and months of violence in Portland.”BIDEN:I don’t hold public office, now. I am a former Vice-President. I’ve made it clear. I’ve made it clear in my public statements that the violence should be prosecuted. It should be prosecuted, and anyone who commits it should be prosecuted.WALLACE:But you’ve never called for the people…TRUMP:He’s never done that.WALLACE:Excuse me, sir. You had never called for the leaders in Portland and in Oregon to call and bring in the National Guard and knock off a 100 days of riots.BIDEN:They can in fact take care of it if he’d just stay out of the way.TRUMP:Oh really? Oh really?WALLACE:Let, let’s just. . .TRUMP:I sent in the US Marshals. . .BIDEN:Here, here’s the thing. . .WALLACE:I asked a question. . .TRUMP:. . .to get the killer of a young man in the middle of the street, they shot him. For three days Portland didn’t do anything.WALLACE:President Trump. President Trump. President Trump. . . I interrupted. President Trump.TRUMP:I sent in the US Marshals they took care of business.WALLACE:Go ahead sir.BIDEN:And by the way his own former spokesperson said, you know, “Riots and chaos and violence help his cause.” That’s what this is all about.TRUMP:I don’t know who said that.BIDEN:I do.TRUMP:Who?BIDEN:I think it–Kellyanne Conway.TRUMP:I don’t think she said that.BIDEN:She said that.TRUMP:I don’t think so.BIDEN:And so here, here’s the point. The point is that, that’s what he is keep trying to rile everything up. He doesn’t want to calm things down. Instead of going in and talking to people and saying, “Let’s get everybody together. Figure out how to deal with this.” What’s he do? He just pours gasoline in the fire. Constantly. At every single solitary time.WALLACE:Okay. And, and, and to end this, button up this segment, I’m going to give you a minute to answer, sir. You have repeatedly…TRUMP:You mean, I have to answer his stuff?WALLACE:You have repeatedly…TRUMP:His statement?WALLACE:You have repeatedly. . . No. . .TRUMP:Wait a second, you made a statement.WALLACE:No, you’ve been talking back and forth. I’m asking you.TRUMP:I would love to end it. I would love to end it.WALLACE:I would love to know sir. . . You know sir if you want to switch seatsTRUMP:. . . we could, very quicklyWALLACE:. . . we can do that.TRUMP:I’ll send in the National Guard, it would be over. That’d be no problem. But they don’t want to accept the National Guard.WALLACE:You have repeatedly criticized the Vice-President for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.TRUMP:Sure, I’m willing to do that.WALLACE:Are you prepared specifically to do it. Well go ahead, sir.TRUMP:I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right wing.WALLACE:So what are you, what are you saying?TRUMP:I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.WALLACE:Well, do it, sir.BIDEN:Say it. Do it. Say it.TRUMP:You want to call them? What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who would you like me to condemn.WALLACE:White supremacists and racists.BIDEN:Proud Boys.WALLACE:White supremacists and white militias.BIDEN:Proud Boys.TRUMP:Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what: somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left-wing. This is a left-wing problem. . .BIDEN:He’s own FBI Director said unlike white supremacists. . .TRUMP:This is a left-wing problem.BIDEN:Antifa is an idea not an organization. . .TRUMP:Oh you gotta be kidding.BIDEN:… not a militia. That’s what his FBI Director said.TRUMP:Well, then you know what, he’s wrong.WALLACE:Gentlemen, gentlemen. No, no, no, we’re done, sir. Moving onto the next… [crosstalk]TRUMP:. . . when a bat hits you over the head, that’s not an idea. Antifa is bad.BIDEN:Everybody in your Administration. . .TRUMP:Antifa is bad.BIDEN:Everybody in your Administration tells you the truth, has a bad idea. You have no idea . . . .TRUMP:You know what, Antifa is a dangerous radical group.WALLACE:All right, gentlemen we’re now moving onto the Trump and Biden records.TRUMP:And you ought to be careful of them, they’ll overthrow you.WALLACE:I’m going to ask a question. When the president seeks a second term, it is generally a referendum on his record but Vice-President Biden, you like to quote one of your dad’s sayings, which is don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. And in this case sir you are the alternative. Looking at both of your records, I’m going to ask each of you. Why should voters elect you president over your opponent? In this segment, President Trump you’ll go first, two minutes.TRUMP:Because there has never been an administration or president who has done more than I’ve done in a period of three and a half years. And that’s despite the impeachment hoax and you saw what happened today with Hillary Clinton, where it was a whole big con job. But despite going through all of these things where I had to fight, both flanks and behind me and above, there has never been an administration that’s done what I’ve done. The greatest, before COVID came in, the greatest economy in history, lowest employ–unemployment numbers, everything was good. Everything was going.And by the way, there was unity going to happen. People were calling me for the first time in years, they were calling, and they were saying it’s time maybe and then what happened? We got hit. But now we’re building it back up again. A rebuilding of the military, including Space Force and all of the other things. A fixing of the VA which was a mess under him. Three hundred and eight thousand people died because they didn’t have proper health care. It was a mess. And we now got a 91% approval rating at the VA, our vets. We take care of our vets. But we’ve rebuilt our military.The job that we’ve done. . . and, and I’ll tell you something, some people say maybe the most important. By the end of the first term, I’ll have approximately 300 Federal judges and Court of Appeals judges, 300, and hopefully three great Supreme Court judges, justices. That is a record the likes of which very few people. . . and you know, one of the reasons I’ll have so many judges? Because President Obama and him left me 128 judges to fill.When you leave office, you don’t leave any judges. That’s like, you just don’t do that. They left 128 openings, and if I were a member of his party, because they have a little different philosophy, I’d say, if you left us 128 openings you can’t be a good president. You can’t be a good Vice President but I want to thank you because it gives us almost, it’ll probably be above that number. By the end of this term, 300 judges. It’s a record.WALLACE:Looking at both of your records. Why should voters elect you President as opposed to President Trump, you have two minutes uninterrupted.BIDEN:Under this President, we become weaker, sicker, poorer, more divided and more violent. When I was Vice President, we inherited a recession. I was asked to fix it. I did. We left him a booming economy, and he caused the recession. With regard to being weaker, the fact is that I’ve gone head to head with Putin and made it clear to him we’re not going to take any of his stuff. He’s Putin’s puppy. He still refuses to even say anything to Putin about the bounty on the heads of American soldiers.TRUMP:Your son got three and a half million dollars.WALLACE:No, no, no!BIDEN:By the way, my son…WALLACE:Wait a minute. Mr. President, your campaign agreed to both sides would get two-minute answers, uninterrupted. Well, your, your side agreed to it, and why don’t you observe what your campaign agreed to as a ground rule. Okay, sir?BIDEN:He never keeps his word.TRUMP:Can I answer. . .WALLACE:No! That was a rhetorical question.BIDEN:Can you add back 30 seconds?WALLACE:Yes. You may have,BIDEN:All right.WALLACE:go ahead.BIDEN:So thirdly, we’re poor. The billionaires have gotten much more wealthy by a tune of over three to four hundred billion dollars more just since COVID. You in the home, you got less. You’re in more trouble than you were before. In terms of being more violent. When we were in office there were 15% less violence in America than there is today. He’s President of the United States. It’s on his watch. And with regard to more divided, the nation, it can’t stay divided. We can’t be this way. And speaking of my son, the way you talk about the military, the way you talk about them being losers and being, and, and, and just being suckers. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He got, he got the Bronze Star. He got the Conspicuous Service Medal. He was not a loser. He was a patriot and the people left behind, there, were heroes.TRUMP:Really?BIDEN:And I resent-TRUMP:Are you talking Hunter, are you talking about Hunter.BIDEN:I’m talking about my son, Beau Biden, you’re talking about Hunter?TRUMP:I don’t know Beau. I know Hunter. Hunter got thrown out of the military. He was thrown out dishonorably discharged. . .BIDEN:That’s not true he wasn’t dishonorably discharged.TRUMP:. . .for cocaine use. And he didn’t have a job until you became Vice-President. Once you became Vice-PresidentBIDEN:None of that is true.TRUMP:. . . he made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow and various other places.BIDEN:That is simply not true.TRUMP:He made a fortune. . .BIDEN:My son. . . my son. . .TRUMP:. . . and he didn’t have a job.BIDEN:My son. . . like a lot of people. Like a lot of people we know at home had a drug problem. He’s overtaken it. He’s, he’s fixed it. He’s worked on it. And I’m proud of him. I’m proud of my son.TRUMP:But why was he given tens of millions of dollars?WALLACE:Alright. . .BIDEN:He wasn’t given tens of millions of dollars. [crosstalk]TRUMP:He was given tens of millions of dollars?BIDEN:That was totally discredited.WALLACE:President Trump. President Trump. We’ve already been through this.BIDEN:Totally discredited.WALLACE:We’ve bo. . .already been through this. I think the American people would rather hear about more substantial subjects.BIDEN:So do I.TRUMP:[unintelligible]WALLACE:Well, as the moderator, sir, I’m going to make a judgment call here.TRUMP:I know but when somebody gets three and a half million dollars from the Mayor of Moscow.BIDEN:That is not true. That report is totally discredited.TRUMP:Why did he get it?BIDEN:Mitt Romney on that committee said it wasn’t worth taxpayer’s money. That report was written for political reason.WALLACE:I’d like to talk about climate change.BIDEN:So would I.WALLACE:Okay. The forest fires in the West are raging now. They have burned millions of acres. They have displaced hundreds of thousands of people. When state officials there blamed the fires on climate change, Mr. President, you said, “I don’t think the science knows.” Over your four years, you have pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord. You have rolled back a number of Obama Environmental records, what do you believe about the science of climate change, and what will you do in the next four years to confront it?TRUMP:I want crystal clean water and air. I want beautiful clean air. We have now the lowest carbon. If you look at our numbers right now, we are doing phenomenally. But I haven’t destroyed our businesses. Our businesses aren’t put out of commission. If you look at the Paris Accord, it was a disaster from our standpoint. And people are actually very happy about what’s going on, because our businesses are doing well. As far as the fires are concerned, you need forest management. In addition to everything else, the forest floors are loaded up with trees, dead trees that are years old and they’re like tinder and leaves and everything else. You drop a cigarette in there the whole forest burns down. You’ve got to have forest management.WALLACE:What do you believe about the science of climate change, sir?TRUMP:I believe that we have to do everything we can to have immaculate air, immaculate water, and do whatever else we can that’s good. You know, we’re planting a billion trees–the Billion Tree Project–and it’s very exciting for a lot of people.WALLACE:You believe that human pollution, gas, greenhouse gas emissions contributes to the global warming of this planet?TRUMP:I think a lot of things do, but I think to an extent, yes. I think to an extent, yes. But I also think we have to do better management of our forests. Every year I get the call. California’s burning, California’s burning. If that was cleaned, if that were, if you had forest management, good forest management, you wouldn’t be getting those calls. You know, in Europe, they live their forest cities. They call forest cities. They maintain their forest. They manage their forest. I was with the head of a major country, it’s a forest city. He said, “Sir, we have trees that are far more, they ignite much easier than California. There shouldn’t be that problem.” I spoke with the Governor about it. I’m getting along very well with the governor. But I said, “At some point you can’t every year have hundreds of thousands of acres of land just burned to the ground.”WALLACE:But sir. . .TRUMP:That’s burning down because of a lack of management.WALLACE:But sir, if you believe in the science of climate change, why have you rolled back the Obama Clean Power Plan which limited carbon emissions in power plants? Why have you relaxed…?TRUMP:Because it was driving energy prices through the sky.WALLACE:Why have you relaxed fuel economy standards that are going to create more pollution from cars and trucks?TRUMP:Well, not really because what’s happening is the car is much less expensive, and it’s a much safer car, and you’re talking about a tiny difference. And then what would happen because of the cost of the car you would have at least double and triple the number of cars purchased. We have the old slugs out there that are 10, 12 years old. If you did that, the car would be safer. It would be much cheaper by $3,500.WALLACE:But in the case of California they have simply ignored your rollback.TRUMP:No, but you would take a lot of cars off the market because people would be able to afford a car. Now, so, and by the way, we’re going to see how that turns out. But a lot of people agree with me, many people. The car has gotten so expensive because they have computers all over the place for an extra little bit of gasoline.WALLACE:OK. . .TRUMP:And I’m okay with electric cars too. I think I’m all for electric cars. I’ve given big incentives for electric cars but what they’ve done in California is just crazy.WALLACE:All right, Vice President Biden. I’d like you to respond to the president’s climate change record, but I also want to ask you about a concern. You propose $2 trillion in green jobs. You talk about new limits, not abolishing, but new limits on fracking. Ending the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by 2035, and zero net emission of greenhouse gases by 2050. The president says a lot of these things would tank the economy and cost millions of jobs.BIDEN:He’s absolutely wrong, number one. Number two, if in fact, when, during our Administration in the Recovery Act, I was able, was in charge, able to bring down the cost of renewable energy to cheaper than or as cheap as coal and gas and oil. Nobody’s gonna build another, uh, coal fired plant in America. No one’s going to build another oil fire plant in America. They’re going to move to renewable energy, number one,Number two, we’re going to make sure that we are able to take the federal fleet and turn it into a fleet that’s run on, that’re electric vehicles. Making sure that we can do that, we’re going to put 500,000 charging stations and all of the highways that we’re going to be building in the future. We’re going to build a economy that in fact is going to provide for the ability us to take 4 million buildings and make sure that they in fact are weatherized in a way that in fact will –they’ll emit significantly less gas and oil because the heat will not be going out.There’s so many things that we can do now to create thousands and thousands of jobs. We can get to net zero, in terms of energy production, by 2035. Not only not costing people jobs, creating jobs. Creating millions of good-paying jobs. Not 15 bucks an hour, but prevailing wage, by having a new infrastructure that in fact, is green.And the first thing I will do, I will rejoin the Paris Accord. I will join the Paris Accord because with us out of it, look what’s happening. It’s all falling apart. And talk about someone who has no, no relationship to, with foreign policy. Brazil, the rainforests of Brazil are being torn down, are being ripped down. More, more carbon is absorbed in that rainforest than every bit of carbon that’s emitted in the United States. Instead of doing something about that, I would be gathering up and making sure we had the comp–countries of the world coming up with 20 billion dollars, and say, “Here’s $20 billion. Stop, stop tearing, tearing down the forest. And if you don’t, then you’re going to have significant economic consequences.”WALLACE:What about, what about the argument that President Trump basically says, that you have to balance environmental interests and economic interests? And he’s drawn his line.BIDEN:Well, he hadn’t drawn a line. He still, for example, makes sure that we, he wants to make sure that methane’s not a problem. We can, you, you can now emit more methane without it being a problem. Methane. This is a guy who says that you don’t have to have mileage standards for automobiles that exist now. This is the guy who says that, well the fact is. . .TRUMP:Not true. Not true.BIDEN:It’s all true. And here’s the deal. . .TRUMP:He’s talking about the Green New Deal. And it’s not 2 billion or 20 billion, as you said. It’s 100 trillion dollars.BIDEN:I’m. . . I’m. . . .I’m talking about the Biden plan. . .TRUMP:Where they want to rip down buildings. . .WALLACE:[to Biden] Let him go for a minute, and then you can go.TRUMP:And rebuild the building.BIDEN:No.TRUMP:It’s the dumbest-BIDEN:That is not, that is not. . .TRUMP:… most ridiculous. . . Where airplanes are out of business. Where two car systems are out. . .BIDEN:Not true. . .TRUMP:. . . where they want to take out the cows too.BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:You know, that’s not true either, right?BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:This is, this is a 100 trillion. . .BIDEN:Simply. . . Look-TRUMP:That’s more money than our country could make in a hundred years if it were. . .BIDEN:That is simply not the case. . .TRUMP:It would destroy our country.WALLACE:All right. Let me. Wait a minute, sir. I actually have studied your plan, and it includes upgrading 4 million buildings, weatherizing 2 million homes over four years, building one and a half million energy efficient homes. So the question becomes, some, the president is saying, I think, some people who support the president would say, that sounds like it’s going to cost a lot of money and hurt the economy.BIDEN:What it’s going to do, it’s going to create thousands and millions of jobs. Good paying jobs.TRUMP:Hundred trillion dollars.WALLACE:Let him finish, sir.BIDEN:He doesn’t know how to do that.TRUMP:100 trillion dollars.BIDEN:The fact is, it’s going to create millions of good-paying jobs. And these tax incentives to people, for people to weatherize, which he wants to get, get rid of. It’s going to make the economy much safer. Look how much we’re paying now to deal with the hurricanes, with, deal with. . . By the way, he has an answer for hurricanes. He said, maybe we should drop a nuclear weapon on them, and they may go away.TRUMP:I never said that at all.BIDEN:Yeah, you did say that.TRUMP:They made it up.BIDEN:And here’s the deal. . .TRUMP:You make up a lot.BIDEN:. . . we’re going to be in a position where we can create hard, hard, good jobs by making sure the environment is clean, and we all are in better shape. We spend billions of dollars now, billions of dollars, on floods, hurricanes, rising seas. We’re in real trouble. Look what’s happened just in the Midwest with these storms that come through and wipe out entire sections and counties in Iowa. They didn’t happen before. They’re because of global warming. We make up 15% of the world’s problem. We in fact, but the rest of the world, we’ve got to get them to come along. That’s why we have to get back into, back into the Paris Accord.WALLACE:All right, gentlemen. . .TRUMP:Wait a minute, Chris. So why didn’t he do it for 47 years? You were Vice-President?BIDEN:For 47?TRUMP:So why didn’t you get the world—China sends up real dirt into the air. Russia does. India does. They all do. We’re supposed to be good. And by the way, he made a couple of statements. The Green New Deal is a hundred trillion dollars. . .BIDEN:That is not my plan.TRUMP:. . .not 20 billion. . . .BIDEN:The Green New Deal is not my plan. . .TRUMP:. . . You want to rebuild every building.BIDEN:. . . If you knew anything about. . .TRUMP:Well, you want to rebuild everythingBIDEN:If he knew anything about. . .WALLACE:Gentlemen. . . Gentlemen. . .TRUMP:He made a statement about the military. He said I said something about the military. He and his friends made it up, and then they went with it. I never said it.WALLACE:Okay.BIDEN:That is not true.TRUMP:What he did is he said. . .WALLACE:Okay, we’re going to get into a new segment. Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President. . .TRUMP:. . .is he called the military stupid bastards.BIDEN:I did not say that.TRUMP:He said it on tape. . . [crosstalk]BIDEN:Not true.TRUMP:. . .He said “stupid bastards.”WALLACE:Sir. [crosstalk] Stop.BIDEN:Play it.TRUMP:I would never say that.BIDEN:Play it.WALLACE:Go ahead.TRUMP:You’re on tape.WALLACE:Mr. Vice President answered his final question.BIDEN:The final question is, I can’t remember which of all his rantings was the final question.WALLACE:[laughing] I’m having a little trouble myself, but…BIDEN:Yeah.WALLACE:And about the economy and about this question of what it’s going to cost.BIDEN:The economy. . .WALLACE:The Green New Deal and the idea of what your environmental changes will do.BIDEN:The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. We’re not going to build plants that, in fact, are great polluting plants, we’re gonna build. . .WALLACE:So, do you support the Green New Deal?BIDEN:Pardon me?WALLACE:Do you support the . . .BIDEN:No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.TRUMP:Oh, you don’t? Oh, well, that’s a big statement.BIDEN:I support . . .TRUMP:You just lost the radical left. It’s done. Oh you don’t?BIDEN:I support the Biden plan that I put forward.WALLACE:Okay.BIDEN:The Biden plan, which is different than what he calls “The Radical Green New Deal.”WALLACE:All right, gentlemen, final segment: Election integrity. As we meet tonight, millions of Americans are receiving mail-in ballots or going to vote early. How confident should we be that this will be a fair election, and what are you prepared to do over the next five plus weeks? Because it will not only be to election day, but also counting some ballots–mail-in ballots–after election day. What are you prepared to do to reassure the American people that the next president will be the legitimate winner of this election. In this final segment, Mr. Vice President, you go first.BIDEN:Prepare to let people vote. They should go to iwillvote.com. Decide how they’re going to vote, when they’re going to vote, and what means by which they’re going to vote. His own Homeland Security director, and as well as the FBI director, says that there is no evidence at all that mail-in ballots are a source of being manipulated and cheating. They said that. The fact is that there are going to be millions of people because of COVID that are going to be voting by mail-in ballots like he does, by the way. He sits behind the Resolute Desk and sends his ballot to Florida. Number one.Number two, we’re going to make sure that those people who want to vote in person are able to vote because there are enough poll watchers are there to make sure they can socially distance. The polls are open on time, and the polls stay open until the votes are counted. And this is all about trying to dissuade people from voting because he’s trying to conf–to scare people into thinking that it’s not going to be legitimate.Show up and vote. You will determine the outcome of this election. Vote, vote, vote. If you’re able to vote early in your state, vote early. If you’re able to vote in person, vote in person. Vote whatever way is the best way for you. Because you will—he cannot stop you from being able to determine the outcome of this election. And in terms of whether or not, when the votes are counted and they’re all counted, that will be accepted. If I win, that will be accepted. If I lose, that’ll be accepted. But by the way, if in fact he says, he’s not sure what he’s going to accept. Well, let me tell you something, it doesn’t matter, because if we get the votes, it’s going to be all over. He’s gonna go. He can’t stay in power. It won’t happen. It won’t happen. So vote. Just make sure you understand, you have it in your control to determine what this country is gonna look like the next four years. Is it going to change, or are you going to get four more years of these lies?WALLACE:Mr. President, two minutes.TRUMP:So when I listen to Joe talking about a transition, there has been no transition from when I won. I won that election. And if you look at crooked Hillary Clinton, if you look at all of the different people, there was no transition, because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won, and even before I won. From the day I came down the escalator with our first lady, they were a disaster. They were a disgrace to our country, and we’ve caught ’em. We’ve caught ’em all. We’ve got it all on tape. We’ve caught ’em all. And by the way, you gave the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn. You better take a look at that, because we caught you in a sense, and President Obama was sitting in the office.He knew about it too. So don’t tell me about a free transition. As far as the ballots are concerned, it’s a disaster. A solicited ballot, okay, solicited, is okay. You’re soliciting. You’re asking. They send it back. You send it back. I did that. If you have an unsolicited–they’re sending millions of ballots all over the country. There’s fraud. They found ’em in creeks. They found some, with the name Trump, just happened to have the name Trump, just the other day in a wastepaper basket. They’re being sent all over the place. They sent two in a Democrat area. They sent out a thousand ballots. Everybody got two ballots. This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen. The other thing, it’s nice. On November 3rd, you’re watching, and you see who won the election. And I think we’re going to do well because people are really happy with the job we’ve done.But you know what? We won’t know. We might not know for months because these ballots are going to be all over. Take a look at what happened in Manhattan. Take a look at what happened in New Jersey. Take a look at what happened in Virginia and other places. They’re not losing 2%, 1%, which by the way is too much. An election could be won or lost with that. They’re losing 30 and 40%. It’s a fraud, and it’s a shame. And can you imagine where they say, uh, “You have to have your ballot in by November 10th.” November 10th. That means, that’s seven days after the election, in theory, should’ve been announced.WALLACE:OkayTRUMP:We have major states with that. . .WALLACE:Sir. Time. . .TRUMP:… all run by Democrats-WALLACE:Sir, two minutes is two minutes.TRUMP:All run by Democrats.WALLACE:President Trump. . . I, I,. . .TRUMP:It’s a rigged election.WALLACE:You’re going to be able to continue. You have been charging for months that mail-in balloting is going to be a disaster. You say it’s rigged, that it’s going to lead to fraud. But in 2018, in the last midterm election, 31 million people voted mail-in voting. That was a quarter, more than a quarter of all the voters that year, cast their ballots by mail. Now that millions of mail-in ballots have gone out, what are you going to do about it? And are you counting on the Supreme Court, including a Justice Barrett, to settle any dispute?TRUMP:Yeah. I think I’m counting on them to look at the ballots, definitely. I don’t think—I hope we don’t need them, in terms of the election itself. But for the ballots, I think so, because what’s happening is incredible. I just heard, I read today where at least 1% of the ballots for 2016 were invalidated. They take ’em. We don’t like ’em. We don’t like ’em. They throw ’em out. . .WALLACE:But what are you going to do about it-TRUMP:… left and right.WALLACE:There are millions of ballots going out right now. What are you going to do. . .TRUMP:What you do is you go and vote. You do a solicited ballot, and that’s okay. . .WALLACE:No. No. I know your complaint. I’m asking you about the fact that millions of people have received. . .TRUMP:You go and vote. You go and vote. . .WALLACE:No. But what I’m saying is . . .TRUMP:. . . like they used to in the old. . .WALLACE:. . . what are you going to do about the fact that millions of people. . .TRUMP:You either do, Chris, a solicited ballot, where you’re sending it in, they’re sending it back and you’re sending. They have mailmen with lots of it. Did you see what’s going on? Take a look at West Virginia, mailman selling the ballots. They’re being sold. They’re being dumped in rivers. This is a horrible thing for our country.BIDEN:There is no–there is no evidence of that. . .TRUMP:This is not going to end well.BIDEN:There is no evidence of that. . .TRUMP:This is not going to end well.WALLACE:Okay. Vice President Biden, in fact, go ahead, sir-BIDEN:Five states have had mail-in ballots for the last decade or more. Five, including two Republican states. And you don’t have to solicit the ballot. It’s sent to you. It’s sent to your home. What we’re saying is, they’re saying is that it has to be a postmark by the time, by election day. If it doesn’t get in until the seventh, eighth, ninth, it still should be counted. He’s just afraid of counting the votes because. . . .TRUMP:You’re wrong. You’re wrong. I love counting the votes. . .BIDEN:. . . he knows what the outcome will be.WALLACE:I want to continue with you on this, Vice President Biden. . .TRUMP:Chris, he’s so wrong when he makes a statement like that-WALLACE:No. Excuse me. Vice President Biden, the biggest problem, in fact, over the years with mail-in voting has not been fraud, historically. It has been that sizable numbers, sometimes hundreds of thousands of ballots are thrown out because they have not been properly filled out, or there is some other irregularity,. . .TRUMP:That could be fraud.WALLACE:. . .or they missed the deadline. So the question I have is, are you concerned that the Supreme Court with a Justice Barrett will settle any dispute?BIDEN:I am concerned that any court would settle this, because here’s the deal. When you file—when you get a ballot and you fill it out, you’re supposed to have an affidavit. If you didn’t know, you have someone say that, this is me. You should be able to, if in fact you can verify that’s you when, before the ballot is thrown out, that’s sufficient to be able to count the ballot because someone made a mistake and not dotting the correct i. Who they voted for, testify, say who they voted for, say it’s you. That is totally legitimate.WALLACE:All right.TRUMP:Excuse me, Chris, when you have eighty million ballots. . .WALLACE:No. No. No. I have a final [crosstalk].TRUMP:. . . sent in and swamping the system. . .WALLACE:Gentlemen, I have a final question . . .TRUMP:You know it can’t be done. You know it can’t, and already, there’s been fraud deception and . . .BIDEN:Mail service delivers 185 million pieces of mail a day. . .TRUMP:. . . Eighty million ballots.WALLACE:We can keep talking. In eight states, election workers are prohibited, currently by law, eight states, from even beginning to process ballots, even take them out of the envelopes and flatten them until election day. That means that it’s likely, because there’s going to be a huge increase in mail-in balloting, that we are not going to know on election night who the winner is, that it could be days. It could be weeks. . .TRUMP:Could be months.WALLACE:. . . until we find out who the new president is. So, I–first for you, sir. Finally, for the Vice-President, and I hope neither of you will interrupt the other. Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period, not to engage in any civil unrest? And will you pledge tonight that you will not declare victory until the election has been independently certified? President Trump, you go first.TRUMP:I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that’s what has to happen. I am urging them to do it. As you know, today there was a big problem. In Philadelphia, they went in to watch. They’re called poll watchers, a very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren’t allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia. Bad things. And I am urging, I am urging my people. I hope it’s going to be a fair election. If it’s a fair election. . .WALLACE:You’re urging them what?TRUMP:. . . I am 100% on board. But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can’t go along with that. And I’ll tell you what. . .WALLACE:What does that mean, not go along. . .TRUMP:. .. from a common sense. . .WALLACE:. . .does that mean you’re going to tell your people . . .TRUMP:I’ll tell you what it means. . .WALLACE:… to take to the streets?TRUMP:It means you have a fraudulent election. You’re sending out 80 million ballots. . .WALLACE:And what would you do about that?TRUMP:They’re not equipped. These people aren’t equipped to handle it, number one. Number two, they cheat. They cheat. Hey, they found ballots in a wastepaper basket three days ago, and they all had the name military ballots. They were military. They all had the name Trump on them.WALLACE:Vice President Biden-TRUMP:You think that’s good?WALLACE:Vice President Biden, final question for you. Will you urge your supporters to stay calm while the vote is counted? And will you pledge not to declare victory until the election is independently certified?BIDEN:Yes. And here’s the deal. We count the ballots, as you pointed out. Some of these ballots in some states can’t even be opened until election day. And if there’s thousands of ballots, it’s going to take time to do it. And by the way, our military–they’ve been voting by ballots for since the end of the Civil War, in effect. And that’s, and that’s what’s going to happen. Why was it not, why is it for them, somehow not fraudulent. It’s the same process. It’s honest. No one has established at all that there is fraud related to mail-in ballots, that the, somehow it’s a fraudulent process.TRUMP:It’s already been established. Take a look at Carolyn Maloney’s race. . .WALLACE:I asked you. You had an opportunity to respond [crosstalk].TRUMP:Look at Carolyn Maloney’s race. They have no idea what happened. . .WALLACE:Go ahead. Vice President Biden, go ahead.BIDEN:He has no idea what he’s talking about. Here’s the deal. The fact is, I will accept it, and he will too. You know why? Because once the winner is declared after all the ballots are counted, all the votes are counted, that’ll be the end of it. That’ll be the end of it. And if it’s me, in fact, fine. If it’s not me, I’ll support the outcome. And I’ll be a president, not just for the Democrats. I’ll be a president for Democrats and Republicans. And this guy if in fact. . .TRUMP:I want to see an honest ballot count. . .WALLACE:Gentlemen, just say that’s the end of it [crosstalk]. This is the end of this debate-TRUMP:I want to see an honest ballot count.WALLACE:We’re going to leave it there. . .TRUMP:And I think he does too. . .WALLACE:… to be continued in more debates as we go on. President Trump, Vice President Biden, it’s been an interesting hour and a half. I want to thank you both for participating in the first of three debates that you have agreed to engage in. We want to thank Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic for hosting this event. The next debate, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, will be one week from tomorrow, October 7th, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The two Vice-Presidential nominees, Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will debate at 9:00 PM Eastern that night. We hope you watch. Until then, thank you, and good night.",
    "id": "46b1d963-2ad0-42cb-9657-03612990b0f8"
  },
  {
    "year": 1992,
    "date": "October 13, 1992",
    "title": "The Gore-Quayle-Stockdale Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 13, 1992 Debate TranscriptOctober 13, 1992The Gore-Quayle-Stockdale Vice Presidential DebateThe vice presidential debate took place on October 13, 1992, in Atlanta, Georgia. The moderator is Hal Bruno of ABC News. Mr. Bruno introduces the vice presidential candidates and describes the format in his opening remarks.Below is the transcript of that debate. The reprint is approximately 35 pages long.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 showcased 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 pass the president’s bill?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. 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 not who you’re going to blame; it’s what are you going to do about it? Your proposal it to 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 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 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 a value 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 to death 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: Lighten’ up Al. 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 that Bill Clinton 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. You have to tell 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 that 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, their 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. 60 % 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 me 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 leaders 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 simply 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, just 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 stay 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 the 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)",
    "id": "92ad0036-10cc-4dc2-af60-ef255566249c"
  },
  {
    "year": 2012,
    "date": "October 11, 2012",
    "title": "The Biden-Ryan Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 11, 2012 Debate TranscriptREP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-WIS., VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,AND VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. PARTICIPATE IN ACANDIDATES DEBATE, DANVILLE, KENTUCKYOCTOBER 11, 2012SPEAKERS: VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.REP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-WIS.MARTHA RADDATZ, MODERATOR[*]RADDATZ: Good evening, and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m Martha Raddatz of ABC News, and I am honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service.Tonight’s debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues. And I’m going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic, since that is what a vice president or president would have to do. We will have nine different segments. At the beginning of each segment, I will ask both candidates a question, and they will each have two minutes to answer. Then I will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions.By coin toss, it has been determined that Vice President Biden will be first to answer the opening question. We have a wonderful audience here at Centre College tonight. You will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate — and right now, as we welcome Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.(APPLAUSE)OK, you got your little wave to the families in. It’s great. Good evening, gentlemen. It really is an honor to be here with both of you.I would like to begin with Libya. On a rather somber note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there.RADDATZ: it was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn’t this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?BIDEN: What is was, it was a tragedy, Martha. It — Chris Stevens was one of our best. We lost three other brave Americans.I can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the American people tonight. One, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. And secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever — wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the American public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again.When you’re looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. That’s caring for the national security of the country. And the best way to do that is take a look at how he’s handled the issues of the day.On Iraq, the president said he would end the war. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 — he ended it. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 troops there.With regard to Afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. Governor Romney said we should not set a date, number one. And number two, with regard to 2014, it depends.When it came to Osama bin Laden, the president the first day in office, I was sitting with him in the Oval Office, he called in the CIA and signed an order saying, “My highest priority is to get bin Laden.”Prior to the election, prior to the — him being sworn in, Governor Romney was asked the question about how he would proceed. He said, “I wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get bin Laden.” He didn’t understand it was more than about taking a murderer off the battlefield. It was about restoring America’s heart and letting terrorists around the world know, if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be.And lastly, the president of the United States has — has led with a steady hand and clear vision. Governor Romney, the opposite. The last thing we need now is another war.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: We mourn the loss of these four Americans who were murdered.RYAN: When you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video. It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.He went to the U.N. and in his speech at the U.N. he said six times — he talked about the YouTube video.Look, if we’re hit by terrorists we’re going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an Al Qaida cell with arms?This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they’re trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue.With respect to Iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the Obama administration. Let’s have a status of forces agreement to make sure that we secure our gains. The vice president was put in charge of those negotiations by President Obama and they failed to get the agreement. We don’t have a status of forces agreement because they failed to get one. That’s what we are talking about.Now, when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they’ve done for us, including your son Beau. But we also want to make sure that we don’t lose the things we fought so hard to get.Now, with respect to Afghanistan, the 2014 deadline, we agree with a 2014 transition. But what we also want it do is make sure that we’re not projecting weakness abroad, and that’s what’s happening here.RYAN: This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a broader problem. And that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the (inaudible) more chaotic us less safe.RADDATZ: I just want to you about right in the middle of the crisis. Governor Romney, and you’re talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness; talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis?RYAN: On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let’s recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo. So we had the same position, but we will — it’s never too early to speak out for our values.We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights.And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we’re cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. They’re more brazen in their attacks, and are allies are less willing to…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.RADDATZ: And why is that so?BIDEN: Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all…RADDATZ: Be specific.BIDEN: I will be very specific. Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this — this weakness. I — I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about here.We — this is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating — most devastating — the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop (inaudible).Look, I — I just — I mean, these guys bet against America all the time.RADDATZ: Can we talk — let me go back to Libya.BIDEN: Yeah, sure.RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why — why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again.RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.That’s why I said we will get to the bottom of this. You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you about — the Romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. He has a book called called “No Apologies.” Should the U.S. have apologized for Americans burning Korans in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. apologize for U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses?RYAN: Oh, gosh, yes. Urinating on Taliban corpses? What we should not apologize for…RADDATZ: Burning Korans, immediately?RYAN: What — what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he’s a good guy and, in the next week, say he ought to go.What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for — for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security. There were requests for extra security; those requests were not honored.Look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. It was Libya, a country we knew we had Al Qaida cells there, as we know Al Qaida and its affiliates are on the rise in Northern Africa. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a Marine detachment?Of course there’s an investigation, so we can make sure that this never happens again, but when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not apologize for those. Here’s the problem. Look at all the various issues out there, and it’s unraveling before our eyes. The vice president talks about sanctions on Iran. They got — we’ve had four…RADDATZ: Let’s move to Iran. I’d actually like to move to Iran, because there’s really no bigger national security…RYAN: Absolutely.RADDATZ: … this country is facing. Both President Obama and Governor Romney have said they will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. Last week, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, “could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.” Can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the American people how effective would a military strike be? Congressman Ryan?RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let’s take a look at where we’ve gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They’re racing toward a nuclear weapon. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.We’ve had four different sanctions, the U.N. on Iran, three from the Bush administration, one here. And the only reason we got it is because Russia watered it down and prevented the — the sanctions from hitting the central bank.Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I’ve been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way. Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration.Imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. You think Iran’s not brazen? Look at what they’re doing. They’re stepping up their terrorist attacks. They tried a terrorist attack in the United States last year when they tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.And talk about credibility? When this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals.And so, in order to solve this peacefully — which is everybody’s goal — you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. Look at where they are. They’re moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. It’s because this administration has no credibility on this issue. It’s because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us for putting the tough sanctions in place.Now we have them in place because of Congress. They say the military option’s on the table, but it’s not being viewed as credible. And the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden?BIDEN: It’s incredible. Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there’s any possibility the entire world would have joined us, Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Period.When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, “We gotta keep these sanctions.” When he said, “Well, you’re talking about doing more,” what are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?RYAN: We want to prevent war.BIDEN: And the interesting thing is, how are they going to prevent war? How are they going to prevent war if they say there’s nothing more that we — that they say we should do than what we’ve already done, number one.And number two, with regard to the ability of the United States to take action militarily, it is — it is not in my purview to talk about classified information. But we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians.But number two, the Iranians are — the Israelis and the United States, our military and intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close — how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. There is no difference between our view and theirs.When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know — we’ll know if they start the process of building a weapon.So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about? Are you talking about, to be more credible — what more can the president do, stand before the United Nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he’s talking about going to war.RYAN: Martha? Let’s…RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan? RYAN: Let’s look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They’re moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. They’re spinning the centrifuges faster.They see us saying when we come into the administration, when they’re sworn in, we need more space with our ally, Israel. They see President Obama in New York City the same day Bibi Netanyahu is and he, instead of meeting with him, goes on a — on a daily talk show.They see, when we say that these options are on the table, the secretary of defense walked them back.They are not changing their mind. That’s what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they’re going faster.RADDATZ: How do you do it so quickly? Look, you — you both saw Benjamin Netanyahu hold up that picture of a bomb with a red line and talking about the red line being in spring. So can you solve this, if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear — nuclear…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: We can debate a time line. We can debate the time line, whether there’s — it’s that short a time or longer. I agree that it’s probably longer.Number two, it’s all about…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: You don’t agree with that bomb and whether the Israelis…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: I don’t want to go into classified stuff. But we both agree that to do this peacefully you’ve got to get them to change their minds. They’re not changing their minds. And look at what this administration…RADDATZ: But what — what do…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Let me tell you what the ayatollah sees.RYAN: You have to have credibility.BIDEN: The ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. The ayatollah sees that there are 50 percent fewer exports of oil. He sees the currency going into the tank. He sees the economy going into freefall. And he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon.Now, with regard to Bibi, who’s been my friend 39 years, the president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He’s spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he’s spoken to anybody. The idea that we’re not — I was in a, just before he went to the U.N., I was in a conference call with the — with the president, with him talking to Bibi for well over an hour, in — in — in stark relief and detail of what was going on.This is a bunch of stuff. Look, here’s the deal.RADDATZ: What does that mean, a bunch of stuff?BIDEN: Well, it means it’s simply inaccurate.RYAN: It’s Irish.BIDEN: It — it is.(LAUGHTER)We Irish call it malarkey.RADDATZ: Thanks for the translation. OK.(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: We Irish call it malarkey. But last thing. The secretary of defense has made it absolutely clear, we didn’t walk anything back. We will not allow the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon. What Bibi held up there was when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon. They don’t have a weapon to put it into.Let’s all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?BIDEN: I don’t know what world this guy’s living in. RYAN: Thank heavens we had these sanctions in place. It’s in spite of their opposition.BIDEN: Oh, god.RYAN: They’ve given 20 waivers to this sanction. And all I have to point to are the results. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapon. I think that case speaks for itself.RADDATZ: Can you tell the American people…BIDEN: By the way, they…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: What’s worse, another war in the Middle East…BIDEN: … they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon.RYAN: Of course they are.BIDEN: They’re — they’re closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon.RADDATZ: You are acting a little bit like they don’t want one.BIDEN: Oh, I didn’t say — no, I’m not saying that. But facts matter, Martha. You’re a foreign policy expert. Facts matter. All this loose talk about them, “All they have to do is get to enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon,” not true. Not true.They are more — and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters. That matters.RADDATZ: What about Bob Gates’ statement? Let me read that again, “could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.”BIDEN: He is right. It could prove catastrophic, if we didn’t do it with precision.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: And what it does is it undermines our credibility by backing up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. That’s the point. The ayatollahs see these kinds of statements and they think, “I’m going to get a nuclear weapon.”When — when we see the kind of equivocation that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy, so when the Green Revolution started up, they were silent for nine days. When they see us putting — when they see us putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in Israel, that gives them encouragement. When they see Russia watering down any further sanctions, the only reason we got a U.N. sanction is because Russia watered it down and prevented these central bank sanctions in the first place. So when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue, and that’s the problem.BIDEN: Martha, let me tell you what Russia…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you what’s worse, war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?RYAN: I’ll tell you what’s worse. I’ll tell you what’s worse.RADDATZ: Quickly.RYAN: A nuclear-armed Iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world’s largest sponsor of — of terrorism. They’ve dedicated themselves…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … to wiping an entire country off the map. They call us the Great Satan. And if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons, as well.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden?RYAN: We can’t live with that.BIDEN: War should always be the absolute last resort. That’s why these crippling sanctions, which Bibi Netanyahu says we should continue, which — if I’m not mistaken — Governor Romney says we — we should continue. I may be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong.But the fact of the matter is, he says they’re working. And the fact is that they are being crippled by them. And we’ve made it clear, big nations can’t bluff. This president doesn’t bluff.RADDATZ: Gentlemen, I want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue, the state of our economy. The number-one issue here at home is jobs. The percentage of unemployed just fell below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months. The Obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6 percent now after the addition of close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money.So will both of you level with the American people: Can you get unemployment to under 6 percent and how long will it take?BIDEN: I don’t know how long it will take. We can and we will get it under 6 percent. Let’s look at — let’s take a look at the facts. Let’s look at where we were when we came to office. The economy was in free fall. We had — the great recession hit; 9 million people lost their job; $1.7 — $1.6 trillion in wealth lost in equity in your homes, in retirement accounts for the middle class.We knew we had to act for the middle class. We immediately went out and rescued General Motors. We went ahead and made sure that we cut taxes for the middle class. And in addition to that, when that — when that occurred, what did Romney do? Romney said, “No, let Detroit go bankrupt.” We moved in and helped people refinance their homes. Governor Romney said, “No, let foreclosures hit the bottom.”But it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy who says 47 percent of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. My friend recently in a speech in Washington said “30 percent of the American people are takers.”These people are my mom and dad — the people I grew up with, my neighbors. They pay more effective tax than Governor Romney pays in his federal income tax. They are elderly people who in fact are living off of Social Security. They are veterans and people fighting in Afghanistan right now who are, quote, “not paying any tax.”I’ve had it up to here with this notion that 47 percent — it’s about time they take some responsibility here. And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we’re going to level the playing field; we’re going to give you a fair shot again; we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy.BIDEN: They’re pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. And they’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won’t pass — we won’t continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wealthy.It’s about time they take some responsibility.RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan?RYAN: Joe and I are from similar towns. He’s from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I’m from Janesville, Wisconsin. You know what the unemployment rate in Scranton is today?BIDEN: I sure do.RYAN: It’s 10 percent.BIDEN: Yeah.RYAN: You know what it was the day you guys came in — 8.5 percent.BIDEN: Yeah.RYAN: That’s how it’s going all around America.Look…BIDEN: You don’t read the statistics. That’s not how it’s going. It’s going down.RADDATZ: (inaudible) two-minute answer (inaudible)RYAN: Look, did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we’re going in the wrong direction. Look at where we are. The economy is barely limping along. It’s growing a 1.3 percent. That’s slower than it grew last year and last year was slower than the year before.Job growth in September was slower than it was in August, and August was slower than it was in July. We’re heading in the wrong direction; 23 million Americans are struggling for work today; 15 percent of Americans are living in poverty today. This is not what a real recovery looks like. We need real reforms for real recovery and that’s exactly what Mitt Romney and I are proposing. It’s a five-point plan. Get America energy independent in North America by the end of the decade. Help people who are hurting get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. Get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crisis.Make trade work for America so we can make more things in America and sell them overseas, and champion small businesses. Don’t raise taxes on small businesses because they’re our job creators.RYAN: He talks about Detroit. Mitt Romney’s a car guy. They keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the Mitt Romney I know. This is a guy who I was talking to a family in Northborough, Massachusetts the other day, Sheryl and Mark Nixon. Their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them. Two of them, Rob and Reed, were paralyzed. The Romneys didn’t know them. They went to the same church; they never met before.Mitt asked if he could come over on Christmas. He brought his boys, his wife, and gifts. Later on, he said, “I know you’re struggling, Mark. Don’t worry about their college. I’ll pay for it.”When Mark told me this story, because, you know what, Mitt Romney doesn’t tell these stories. The Nixons told this story. When he told me this story, he said it wasn’t the help, the cash help. It’s that he gave his time, and he has consistently.This is a man who gave 30 percent of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. Mitt Romney’s a good man. He cares about 100 percent of Americans in this country. And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.(LAUGHTER)BIDEN: But I always say what I mean. And so does Romney.RYAN: We want everybody to succeed. We want to get people out of poverty, in the middle class, onto a life of self-sufficiently. We believe in opportunity and upward mobility. That’s what we’re going to push for in a Romney administration.RADDATZ: Vice president? I have a feeling you have a few things to say here.BIDEN: The idea — if you heard that — that little soliloquy on 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then I think you’re — I — I think — I got a bridge to sell you.Look, I don’t doubt his personal generosity. And I understand what it’s like. When I was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife, and my two sons survived. I have sat in the homes of many people who’ve gone through what I get through, because the one thing you can give people solace is to know if they know you’ve been through it, that they can make it. So I don’t doubt his personal commitment to individuals. But you know what? I know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. He just — he said, let it go bankrupt, period. Let it drop out. All this talk — we saved a million jobs. Two hundred thousand people are working today.And I’ve never met two guys who’re more down on America across the board. We’re told everything’s going bad. There are 5.2 million new jobs, private-sector jobs. We need more, but 5.2 million — if they’d get out of the way, if they’d get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the — pass the jobs bill, if they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way.Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility.And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, “Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?” It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that.And now, all of a sudden, these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: Let’s not forget that they came in with one-party control. When Barack Obama was elected, his party controlled everything. They had the ability to do everything of their choosing. And look at where we are right now.They passed the stimulus. The idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on all of these special interest groups, and that it would work out just fine, that unemployment would never get to 8 percent — it went up above 8 percent for 43 months. They said that, right now, if we just passed this stimulus, the economy would grow at 4 percent. It’s growing at 1.3.RADDATZ: When could you get it below 6 percent?RYAN: That’s what our entire premise of our pro-growth plan for a stronger middle class is all about: getting the economy growing at 4 percent, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years.Look at just the $90 billion in stimulus. The vice president was in charge of overseeing this. $90 billion in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups. There are just at the Department of Energy over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched into just how stimulus…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Martha…RADDATZ: Go ahead. Go ahead.BIDEN: Martha, look. His colleague…RYAN: Crony capitalism and corporate welfare.BIDEN: … runs an investigative committee, spent months and months and months going into this.RYAN: This is the — this is the inspector general.BIDEN: Months and months. They found no evidence of cronyism.And I love my friend here. I — I’m not allowed to show letters but go on our website, he sent me two letters saying, “By the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of Wisconsin?” We sent millions of dollars. You know…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: You did ask for stimulus money, correct?BIDEN: Sure he did. By the way…RYAN: On two occasions we — we — we advocated for constituents who were applying for grants. That’s what we do. We do that for all constituents who are…(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: I love that. I love that. This was such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying — writes the Department of Energy a letter saying, “The reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs.” His words. And now he’s sitting here looking at me.And by the way, that program, again, investigated. What the Congress said was it was a model. Less than four-tenths of 1 percent waste or fraud in the program.And all this talk about cronyism. They investigated and investigated, did not find one single piece of evidence. I wish he would just tell — be a little more candid.RYAN: Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland, or on windmills in China?BIDEN: Look…RYAN: Was it a good idea to borrow all this money from countries like China and spend it on all these various different interest groups?BIDEN: Let me tell you what was a good idea. It was a good idea, Moody’s and others said that this was exactly what we needed to stop this from going off the cliff. It set the conditions to be able to grow again. We have, in fact, 4 percent of those green jobs didn’t go under — went under, didn’t work. It’s a better batting average than investment bankers have. They have about a 40 percent…RYAN: Where are the 5 million green jobs that were being…RADDATZ: I want to move on here to Medicare and entitlements. I think we’ve gone over this quite enough.BIDEN: By the way, any letter you send me, I’ll entertain.RYAN: I appreciate that, Joe.(LAUGHTER)RADDATZ: Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process.Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive?Mr. Ryan?RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.Look, when I look at these programs, we’ve all had tragedies in our lives. I think about what they’ve done for my own family. My mom and I had my grandmother move in with us who was facing Alzheimer’s. Medicare was there for here, just like it’s there for my mom right now who is a Florida senior.After my dad died, my mom and I got Social Security survivors benefits, helped me pay for college, it helped her go back to college in her 50s where she started a small business because of the new skills she got. She paid all of her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her.We will honor this promise. And the best way to do it is reform it for my generation.You see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don’t change for people in or near retirement, which is precisely what Mitt Romney and I are proposing.Look what — look what Obamacare does. Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. Even their own chief actuary at Medicare backs this up. He says you can’t spend the same dollar twice. You can’t claim that this money goes to Medicare and Obamacare.RYAN: And then they put this new Obamacare board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors.This board, by the way, it’s 15 people, the president’s supposed to appoint them next year. And not one of them even has to have medical training.And Social Security? If we don’t shore up Social Security, when we run out of the IOUs, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors in the middle of their retirement. We’re going to stop that from happening.They haven’t put a credible solution on the table. He’ll tell you about vouchers. He’ll say all these things to try and scare people. Here’s what we’re saying: give younger people, when they become Medicare eligible, guaranteed coverage options that you can’t be denied, including traditional Medicare. Choose your plan, and then Medicare subsidizes your premiums, not as much for the wealthy people, more coverage for middle-income people, and total out-of-pocket coverage for the poor and the sick.Choice and competition. We would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their Medicare is delivered to them instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, if, when, where they get it.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden, two minutes.BIDEN: You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems every vice presidential debate I hear this kind of stuff about panels.But let’s talk about Medicare. What we did is, we saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to Medicare. We cut the cost of Medicare. We stopped overpaying insurance companies, doctors and hospitals. The AMA supported what we did. AARP endorsed what we did. And it extends the life of Medicare to 2024. They want to wipe this all out.It also gave more benefits. Any senior out there, ask yourself: Do you have more benefits today? You do. If you’re near the donut hole, you have $800 — $600 more to help your prescription drug costs. You get wellness visits without co-pays. They wipe all of this out, and Medicare goes — becomes insolvent in 2016, number one.Number two, “guaranteed benefit”? It’s a voucher. When they first proposed — when the congressman had his first voucher program, the CBO said it would cost $6,400 a year, Martha, more for every senior, 55 and below, when they got there. He knew that, yet he got all the guys in Congress and women in the Republican Party to vote for it. Governor Romney, knowing that, said, I would sign it, were I there.Who you believe, the AMA, me, a guy who’s fought his whole life for this, or somebody who would actually put in motion a plan that knowingly cut — added $6,400 a year more to the cost of Medicare?Now they got a new plan: “Trust me, it’s not going to cost you any more.” Folks, follow your instincts on this one.And with regard to Social Security, we will not — we will not privatize it. If we had listened to Romney, Governor Romney, and the congressman during the Bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market.Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad, and they eliminate the guarantee of Medicare.RYAN: Here’s the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for Obamacare. Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this.BIDEN: That’s not what they said.RYAN: 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.BIDEN: That didn’t happen.RYAN: What we’re saying…BIDEN: More people signed up.RYAN: These are from your own actuaries.BIDEN: More — more — more people signed up for Medicare Advantage after the change.RYAN: What — there’s…BIDEN: Nobody is…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know…BIDEN: No, this is…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.BIDEN: Well, don’t take all the four minutes then.RYAN: Let me just — let me just say this. We are not — we’re saying don’t change benefits for people 55 and above. They already organized their retirement around these promises.(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … programs for those of us.RADDATZ: But let — let me ask you this. What — what is your specific plan for seniors who really can’t afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher?RYAN: Hundred percent coverage…RADDATZ: And what…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: That’s what we’re saying. So we’re saying…RADDATZ: How do you make that up?RYAN: … income adjusts (inaudible) these premium support payments by taking down the subsidies for wealthy people.Look, this is a plan — by the way, that $6,400 number, it was misleading then, it’s totally inaccurate now. This is a plan that’s bipartisan. It’s a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon.BIDEN: There’s not one Democrat who endorses it.RYAN: It’s a plan…BIDEN: Not one Democrat who (inaudible).RYAN: Our partner is a Democrat from Oregon.BIDEN: And he said he does no longer support (inaudible).RYAN: We — we — we put it — we put it together with the former Clinton budget director.BIDEN: Who disavows it.RYAN: This idea — this idea came from the Clinton commission to save Medicare chaired by Senator John Breaux.Here’s the point, Martha.BIDEN: Which was rejected.RYAN: If we don’t — if we don’t fix this problem pretty soon then current seniors get cut. Here’s the problem: 10,000 people are retiring every single day in America today and they will for 20 years. That’s not a political thing, that’s a math thing.BIDEN: Martha, if we just did one thing, if we just — if they just allowed Medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like Medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat.RYAN: And it would deny seniors choices.BIDEN: All — all — all…RYAN: It has a restricted…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Seniors are not denied.RYAN: Absolutely.BIDEN: They are not denied.Look, folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? Have you lost Medicare Advantage.RYAN: Because it’s working well right now.(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Because we’ve changed the law.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden, let me ask you, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years, as Congressman Ryan suggests?BIDEN: Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983. I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O’Neill negotiating with President Reagan. We all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody’s in the deal, everybody’s in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way.We made the system solvent to 2033. We will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating — the voucher says, “Mom, when you’re — when you’re 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. You’re out of Medicare.” You can buy back in if you want with this voucher, which will not keep pace — will not keep pace with health care costs. Because if it did keep pace with health care costs, there would be no savings. That’s why they go the voucher. They — we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of Social Security.RYAN: A voucher is you go to your mailbox, get a check, and buy something. Nobody’s proposing that. Barack Obama four years ago running for president said if you don’t have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from.(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Make a big election about small ideas.RADDATZ: You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security.RYAN: For younger people. What we said then, and what I’ve always agreed is let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system.BIDEN: You saw how well that worked.RYAN: That’s not what Mitt Romney’s proposing. What we’re saying is no changes for anybody 55 and above.BIDEN: What Mitt Romney is proposing…RYAN: And then the kinds of changes we’re talking about for younger people like myself is don’t increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everybody else. Slowly raise the retirement age over time.BIDEN: Martha…RYAN: It wouldn’t get to the age of 70 until the year 2103 according to the actuaries.Now, here’s…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: Quickly, Vice President?BIDEN: Quickly. The bottom line here is that all the studies show that if we went with Social Security proposal made by Mitt Romney, if you’re 40 — in your 40s now you will pay $2,600 a year — you get $2,600 a year less in Social Security. If you’re in your 20s now, you get $4,700 (inaudible) less.The idea of changing, and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you could do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way.These — look, these guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. Their party’s not been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do.Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this — a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 40 — $6,400 a year; knowing it and passing it, and Romney saying he’d sign it, or me and the president?RYAN: That statistic was completely misleading. But more importantly…BIDEN: That’s — there are the facts right…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: This is what politicians do when they don’t have a record to run on: try to scare people from voting for you. If you don’t get ahead of this problem, it’s going to…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Medicare beneficiaries — there are more beneficiaries…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: We’re going to — we’re going to move…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: … very simple question…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: We’re not going to run away. Medicare and Social Security did so much for my own family. We are not going to jeopardize this program, but we have to save it…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: You are jeopardizing this program. You’re changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to premium support. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is people are going to have to pay more money out of their pocket and the families I know and the families I come from, they don’t have the money to pay more out…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: That’s why we’re saying more for lower income people and less for higher income people.RADDATZ: Gentlemen, I would like to move on to a very simple question for both of you, and something tells me I won’t get a very simple answer, but let me ask you this.BIDEN: I gave you a simple answer. He’s raising the cost of Medicare.RADDATZ: OK, on to taxes. If your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes? Who will pay less? And we’re starting with Vice President Biden for two minutes.BIDEN: The middle class will pay less and people making $1 million or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts — we are arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, $800 million — billion of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 million.We see no justification in these economic times for those, and they’re patriotic Americans. They’re not asking for this continued tax cut. They’re not suggesting it, but my friends are insisting on it; 120,000 families by continuing that tax cut will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years and their income is an average of $8 million.We want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for — permanently, from the Bush middle-class tax cut. These guys won’t allow us to. You know what they’re saying? We say “let’s have a vote — let’s have a vote on the middle-class tax cut and let’s have a vote on the upper (ph) tax cut; let’s go ahead and vote on it.”They’re saying no. They’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. And on top of that, they’ve got another tax cut coming that’s $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will in fact give another $250 million — yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year.This is unconscionable. There is no need for this. The middle class got knocked on their heels. The great recession crushed them. They need some help now. The last people who need help are 120,000 families for another — another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years.RADDATZ: Congressman?RYAN: Our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. It’s a plan that’s estimated to create 7 million jobs. Now, we think that government taking 28 percent of a family and business’s income is enough. President Obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8 percent of a small business’s income.RYAN: Look, if you taxed every person and successful business making over $250,000 at 100 percent, it would only run the government for 98 days. If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we’d still have a $300 billion deficit. You see? There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.And so the next time you hear them say, “Don’t worry about it, we’ll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share,” watch out, middle class, the tax bill’s coming to you.That’s why we’re saying we need fundamental tax reform. Let’s take a look at it this way. Eight out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. And where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior, the Canadians, they dropped their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40 percent.Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. This one tax would actually tax about 53 percent of small-business income. It’s expected to cost us 710,000 jobs. And you know what? It doesn’t even pay for 10 percent of their proposed deficit spending increases.What we are saying is, lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes, primarily to the higher-income people. We have three bottom lines: Don’t raise the deficit, don’t raise taxes on the middle class, and don’t lower the share of income that is borne by the high-income earners.He’ll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose. It’s been discredited by six other studies. And even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it wasn’t correct.RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent. You have refused — and, again — to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the…RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the…(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: That would — that would be a first for the Republican Congress.RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you’re doing?RYAN: Look — look at what Mitt Romney — look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that.What we’re saying is, here’s our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation…BIDEN: Can I translate?RYAN: … so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is, here’s the framework…BIDEN: I hope I’m going to get time to respond to this.RADDATZ: You’ll get time.RYAN: We want to work with Congress — we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful. Look…RADDATZ: No specifics, again.RYAN: Mitt — what we’re saying is, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it…RADDATZ: And you guarantee this math will add up?RYAN: Absolutely. Six studies have guaranteed — six studies have verified that this math adds up. But here’s…RADDATZ: Vice President Biden…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Look…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: .. let me translate. Let me have a chance to translate.RYAN: I’ll come back in a second, then, right?BIDEN: First of all, I was there when Ronald Reagan tax breaks — he gave specifics of what he was going to cut, number one, in terms of tax expenditures. Number two, 97 percent of the small businesses in America pay less — make less than $250,000. Let me tell you who some of those other small businesses are: hedge funds that make $600 million, $800 million a year. That’s — that’s what they count as small businesses, because they’re pass- through.Let’s look at how sincere they are. Ronald — I mean, excuse me, Governor Romney on “60 Minutes” — I guess it was about 10 days ago — was asked, “Governor, you pay 14 percent on $20 million. Someone making $50,000 pays more than that. Do you think that’s fair?” He said, “Oh, yes, that’s fair. That’s fair.”This is — and they’re going to talk — you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes? The loophole — the biggest loophole they take advantage of is the carried interest loophole and — and capital gains loophole. They exempt that.BIDEN: Now, there’s not enough — the reason why the AEI study, the American Enterprise Institute study, the Tax Policy Center study, the reason they all say it’s going — taxes go up on the middle class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle-class people, cut the health care deduction, middle-class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. That’s why they arrive at it.RADDATZ: Is he wrong about that?RYAN: He is wrong about that. They’re…BIDEN: How’s that?RYAN: You can — you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers…BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.BIDEN: It has never been done before.RYAN: It’s been done a couple of times, actually.BIDEN: It has never been done before.RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan…BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy?(LAUGHTER)RYAN: Ronald Reagan — Republicans and Democrats…BIDEN: This is amazing.RYAN: Republican and Democrats have worked together on this.BIDEN: That’s right.RYAN: You know, I understand you guys aren’t used to doing bipartisan deals…BIDEN: But we told each other what we’re going to do.RYAN: Republicans and Democrats…BIDEN: When we did it Reagan, we said, here — here are the things we’re going to cut.(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: That’s what we said.RYAN: We said here’s the framework, let’s work together to fill in the details. That’s exactly…BIDEN: Fill in the detail.RYAN: That’s how you get things done. You work with Congress — look, let me say it this way.(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: That’s coming from a Republican Congress working bipartisanly, 7 percent rating? Come on.RYAN: Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, where 87 percent of the legislators he served, which were Democrats. He didn’t demonize them. He didn’t demagogue them. He met with those party leaders every week. He reached across the aisle. He didn’t compromise principles.BIDEN: And you saw what happened.RYAN: He found common ground — and he balanced the budget…BIDEN: You saw — if he did such a great job…RADDATZ: Mr. Vice President…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … four times without raising taxes…BIDEN: Why isn’t he even contesting Massachusetts?(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: Mr. Vice President, what would you suggest — what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy, that would substantially reduce the long-term deficit?BIDEN: Just let the taxes expire like they’re supposed to on those millionaires. We don’t — we can’t afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it, Martha. Those 120,000 families make $8 million a year. Middle-class people need the help. Why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? Why does he go after the childcare…RADDATZ: Can you declare anything off-limits?BIDEN: Why do they do that?RADDATZ: Can you declare anything off-limits?RYAN: Yeah, we’re saying close loopholes…RADDATZ: Home mortgage deduction?RYAN: … on high-interest people.RADDATZ: Home mortgage deduction?RYAN: For higher-income people. Here…BIDEN: Can you guarantee that no one making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage — their mortgage deduction impacted? Guarantee?RYAN: This taxes a million small businesses. He keeps trying to make you think that it’s just some movie star or hedge fund guy or an actor…BIDEN: Ninety-seven percent of the small businesses make less than $250,000 a year, would not be affected.RYAN: Joe, you know it hits a million — this taxes a million people, a million small businesses.BIDEN: Does it tax 97 percent of the American businesses?RYAN: It taxes a million small businesses…BIDEN: Small businesses?RYAN: … who are our greatest job creators.BIDEN: I wish I’d get — the “greatest job creators” are the hedge fund guys.RADDATZ: And you’re — and you’re going to increase the defense budget.RYAN: Think about it this way.RADDATZ: And you’re going to increase the defense budget.RYAN: No, we’re not just going to cut the defense budget like they’re — they’re proposing…BIDEN: They’re going to increase it $2 billion.RYAN: That’s not…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: We’re talking about… RADDATZ: So no massive defense increases?RYAN: No, we’re saying don’t — OK, you want to get into defense now?RADDATZ: Yes, I do. I do, because that’s another math question.RYAN: So — right, OK.RADDATZ: How do you do that?RYAN: So they proposed a $478 billion cut to defense to begin with. Now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that’s lurking on the horizon. They insisted upon that cut being involved in the debt negotiations, and so we have a $1 trillion cut…RADDATZ: Let’s put the automatic defense cuts aside, OK?RYAN: Right, OK.RADDATZ: Let’s put those aside. No one wants that.BIDEN: I’d like to go back to that.RADDATZ: But I want to know how you do the math and have this increase in defense spending?BIDEN: Two trillion dollars.RYAN: You don’t cut defense by a trillion dollars. That’s what we’re talking about.RADDATZ: And what — what national security issues justify an increase?BIDEN: Who’s cutting it by $1 trillion?RYAN: We’re going to cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 Marines, 120 cargo planes. We’re going to push the Joint Strike Fighter out…RADDATZ: Drawing down in one war and one war…RYAN: If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest — the smallest it has been since before World War I.This invites weakness. Look, do we believe in peace through strength? You bet we do. And that means you don’t impose these devastating cuts on our military.So we’re saying don’t cut the military by a trillion dollars. Not increase it by a trillion, don’t cut it by a trillion dollars.RADDATZ: Quickly, Vice President Biden on this. I want to move on.BIDEN: Look, we don’t cut it. And I might add, this so-called — I know we don’t want to use the fancy word “sequester,” this automatic cut — that was part of a debt deal that they asked for.And let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the deal. He said, and I’m paraphrase, We’ve been looking for this moment for a long time.RYAN: Can I tell you what that meant?(CROSSTALK)RYAN: We’ve been looking for bipartisanship for a long time.BIDEN: And so the bipartisanship is what he voted for, the automatic cuts in defense if they didn’t act.And beyond that, they asked for another — look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner Army, we need more special forces, we need — we don’t need more M1 tanks, what we need is more UAVs.RADDATZ: Some of the military.(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Not some of the military. That was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That is a fact.RADDATZ: Who answers to a civilian leader.BIDEN: They made the recommendation first.RADDATZ: OK. Let’s move on to Afghanistan.RYAN: Can I get into that for a second?RADDATZ: I’d like to move on to Afghanistan please. And that’s one of the biggest expenditures this country has made, in dollars, and more importantly in lives.We just passed the sad milestone of losing 2,000 U.S. troops there in this war. More than 50 of them were killed this year by the very Afghan forces we are trying to help.Now, we’ve reached the recruiting goal for Afghan forces, we’ve degraded Al Qaida. So tell me, why not leave now? What more can we really accomplish? Is it worth more American lives?RYAN: We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban does not come back in and give Al Qaida a safe haven.We agree with the administration on their 2014 transition.Look, when I think about Afghanistan, I think about the incredible job that our troops have done. You’ve been there more than the two of us combined. First time I was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing. When I went to the Ahgandah (ph) Valley in Kandahar before the surge, I sat down with a young private in the 82nd from the Monamanee (ph) Indian reservation who would tell me what he did every day, and I was in awe. And to see what they had in front of them.And then to go back there in December, to go throughout Helmand with the Marines, to see what they had accomplished, it’s nothing short of amazing.What we don’t want to do is lose the gains we’ve gotten. Now, we’ve disagreed from time to time on a few issues. We would have more likely taken into accounts the recommendations from our commanders, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, on troop levels throughout this year’s fighting season. We’ve been skeptical about negotiations with the Taliban, especially while they’re shooting at us.But we want to see the 2014 transition be successful, and that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorists.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden?BIDEN: Martha, let’s keep our eye on the ball. The reason — I’ve been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq 20 times. I’ve been up in the Konar (ph) Valley. I’ve been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter, and sometimes in a vehicle.The fact is, we went there for one reason: to get those people who killed Americans, Al Qaida. We’ve decimated Al Qaida central. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. That was our purpose.And, in fact, in the meantime, what we said we would do, we would help train the Afghan military. It’s their responsibility to take over their own security. That’s why with 49 of our allies in Afghanistan, we’ve agreed on a gradual drawdown so we’re out of there by the year 20 — in the year 2014.My friend and the governor say it’s based on conditions, which means it depends. It does not depend for us. It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security. We have trained over 315,000, mostly without incident. There have been more than two dozen cases of green-on-blue where Americans have been killed. If we do not — if the measures the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. We will not train in the field. We’ll only train in the — in the Army bases that exist there.But we are leaving. We are leaving in 2014. Period. And in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We’ve been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now, all we’re doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security.It’s their responsibility, not America’s.RADDATZ: What — what conditions could justify staying, Congressman Ryan?RYAN: We don’t want to stay. We want — look, one of my best friends in Janesville, a reservist, is at a forward-operating base in eastern Afghanistan right now. Our wives are best friends. Our daughters are best friends. I want — I want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible.We want to make sure that 2014 is successful. That’s why we want to make sure that we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. We don’t want to extend beyond 2014. That’s the point we’re making. You know, if it was just this, I’d feel like we would — we would be able to call this a success, but it’s not. What we are witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days is the absolute unraveling of the Obama foreign policy. Problems are growing at home, but — problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren’t growing here at home.RADDATZ: Let me go back to this. He says we’re absolutely leaving in 2014. You’re saying that’s not an absolute, but you won’t talk about what conditions would justify…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Do you know why we say that?BIDEN: I’d like to know…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Because we don’t want to broadcast to our enemies “put a date on your calendar, wait us out, and then come back.” We want to make sure…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: But you agree with the timeline.RYAN: We do agree — we do agree with the timeline and the transition, but what we — what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. What we do not want to do…BIDEN: We will leave in 2014.RYAN: … what we don’t want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more — we don’t want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Martha, that’s a bizarre statement.RYAN: That’s why we want to make sure — no, that’s why we want to make sure that…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Forty-nine of our allies — hear me — 49 of our allies signed on to this position.RYAN: And we’re reading that they want to…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: Forty-nine — 49 of our allies said “out in 2014.” It’s the responsibility of the Afghans. We have other responsibilities… (CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: Do you really think that this timeline…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Which is — which is…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: We have — we have soldiers and Marines. We have Afghan forces murdering our forces over there. The Taliban is, do you think, taking advantage of this timeline?BIDEN: Look, the Taliban — what we’ve found out, and we — you saw it in Iraq, Martha, unless you set a timeline, Baghdad, in the case of Iraq, and — and Kabul, in the case of Afghanistan will not step up. They’re happy to let us continue to do the job; international security forces to do the job.The only way they step up is to say, “Fellas, we’re leaving; we’ve trained you; step up, step up.”RADDATZ: Let me go back.BIDEN: That’s the only way it works.RADDATZ: Let me go back to the — the surge troops that we put in there. And — and you brought this up, Congressman Ryan. I have talked to a lot of troops. I’ve talked to senior offices who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season, and some of them saw that as a political — as a political move. So can you tell me, Vice President Biden, what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home…BIDEN: The military reason…RADDATZ: … before the fighting had ended?BIDEN: … was bringing — by the way, when the president announced the surge, you’ll remember, Martha, he said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. The military said the surge will be out. Nothing political about this.Before the surge occurred — so you be a little straight with me here, too — before the surge occurred, we said they’ll be out by the end of the summer. That’s what the military said. The reason for that is…RADDATZ: The military follows orders. I mean, there — trust me. There are people who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting season.BIDEN: Sure. There are people that are concerned, but not the Joint Chiefs. That was their recommendation in the Oval Office to the president of the United States of America. I sat there. I’m sure you’ll find someone who disagrees with the Pentagon. I’m positive you’ll find that within the military. But that’s not the case here.And, secondly, the reason why the military said that is, you cannot wait and have a cliff. It takes — you know — months and months and months to draw down forces.RYAN: Let me…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: Let me try and illustrate the issue here, because I think this — it can get a little confusing. We’ve all met with General Allen and General Scaparrotti in Afghanistan to talk about fighting seasons.Here’s the way it works. The mountain passes fill in with snow. The Taliban and the terrorists and the Haqqani and the Quetta Shura come over from Pakistan to fight our men and women. When it fills in with snow, they can’t do it. That’s what we call fighting seasons. In the warm months, fighting gets really high. In the winter, it goes down.And so when Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus came to Congress and said, if you pull these people out before the fighting season is end, it puts people more at risk. That’s the problem.Yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month, but the remaining troops that are there, who still have the same mission to prosecute counterinsurgency, are doing it with fewer people. That makes them less safe.BIDEN: Fighting season…RYAN: We’re sending fewer people out in all of these hotspots to do the same job that they were supposed to do a month ago.BIDEN: Because we turned it over…RYAN: But we took 22,000 people out…BIDEN: … we turned it over to the Afghan troops we trained. No one got pulled out that didn’t get filled in by trained Afghan personnel. And he’s — he’s conflating two issues. The fighting season that Petraeus was talking about and former — and Admiral Mullen was the fighting season this spring. That’s what he was talking about. We did not — we did not pull them out.RYAN: The calendar works the same every year.BIDEN: It does work the same every year. But we’re not staying there…RYAN: Spring, summer, fall. It’s warm, or it’s not. They’re still fighting us. They’re still coming over the passes. They’re still coming into Zabul, to Kunar, to all of these areas, but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. And that’s…(CROSSTALK)BIDEN: That’s right, because that’s the Afghan responsibility. We’ve trained them.RYAN: Not in the east.RADDATZ: Let’s move — let’s move to another war.BIDEN: Not in the east?RYAN: R.C. East — R.C. East…BIDEN: R.C. East is the most dangerous place in the world.RYAN: That’s right. That’s why we don’t want to send fewer people to the…BIDEN: That’s — that’s why we should send Americans in to do the job, instead of the — you’d rather Americans be going in doing the job instead of the trainees?RYAN: No. We are already sending Americans to do the job, but fewer of them. That’s the whole problem.BIDEN: That’s right. We’re sending in more Afghans to do the job, Afghans to do the job.RADDATZ: Let’s move to another war, the civil war in Syria, where there are estimates that more — estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. In March of last year, President Obama explained the military action taken in Libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent further massacres from occurring there. So why doesn’t the same logic apply in Syria? Vice President Biden?BIDEN: Different country. It’s a different country. It is five times as large geographically, it has one-fifth the population, that is Libya, one-fifth the population, five times as large geographically.It’s in a part of the world where they’re not going to see whatever would come from that war. It seep into a regional war.You’re in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world. And, in fact, if in fact it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it’s going to have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars.We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes — and he will go — there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an Al Qaida-sponsored government that follows on.And all this loose talk of my friend, Governor Romney, and the congressman, about how we’re going to do, we could do so much more in there, what more would they do other than put American boots on the ground?The last thing America needs is to get in another ground war in the Middle East, requiring tens of thousands, if not well over 100,000 American forces. That — they are the facts. They are the facts.Now, every time the governor is asked about this, he doesn’t say anything. He — he goes up with a whole lot of verbiage, but when he gets pressed he says, no, he would not do anything different than we are doing now.Are they proposing putting American troops on the ground? Putting American aircraft in the airspace? Is that what they’re proposing? If they do, they should speak up and say so, but that’s not what they’re saying.We are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces who, in fact, will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional Sunni-Shia war when Bassad (sic) — when Bashar Assad falls.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: Nobody is proposing to send troops to Syria. American troops.Now, let me say it this way. How would we do things differently? We wouldn’t refer to Bashar Assad as a reformer when he’s killing his own civilians with his Russian-provided weapons. We wouldn’t be outsourcing our foreign policy to the United Nations giving Vladimir Putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. He’s vetoed three of them.Hillary Clinton went to Russia to try and convince them not to do so. They thwarted her efforts. She said they were on the wrong side of history. She was right about that. This is just one more example of how the Russia reset’s not working.And so where are we? After international pressure mounted, the President Obama said Bashar Assad should go. It’s been over a year. The man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people. And more foreign fighters are spilling into this country.So the longer this has gone on, the more people, groups like Al Qaida are going in. We could have more easily identified the free Syrian army, the freedom fighters, working with our allies, the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with working through our allies. But, no, we waited for Kofi Annan to try and come up with an agreement through the U.N. That bought Bashar Assad time.We gave Russia veto power over our efforts through the U.N. And meanwhile about 30,000 Syrians are dead.BIDEN: What would my friend do differently? If you notice, he never answers the question.RYAN: No, I would — I — we would not be going through the U.N. in all of these things.BIDEN: Let me — you don’t go through the U.N. We are in the process now — and have been for months — in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria. That is underway.Our allies were all on the same page, NATO, as well as our Arab allies, in terms of trying to get a settlement. That was their idea. We’re the ones that said, “Enough.” With regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that Russia has a different interest in Syria than we do, and that’s not in our interest.RADDATZ: What happens if Assad does not fall, Congressman Ryan? What happens to the region? What happens if he hangs on? What happens if he does?RYAN: Then Iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. He’s a sponsor of terrorism. He’ll probably continue slaughtering his people. We and the world community will lose our credibility on this. Look, he mentioned the reset…RADDATZ: So what would Romney-Ryan do about that credibility?RYAN: Well, we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons, but not putting American troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. They’re right about that.But what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters, those dissidents in Syria. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer. And…RADDATZ: What’s your criteria…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … we should not have — we should not have waited to Russia…RADDATZ: What’s your criteria…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … should not have waited for Russia to give us the green light at the U.N. to do something about it.BIDEN: Russia…RYAN: They’re — they’re still arming the man. Iran is flying flights over Iraq…BIDEN: And the opposition is being armed.RYAN: … to help Bashar Assad. And, by the way, if we had the status-of-forces agreement that the vice president said he would bet his vice presidency on in Iraq, we probably would have been able to prevent that. But he failed to achieve that, as well, again.RADDATZ: Let me ask you a quick question.BIDEN: I don’t…RADDATZ: What’s your criteria for intervention?BIDEN: Yeah. RYAN: In Syria?RADDATZ: Worldwide.RYAN: What is in the national interests of the American people.RADDATZ: How about humanitarian interests?RYAN: What is in the national security of the American people. It’s got to be in the strategic national interests of our country.RADDATZ: No humanitarian?RYAN: Each situation will — will come up with its own set of circumstances, but putting American troops on the ground? That’s got to be within the national security interests of the American people.RADDATZ: I want to — we’re — we’re almost out of time here.RYAN: That means like embargoes and sanctions and overflights, those are things that don’t put American troops on the ground. But if you’re talking about putting American troops on the ground, only in our national security interests.RADDATZ: I want to move on, and I want to return home for these last few questions. This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country…RYAN: Sure.RADDATZ: … please talk personally about this, if you could.Congressman Ryan?RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.RYAN: Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception.That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.RADDATZ: Vice President Biden?BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the — we differ, my friend says that he — well I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was — there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.RYAN: All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty.BIDEN: You have on the issue…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?RYAN: We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court…RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?BIDEN: There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind; did not come with an agenda.RADDATZ: I’m — I’m going to move on to this closing question because we are running out of time.Certainly (inaudible) and you’ve said it here tonight, that the two of you respect our troops enormously. Your son has served and perhaps someday your children will serve as well.I recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. He told me, quote, “the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country.”What would you say to that American hero about this campaign? And at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone?Vice President Biden?BIDEN: I would say to him the same thing I say to my son who did serve a year in Iraq, that we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. That’s to equip those we send into harm’s way and care for those who come home. That’s the only sacred obligation we have. Everything else falls behind that.I would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country, that that should be honored. He should not be thrown into a category of a 47 percent who don’t pay their taxes while he was out there fighting and not having to pay taxes, and somehow not taking responsibility.I would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and occur in every campaign that I’m sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these — these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves, who say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. It’s — it’s an abomination.But the bottom line here is I’d ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not Governor Romney or President Obama has the conviction to help lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this great recession hit and they got wiped out. Or whether or not he’s going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to make — pay any part of the deal to bring — bring back the middle class and the economy of this country.I’d ask him to take a look at whether the president of the United States has acted wisely in the use of force and whether or not the slipshod comments being made by my — my — or by Governor Romney serve — serve our interests very well.But there are things that have been said in campaigns that I — I find not very appealing.RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: First of all, I’d thank him to his service to our country.Second of all, I’d say we are not going to impose these devastating cuts on our military which compromises their mission and their safety.And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change, who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame.You see, if you don’t have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. That was what President Obama said in 2008. It’s what he’s doing right now.Look at all the string of broken promises. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if Obamacare goes through or the 7-point million — 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it.Or remember when he said this: I guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up. Of the 21 tax increases in Obamacare, 12 of them hit the middle class.Or remember when he said health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family, per year? They’ve gone up $3,000, and they’re expected to go up another $2,400.Or remember when he said, “I promise by the end of my first term I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years”? We’ve had four budgets, four trillion-dollar deficits.A debt crisis is coming. We can’t keep spending and borrowing like this. We can’t keep spending money we don’t have.Leaders run to problem to fix problems. President Obama has not even put a credible plan on the table in any of his four years to deal with this debt crisis. I passed two budgets to deal with this. Mitt Romney’s put ideas on the table.We’ve got to tackle this debt crisis before it tackles us. The president likes to say he has a plan. He gave a speech. We asked his budget office, “Can we see the plan?” They sent us to the press secretary. He gave us a copy of the speech. We asked the Congressional Budget Office, “Tell us what President Obama’s plan is to prevent a debt crisis.” They said, “It’s a speech, we can’t estimate speeches.”You see, that’s what we get in this administration — speeches — but we’re not getting leadership.Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. His lifetime of experience, his proven track record of bipartisanship.And what do we have from the president? He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country’s biggest problems.And what I would tell him is we don’t have to settle for this.BIDEN: Martha?RYAN: We can do better than this.BIDEN: I hope I’ll get equal time.RADDATZ: You will get just a few minutes here. A few seconds, really.BIDEN: The two budgets the congressman introduced have eviscerated all the things that the middle class cares about. It is (inaudible) he will knock 19 million people off of Medicare. It will kick 200,000 children off of early education. It will eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to college. It cuts education by $450 billion.It does — it does virtually nothing except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. And, you know, we’ve had enough of this.The idea that he’s so concerned about these deficits, I’ve pointed out he voted to put two wars on a credit card. He did…RADDATZ: We’re going to — we’re going to the closing statements in a minute.(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: You’re going to have your closing statement.RYAN: Not raising taxes is not cutting taxes. And by the way, our budget…BIDEN: We have not raised…(CROSSTALK)RYAN: … by 3 percent a year instead of 4.5 percent like they propose. Not spending more money as much as they say is not a spending cut.RADDATZ: Let me — let me calm down things here just for a minute. And I want to talk to you very briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. If you are elected, what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could?RYAN: Honesty, no one else could? There are plenty of fine people who could lead this country. But what you need are people who, when they say they’re going to do something, they go do it. What you need are, when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems. We’re not getting that.Look, we can grow this economy faster. That’s what our five- point plan for a stronger middle class is all about. It’s about getting 12 million jobs, higher take-home pay, getting people out of poverty into the middle class. That means going with proven, pro- growth policies that we know works to get people back to work. Putting ideas on the table, working with Democrats — that actually works sometimes — and then…(CROSSTALK)RADDATZ: Vice President, can we get to that — to that issue of what you could bring as a man, a human being? And I really — I’m going to keep you to about 15 seconds here.BIDEN: Well, he gets 40, I get 15, that’s OK.RADDATZ: He didn’t have 40. He didn’t have 40.BIDEN: That’s all right.Let me tell you. I — my — my record stands for itself. I never say anything I don’t mean. Everybody knows, whatever I say, I do. And my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle-class people, giving them an even break, treating Main Street and Wall Street the same, hold them to the same responsibility.Look at my record. It’s been all about the middle class. They’re the people who grow this country. We think you grow this country from the middle out, not from the top down.RADDATZ: OK, we now turn to the candidates for their closing statements. Thank you, gentlemen. And that coin toss, again, has Vice President Biden starting with the closing statement.BIDEN: Well, let — let me say at the outset that I want to thank you, Martha, for doing this, and Centre College. The fact is that we’re in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance. People are in real trouble. We acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now.And — and in the process, we — in case you haven’t noticed, we have strong disagreements, but I — you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the American people. My friend says that 30 percent of the American people are takers. Romney points out 47 percent of the people won’t take responsibility.He’s talking about my mother and father. He’s talking about the places I grew up in, my neighbors in Scranton and Claymont, and he’s talking about — he’s talking about the people that have built this country. All they’re looking for, Martha, all they’re looking for is an even shot. Whenever you give them the shot, they’ve done it. They’ve done it. Whenever you’ve leveled the playing field, they’ve been able to move. And they want a little bit of peace of mind.And the president and I are not going to rest until that playing field is leveled, they, in fact, have a clear shot, and they have peace of mind, until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, “Honey, it’s going to be OK. It’s going to be OK.” That’s what this is all about. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?RYAN: I want to thank you, as well, Martha, Danville, Kentucky, Centre College, and I want to thank you, Joe. It’s been an honor to engage in this critical debate.We face a very big choice. What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids? President Obama, he had his chance. He made his choices. His economic agenda, more spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care. It’s not working. It’s failed to create the jobs we need.Twenty-three million Americans are struggling for work today. Fifteen percent of Americans are in poverty. This is not what a real recovery looks like. You deserve better. Mitt Romney and I want to earn your support. We’re offering real reforms for a real recovery for every American.Mitt Romney — his experience, his ideas, his solutions — is uniquely qualified to get this job done. At a time when we have a jobs crisis in America, wouldn’t it be nice to have a job-creator in the White House?The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles. We will reapply our founding principles.The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you. And we ask you for your vote. Thank you.RADDATZ: And thank you both again. Thank you very much.BIDEN: Thank you.RADDATZ: This concludes the vice presidential debate. Please tune in next Tuesday for the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York. I’m Martha Raddatz of ABC News. I do hope all of you go to the polls. Have a good evening.",
    "id": "768ab31b-956e-49c0-9b54-a40d01808b2d"
  },
  {
    "year": 2020,
    "date": "October 07, 2020",
    "title": "Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 07, 2020 Vice Presidential Debate TranscriptVice Presidential Debate at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, UtahOctober 07, 2020PARTICIPANTS:Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) andVice President Mike Pence (R)MODERATOR:Susan Page (USA Today)PAGE:Good evening. From the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, welcome to the first, and only, vice presidential debate of 2020, sponsored by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m Susan Page of USA TODAY. It is my honor to moderate this debate, an important part of our democracy. In Kingsbury Hall tonight we have a small and socially distant audience and we’ve taken extra precautions during this pandemic. Among other things, everyone in the audience is required to wear a face mask and the candidates will be seated 12 feet apart. The audience is enthusiastic about their candidates, but they’ve agreed to express that enthusiasm, only twice. At the end of the debate and now when I introduce the candidates. Please welcome California Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence.PENCE:Thank you.PAGE:Senator Harris and Vice President Pence thank you for being here. We’re meeting as President Trump and the First Lady continue to undergo treatment in Washington after testing positive for COVID-19. We send our thoughts and prayers to them for their rapid and complete recovery and for the recovery of everyone afflicted by the coronavirus. The two campaigns and the Commission on Presidential Debates have agreed to the ground rules for tonight. I’m here to enforce them on behalf of the millions of Americans who are watching. One note, no one in either campaign, or at the commission or anywhere else has been told in advance what topics I’ll raise or what questions I’ll ask. This ninety-minute debate will be divided into nine segments of about 10 minutes each. I’ll begin a segment by posing a question to each of you, sometimes the same question, sometimes a different question on the same topic. You will then have two minutes to answer, without interruption by me or the other candidate. Then we’ll take six minutes or so to discuss the issue. At that point, although there will always be more to say, we’ll move on to the next topic. We want a debate that is lively, but Americans also deserve a discussion that is civil. These are tumultuous times, but we can and will have a respectful exchange about the big issues facing our nation. Let’s begin with the ongoing pandemic that has cost our country so much. Senator Harris, the coronavirus is not under control. Over the past week, Johns Hopkins reports that 39 states have had more COVID cases over the past seven days than in the week before. Nine states have set new records. Even if a vaccine is released soon, the next administration will face hard choices. What would a Biden administration do in January and February that a Trump administration wouldn’t do? Would you impose new lockdowns for businesses and schools in hotspots? A federal mandate to wear masks? You have two minutes to respond, without interruption.HARRIS:Thank you Susan. Well, the American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country. And here are the facts. 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months. Over 7 million people who have contracted this disease. One in five businesses closed. We’re looking at frontline workers who have been treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at over 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment. And here’s the thing, on January 28, the vice president and the president were informed about the nature of this pandemic. They were informed that it’s lethal in consequence, that it is airborne, that it will affect young people and that it would be contracted because it is airborne. And they knew what was happening, and they didn’t tell you. Can you imagine if you knew on January 28, as opposed to March 13, what they knew what you might have done to prepare? They knew and they covered it up. The president said it was a hoax. They minimized the seriousness of it. The president said you’re on one side of his ledger if you wear a mask, you’re on the other side of his ledger if you don’t. And in spite of all of that, today they still don’t have a plan. They still don’t have a plan. Well, Joe Biden does. And our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of the vaccine and making sure that it will be free for all. That is the plan that Joe Biden has and that I have, knowing that we have to get a hold of what has been going on and we need to save our country. And Joe Biden is the best leader to do that and frankly, this administration has forfeited their right to reelection, based on this.PAGE:Thank you- Thank you, Senator Harris. Thank you, Senator Harris. Vice President Pence, more than 210,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 since February. The US death toll as a percentage of our population is higher than that of almost every other wealthy nation on Earth. For instance, our death rate is two and a half times that of Canada, next door. You head the administration’s Coronavirus Task Force. Why is the U.S. death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country? And you have two minutes to respond, without interruption.PENCE:Susan thank you. And I want to thank the Commission and the University of Utah for hosting this event. And Senator Harris, it’s a privilege to be on the stage with you. Our nation has gone through a very challenging time this year. But I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first. Before there were more than five cases in the United States, all people who had returned from China, President Donald Trump did what no other American president had ever done. And that was he suspended all travel from China, the second largest economy in the world. Now, Senator, Joe Biden opposed that decision. He said it was xenophobic and hysterical, but I can tell you, having led the White House Coronavirus Task Force, that that decision alone by President Trump bought us invaluable time to stand up the greatest national mobilization since World War II. And I believe it’s saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Because with that time we were able to reinvent testing. More than 115 million tests have been done to date. We were able to see to the delivery of billions of supplies so our doctors and nurses had the resources and support they needed. And we began, really before the month of February it was hard to develop a vaccine and to develop medicines and therapeutics that’ve been saving lives all along the way. And under President Trump’s leadership, Operation Warp Speed, we believe, will have literally tens of millions of doses of a vaccine before the end of this year. The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it reads an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way. And quite frankly, when I look at their plan that talks about advancing testing, creating new PPE, developing a vaccine, umm, it looks a little bit like plagiarism, which is something Joe Biden knows a little bit about. I think the American people know that this is a president who has put the health of America first and the American people, I believe with my heart, can be proud of the sacrifices they have made. It’s saved countless American lives.PAGE:Thank you, Vice Pres- Thank you Vice President Pence- Thank you, Vice President Pence. Senator Harris, would you like to respond?HARRIS:Oh, absolutely. Whatever the Vice President’s claiming the administration has done, clearly it hasn’t worked when you’re looking at over 210,000 dead bodies in our country, American lives that have been lost, families that are grieving that loss. And you know, the vice president is the head of the task force and knew, on January 28, how serious this was. And then, big thanks to Bob Woodward, we learned that they knew about it. And then when that was exposed, the vice president said when asked ‘Well, why didn’t y’all tell anybody?’, he said ‘Because the president wanted people to remain calm’.PAGE:Well, let’s go –HARRIS:No, I – Susan, I – This is important –PENCE:Susan, I have to weigh in here –HARRIS:Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking.PENCE:I have to weigh in –HARRIS:I’m speaking. I wanna –PAGE:You have 15 more seconds and then we’ll give the vice president a chance to respond.HARRIS:Thank you. So I want to ask the American people, how calm were you when you were panicked about where you’re going to get your next roll of toilet paper? How calm were you when your kids were sent home from school and you didn’t know when they could go back?PAGE:Thank you. Thank you, Senator Harris –HARRIS:How calm were you when your children couldn’t see your parents because you were afraid they could kill them?PAGE:Let’s give Vice President Pence a chance to respond. Vice President Pence, you have one minute to respond.PENCE:You know there’s not a day gone by that I haven’t thought of every American family that’s lost a loved one. And I want all of you to know that you’ll always be in our hearts and in our prayers. But when you say what the American people have done over these last eight months hasn’t worked, that’s a great disservice to the sacrifices the American people have made.HARRIS:I’m referring to your president.PENCE:The reality – If I may, if I may finish, Senator. The reality is Dr. Fauci said everything that he told the President in the Oval Office, the President told the American people. Now President Trump I will tell you has boundless confidence in the American people and he always spoke with confidence that we’d get through this together. But when you say it hasn’t worked – when Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birks and our medical experts came to us in the second week of March, they said if the President didn’t take the unprecedented step of shutting down roughly half of the American economy that we could lose 2.2 million Americans. That’s the reality.PAGE:Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:They also said to us if we did everything right, Susan, we could still lose more than 200,000 Americans.PAGE:Vice President Pence –PENCE:Now, one life lost is too many, Susan.PAGE:Thank you –PENCE:But the American people, I believe, deserve credit for the sacrifices that they have made, putting the health of their family and their neighbors first, our doctors, our nurses, our first responders –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– and I’m going to speak up on behalf of what the American people have done.PAGE:Vice President Pence, you were in the front row at a Rose Garden event 11 days ago, at what seems to have been a super-spreader event for senior administration and congressional officials. No social distancing, few masks, and now a cluster of coronavirus cases among those who were there. How can you expect Americans to follow the administration safety guidelines to protect themselves from COVID when you at the White House have not been doing so?PENCE:Well, the American people have demonstrated over the last eight months that when given the facts they’re willing to put the health of their families, and their neighbors and people they don’t even know first. President Trump and I have great confidence in the American people and their ability to take that information and put it into practice. In the height of the epidemic, when we were losing a heartbreaking number of 2,500 Americans a day, we surged resources to New Jersey, and New York, and New Orleans and Detroit. We told the American people what needed to be done and the American people made the sacrifices. When the outbreak in the Sunbelt happened this summer, again, Americans stepped forward. But the reality is the work of the President of the United States goes on. A vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States has come upon us and the president introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett –PAGE:Yes, thank you- Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:At that- If I may say, that Rose Garden event, there’s been a great deal of speculation about it. My wife Karen and I were there and honored to be there. Many of the people who were at that event, Susan, actually were tested for coronavirus. And it was an outdoor event, which all of our scientists regularly and routinely advise, the difference here is President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interest of their health. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris consistently talk about mandates, and not not just mandates with the coronavirus but a government takeover of healthcare, the Green New Deal –PAGE:Thank you- Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– all government control. We’re about freedom and respecting the freedom of the American people.HARRIS:Let’s talk about respecting the American people. You respect the American people when you tell them the truth. You respect the American people when you have the courage to be a leader –PENCE:Which we’ve always done –HARRIS:– speaking of those things that you may not want people to hear but they need to hear so they can protect themselves. But this administration stood on information that if you had as a parent, if you had as a worker knowing you didn’t have enough money saved up, and now you’re standing in a food line because of the ineptitude of an administration that was unwilling to speak the truth to the American people. So let’s talk about caring about the American people. The American people who have had to sacrifice far too much because of the incompetence of this administration. It is asking too much of the people –PENCE:Susan, we talked about the American people –PAGE:Vice President Pence –HARRIS:– It is asking too much of the people that they would not be equipped with the information they need to help themselves to protect their parents and their children.PENCE:Susan, the president –PAGE:No, I’m sorry. Kamala Harris – Senator Harris, I mean. I’m sorry.HARRIS:It’s fine. I’m Kamala.PAGE:No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated, but half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it and would you take it?HARRIS:If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.PAGE:Vice President Pence, there have been a lot of repercussions from this pandemic. In recent days, the president’s diagnosis of COVID-19 has underscored the importance of the job that you hold, and that you are seeking. That’s our second topic tonight, it’s the role of the vice president. One of you will make history on January 20, you will be the vice president to the oldest president the United States has ever had. Donald Trump will be 74-years-old on Inauguration Day. Joe Biden will be 78-years-old. That already has raised concerns among some voters, concerns that have been sharpened by President Trump’s hospitalization in recent days. Vice President Pence, have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should? You have two minutes without interruption.PENCE:Well, Susan, thank you. Although I would like to go back –PAGE:I think we need to move on to the issue of the vice presidency –PENCE:Well, thank you but, I would like to go back. Because the reality is that we’re going to have a vaccine, Senator, in record time, in unheard of time, in less than a year. We have five companies in phase three clinical trials. And we’re right now producing tens of millions of doses. So, the fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine if the vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think is unconscionable. And Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is that we will have a vaccine, we believe, before the end of this year, and it will have the capacity to save countless American lives. And your continuous undermining of confidence in a vaccine is just, it’s just unacceptable. And let me also say, you know the reality is when you talk about, about failure in this administration, we actually do know what failure looks like in a pandemic. It was 2009. The Swine Flu arrived in the United States. Thankfully, it was, ended up not being as lethal as the coronavirus. But before the end of the year, when Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, not seven and a half million people contracted the swine flu, 60 million Americans contracted the swine flu. If the swine flu had been as lethal as the coronavirus in 2009 when Joe Biden was vice president, we would have lost 2 million American lives. His own Chief of Staff Ron Klain would say last year that it was pure luck. That they did “everything possible wrong”. And we learned from that. They left the Strategic National Stockpile empty. They left an empty and hollow plan, but we still learned from it. And I think –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence – Vice President Pence, your time is up –PENCE:– the American people, I’m gonna say again, can be proud of what we have done–PAGE:Vice President Pence, I’m sorry. Your time is up– Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– and, Senator, please stop undermining confidence in a vaccine.PAGE:Senator Harris, let me ask you the same question that I asked Vice President Pence, which is have you had a conversation, or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden, about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.HARRIS:So let me tell you first of all, on the day I got the call from Joe Biden, it was actually a Zoom call, asking me to serve with him on this ticket was probably one of the most memorable, memorable days of my life. I, you know, I thought about my mother, who came to the United States at the age of 19, gave birth to me at the age of 25 at Kaiser Hospital in Oakland, California. And the thought that I’d be sitting here right now I know would make her proud and she must be looking down on this. You know Joe and I were raised in a very similar way. We were raised with values that are about hard work, about the value and the dignity of public service and about the importance of fighting for the dignity of all people. And I think Joe asked me to serve with him because I have a career that included being elected the first woman District Attorney of San Francisco, where I created models of innovation for law enforcement, in terms of reform of the criminal justice system. I was elected the first woman of color, and black woman, to be elected Attorney General of the state of California, where I ran the second largest Department of Justice in the United States, second only to the United States Department of Justice. There I took on everything from transnational criminal organizations, to the big banks that were taking advantage of homeowners, to for profit colleges that were taking advantage of veterans. And then, of course, now I serve in the United States Senate as only the second black woman ever elected to the United States Senate. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee where I’ve been in regular receipt of classified information about threats to our nation and hotspots around the world. I’ve traveled the world. I’ve met with our soldiers in our, in war zones. And I think Joe has asked me to serve with him because he knows that we share, we share a purpose, which is about lifting up the American people. And after the four years that we have seen of Donald Trump, unifying our country around our common values and principles.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris. You know neither, neither President Trump nor Vice President Biden has released the sort of detailed health information that had become the modern norm until the 2016 election. And in recent days, President Trump’s doctors have given misleading answers or refused to answer basic questions about his health. And my question to each of you, in turn, is, is this information voters deserve to know? Vice President Pence, would you like to go first?PENCE:Well, Susan, thank you. And let me, let me say on behalf of the President and the First Lady, how moved we’ve all been by the outpouring of prayers and concern for the President. And I do believe it’s emblematic of the prayers and the concern that have ushered forth for every American impacted by the coronavirus. But the care the president received at Walter Reed Hospital, White House doctors, was exceptional. And the transparency that they practiced all along the way will continue because the American people have a right to know about the health and well-being of their President. And we’ll continue to do that. But I’m just extremely grateful and was more than, more than a little moved by the broad and bipartisan support. And, Senator, I want to thank you and Joe Biden for your expressions and genuine concern. And I also want to congratulate you, as I did on that phone call, on the historic nature of your nomination.HARRIS:Thank you.PENCE:I never expected to be on this stage four years ago so I know the feeling. But the reality is, we’ve got an election before the American people, in the midst of this challenging year, and the stakes have never been higher.PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President Pence. I wanna give Senator Harris a chance to respond to the same question I asked, which is do voters have a right to know more detailed health information about presidential candidates, and especially about presidents, especially when they’re facing some kind of challenge?HARRIS:Absolutely. And that’s why Joe Biden has been so incredibly transparent. And certainly, by contrast, the President has not, both in terms of health records, but also let’s look at taxes. We now know because of great investigative journalism that Donald Trump paid $750 in taxes. When I first heard about it, I literally said “You mean $750,000?”. And it was like no, $750. We now know Donald Trump owes and is in debt for $400 million. And just so everyone is clear, when we say in debt it means you owe money to somebody. And it’d be really good to know who the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, owes money to because the American people have a right to know what is influencing the president’s decisions. And is he making those decisions on the best interest of the American people, of you, or self interest. So, Susan, I’m glad you asked about transparency, because it has to be across the board. Joe has been incredibly transparent over many, many years. The one thing we all know about Joe, he puts it all out there. He, he is honest. He is forthright. But Donald Trump on the other hand, has been about covering up everything.PENCE:Susan –PENCE:Thank – Thanks – Thank you, Senator Harris. I want to give you a chance to respond, Vice President.PENCE:Well, look, I respect the fact that Joe Biden spent 47 years in public life. I respect your public service as well.HARRIS:Thank you.PENCE:But the American people have a president who is a businessman, he’s a job-creator. He’s paid tens of millions of dollars in taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes. He’s created tens of thousands of American jobs. The president said those public reports are not accurate. And the President also released, literally, stacks of financial disclosures the American people can review just as the law allows. But the distinction here is that Joe Biden, 47 years in public service, compared to President Donald Trump, who brought all of that experience four years ago–PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President –PENCE:– and turned this economy around by cutting taxes, rolling back regulation, unleashing American energy-PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– fighting for free and fair trade, and all of that is on the line –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in the White House.PAGE:You know, that’s a good segue into our third topic–HARRIS:That’s a great segue.PAGE:– which is about the economy. This has been another aspect of life for Americans that’s been so affected by this coronavirus. We have a jobs crisis brewing. On Friday, we learned that the unemployment rate had declined to 7.9% in September, but the job growth had stalled, and that was before the latest round of layoffs and furloughs in the airline industry, at Disney and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of discouraged workers have stopped looking for work. Nearly 11 million jobs that existed at the beginning of the year, haven’t been replaced. Those hardest hit include Latinos, blacks and women. Senator Harris, the Biden-Harris campaign has proposed new programs to boost the economy and you would pay for that new spending by raising $4 trillion in taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Some economists warn that could curb entrepreneurial ventures that fuel growth and create jobs. Would raising taxes put the recovery at risk? And you have two minutes to answer, uninterrupted.HARRIS:Thank you. On the issue of the economy, I think there couldn’t be a more fundamental difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Joe Biden believes you measure the health and the strength of America’s economy based on the health, and the strength of the American worker and the American family. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing. Which is why he passed a tax bill benefitting the top 1% and the biggest corporations of America, leading to a $2 trillion deficit that the American people are gonna have to pay for. On day one, Joe Biden will repeal that tax bill. He’ll get rid of it. And what he’ll do with the money is invest it in the American people. And through a plan that is about investing in infrastructure, something that Donald Trump said he would do. I remember hearing about some infrastructure week, I don’t think it ever happened. But Joe Biden will do that. He’ll invest in infrastructure. It’s about upgrading our roads and bridges, but also investing in clean energy and renewable energy. Joe is gonna invest that money in what we need to do around innovation. There was a time when our country believed in science and invested in research and development so that we were an innovation leader on the globe. Joe Biden will use that money to invest in education. So for example, for folks who want to go to a two year Community College, it will be free. If you come from a family that makes less than $125,000, you’ll go to a public university for free. And across the board, we’ll make sure that if you have student loan debt it’s cut by $10,000. That’s how Joe Biden thinks about the economy, which is it’s about investing in the people of our country, as opposed to passing a tax bill, which had the benefit of letting American corporations go offshore to do their business.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris.HARRIS:You’re welcome.PAGE:Vice President Pence, your administration has been predicting a rapid and robust recovery, but the latest economic report suggests that’s not happening. Should Americans be braced for an economic comeback that is going to take not months, but a year or more? You have two minutes to answer, uninterrupted.PENCE:When President Trump and I took office, America had gone through the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. When Joe Biden was vice president they tried to tax, and spend, and regulate, and bail our way back to a growing economy. President Trump cut taxes, across the board. Despite what Senator Harris says, the average American family of four had $2,000 in savings in taxes. And with the rise in wages that occurred, most predominantly for blue-collar, hardworking Americans, the average household income for a family of four increased by $4,000 following President Trump’s tax cuts. But America, you just heard Senator Harris tell you, on day one Joe Biden’s gonna raise your taxes. It’s really remarkable to think, Susan –HARRIS:That’s not what I said.PENCE:– I mean, right after a time where we’re going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we’ve already added back 11.6 million jobs because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation, unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade, and secured $4 trillion from the Congress of the United States to give direct payments to families, saved 50 million jobs through the paycheck protection program. We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes. They want to bury our economy under a $2 trillion Green New Deal, which you were one of the original co-sponsors of in the United States Senate. They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking, which would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs all across the Heartland. And Joe Biden wants to go back to the economic surrender to China that when we took office, half of our international trade deficit was with China alone. And Joe Biden wants to repeal all of the tariffs that President Trump put into effect to fight for American jobs and American workers. Joe Biden says democracy’s on the ballot. Make no mistake about it, Susan. The American economy, the American comeback is on the ballot with four more years of growth and opportunity –PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– with four more years of President Donald Trump. 2021 is gonna be the biggest economic year in the history of this country.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence – Thank you, Vice President Pence. Senator Harris?HARRIS:Well, I mean, I thought we saw enough of it in last week’s debate, but I think this is supposed to be a debate based on fact and truth. And the truth and the fact is, Joe Biden has been very clear. He will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year –PENCE:He said he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts –HARRIS:Mr. Vice President I’m speaking.PENCE:Well –HARRIS:I’m speaking.PENCE:– it’d be important if you said the truth. Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts. That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 in a tax break every single year –HARRIS:That is – That is absolutely not true –PENCE:– Senator, that’s the math –HARRIS:– that tax bill –PENCE:Is he only gonna repeal part of the Trump tax cuts?HARRIS:If you don’t mind letting me finish –PENCE:PleaseHARRIS:We can then have a conversation. Okay?PENCE:PleaseHARRIS:Okay. Joe Biden will not raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year. He has been very clear about that. Joe Biden will not end fracking. He has been very clear about that. Joe Biden is the one who during the Great Recession was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back. And now the Trump Pence Administration wants to take credit when they ran when they rode the coattails of Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term. Of course now the economy is a complete disaster, but Joe Biden on the one hand, did that. On the other hand you have Donald Trump, who has reigned over a recession that is being compared to the Great Depression. On the one hand you have Joe Biden, who was responsible with President Barack Obama for the Affordable Care Act, which brought health care to over 20 million Americans and protected people with pre-existing conditions and what it also did is it saved those families, who otherwise were going bankrupt because of hospital bills they could not afford. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump who is in court right now trying to get rid of –PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris –HARRIS:– trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which means that you will lose protections, if you have pre-existing conditions. And I just, this is very important, Susan –PAGE:Yes, well we need to give – We need to give Vice President –HARRIS:– and it’s just – He interrupted me and I’d like to just finish, please. If you have a pre-existing condition, heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, they’re coming for you. If you love someone who has a pre-existing condition –PENCE:NonsensePAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Senator Harris –PENCE:That’s nonsenseHARRIS:– they’re coming for you. If you are under the age of 26 on your parents coverage, they’re coming for you.PAGE:Senator Harris, thank you.HARRIS:You’re welcome.PAGE:Let me give you a chance to respond.PENCE:Well I hope we have a chance to talk about health care because Obamacare was a disaster and the American people remember it well. President Trump and I have a plan to improve health care and to protect, protect pre-existing conditions for every American. But look, Senator Harris, you’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts –HARRIS:That’s a good line.PENCE:You yourself said on multiple occasions when you were running for president that you would ban fracking. Joe Biden looked his supporter in the eye and pointed and said “I guarantee, I guarantee that we will abolish fossil fuels.” We have a $2 trillion version of the Green New Deal, Susan, that your newspaper USA TODAY said really wasn’t that very different from the original Green New Deal. More taxes, more regulation, banning fracking, abolishing fossil fuel, crushing American energy and economic surrender to China is a prescription for economic decline. President Trump and I will keep America growing. The V-shape recovery that’s underway right now will continue with four more years of President Donald Trump in the White House.PAGE:Thank you very, very much, Vice President Pence. Once again you provided the perfect segue to a new topic, which is climate change. And Vice President Pence, I’d like to pose the first question to you. This year we’ve seen record-setting hurricanes in the south. Another one, Hurricane Delta is now threatening the gulf. And we have seen record-setting wildfires in the West. Do you believe, as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter and more deadly? And it made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.PENCE:Thank you Susan. Well first, I’m very proud of our record on the environment and on conservation. According to all of the best estimates, our, our air and land are cleaner than any time ever recorded. And our water is among the cleanest in the world. And just a little while ago, the president signed the Outdoors Act, the largest investment in our public lands and public parks in 100 years. So, President Trump has made a commitment to conservation and to the environment. Now with regard to climate change, the climate is changing. But the issue is, what’s the cause and what do we do about it. President Trump has made it clear that we’re going to continue to listen to the science. Now Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, would put us back in the Paris Climate Accord. They’d impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American energy, would increase the energy cost of American families in their homes and literally would crush American jobs. President Trump and I believe that the progress that we have made in a cleaner environment has been happening precisely because we have a strong free market economy. You know what’s remarkable is the United States has reduced CO2 more than the countries that are still in the Paris Climate Accord, but we’ve done it through innovation. And we’ve done it through natural gas and fracking, which, Senator, the American people can go look at the record. I know Joe Biden says otherwise now, as you do, but the both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and banning fracking.HARRIS:That’s not true.PENCE:And so by creating the kind of American innovation, we’re actually steering toward a stronger and better environment. With regard to wildfires, President Trump and I believe that forest management has to be front and center, and even Governor Gavin Newsome from your state has agreed we’ve got to work on forest management. And with regard to hurricanes, the National Oceanic Administration tells us that actually as, as difficult as they are –PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President –PENCE:– there are no more hurricanes today than there were 100 years ago –PAGE:Thank you – Thank you –PENCE:– but many of the climate alarmists use hurricanes and wildfires to try and –PAGE:Vice President Pence, I’m sorry, your time is up – Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– sell the bill of goods of a Green New Deal. And President Trump and I are gonna always put American jobs and American workers first.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence. Senator Harris, as the Vice President mentioned, you co-sponsored the Green New Deal in Congress, but Vice President Biden said in last week’s debate that he does not support the Green New Deal. But if you look at the Biden Harris campaign website it describes the Green New Deal as a crucial framework. What exactly would be the stance of a Biden Harris Administration toward the Green New Deal? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.HARRIS:Alright, so first of all, I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs, which is why he will not increase taxes for anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year. Joe Biden’s economic plan – Moody’s, which is a reputable Wall Street firm – has said will create 7 million more jobs than Donald Trump’s. And part of those jobs, that will be created by Joe Biden, are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy. Because you see, Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California. Joe sees what is happening on the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods. And so Joe believes, again, in science. I’ll tell you something, Susan, I served, when I first got to the Senate, on the committee that’s responsible for the environment. Do you know this administration took the word science off the website? And then took the phrase climate change off the website? This– We have seen a pattern with this administration which is they don’t believe in science. And Joe’s plan is about saying we’re going to deal with it, but we’re also going to create jobs. Donald Trump, when asked about the wildfires in California and the question was, you know, the science is telling us this, you know what Donald Trump said? Science doesn’t know. So, let’s talk about who is prepared to lead our country over the course of the next four years on what is an existential threat to us as human beings. Joe is about saying we’re going to invest that in renewable energy, we’re going to be about the creation of millions of jobs, we will achieve net zero emissions by 2050, carbon neutral by 2035– Joe has a plan. This has been a lot of talk from the Trump administration, and really it has been to go backward instead of forward. We will also reenter the climate agreement with pride.PAGE:Senator Harris just said that climate change is an existential threat. Vice President Pence, do you believe that climate change poses an existential threat?PENCE:As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science, but, once again, Senator Harris is denying the fact that they’re gonna raise taxes on every American. Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that on day one he was going to repeal the Trump tax cuts. Those tax cuts delivered $2,000 in tax relief to the average family of four across America. And with regard to banning fracking, I just recommend that people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly that you would ban fracking. You were the first senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal. And while Joe Biden denied the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out, the Green New Deal is on their campaign website. And as USA TODAY said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC when she submitted it in the Senate. And you just heard the senator say that she’s going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. Look, the American people have always cherished our environment. We will continue to cherish it. We’ve made great progress reducing CO2 emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking. We don’t need a massive, $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families, Joe Biden wants us to retrofit 4 million–PAGE:Thank you – Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– American business buildings. It makes no sense. It will cost jobs. President Trump –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– he’s gonna put America first. He’s going to put jobs first and we’re gonna take care of our environment and follow the science.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –HARRIS:On the issue of jobs –PAGE:Senator HarrisHARRIS:Let’s talk about that. You, the Vice President earlier referred to, as part of what he thinks is an accomplishment, the President’s trade war with China. You lost that trade war. You lost it. What ended up happening is, because of a so-called trade war with China, America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Farmers have experienced bankruptcy, because of it. We are in a manufacturing recession, because of it. And when we look at where this administration has been, there are estimates that by the end of the term of this administration, they will have lost more jobs than almost any other presidential administration –PENCE:Susan –HARRIS:– And the American people know what I’m talking about. You know. I think about 20-year-olds, you know we have a 20-year-old, 20-something-year-old, who are coming out of high school and college right now and you’re wondering, “Is there going to be a job there for me?”. We’re looking at people who are trying to figure out how they’re going to pay rent by the end of the month. Almost half of American renters are worried about whether they’re going to be able to pay rent by the end of the month. This is where the economy is in America right now and it is because of the catastrophe and the failure of leadership of this administration.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris. Vice President Pence, let me give you just 15 seconds to respond because then I want to move on.PENCE:Well, I’d love to respond. Look, lost the trade war with China? Joe Biden never fought it. Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for Communist China through over the last several decades. And, and again, Senator Harris, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts. When Joe Biden was vice president, we lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs and President Obama said they were never coming back. He said we needed a magic wand to bring them back. In our first three years, after we cut taxes, rolled back regulation –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– unleashed American energy, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– And that’s exactly the kind of growth we’re going to continue to see as we bring our nation through this pandemic –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence – Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:– your Green New Deal, your massive new mandates, your Paris Climate Accord, it’s gonna kill jobs this time just like it killed jobs in the last administration.HARRIS:Susan, I just need to respond very briefly, please.PAGE:15 seconds and then we’ll move on.HARRIS:Thank you. Thank you. Joe Biden is responsible for saving America’s auto industry and you voted against it. So let’s set the record straight. Thank you.PAGE:I’d like to talk about China. We have, as our next topic, we have no more complicated or consequential foreign relationship than the one with China. It is a huge market for American agricultural goods. It’s a potential partner in dealing with climate change and North Korea. And in a video tonight, President Trump again blamed it for the coronavirus, saying “China will pay.” Vice President Pence, how would you describe our, our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies? You have two minutes.PENCE:Thank you Susan. Well let me, before I leave that, let me, let me speak to voting records, if I can. You know, everybody knows that NAFTA caused literally thousands of American factories to close. We saw automotive jobs go south of the border. President Trump fought to renegotiate NAFTA, and the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement is now the law of the land. American people deserve to know Senator Kamala Harris was one of only 10 members of the Senate to vote against the USMCA. It was a huge win for American auto workers. It was a huge win for American farmers, especially dairy in the upper Midwest. But, Senator, you said it didn’t go far enough on climate change, that you put your, your radical environmental agenda ahead of American auto workers and ahead of American jobs. I think the American people deserve to know that. It’s probably why Newsweek magazine said that, that Kamala Harris was the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2019, more liberal than Bernie Sanders, more, more liberal than any of the others in the United States Senate. So, now with regard to China, Susan, first and foremost — China is to blame for the coronavirus. And President Trump is not happy about it. He’s made that very clear. He made it clear again today. China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people. They did not let our personnel into China to get information on the coronavirus until the middle of February. Fortunately, President Trump, in dealing with China from the outset of this administration — standing up to China, that had been taking advantage of America for decades — in the wake of Joe Biden’s cheerleading for China, President Trump made that decision before the end of January to suspend all travel from China. And again, the American people deserve to know, Joe Biden opposed President Trump’s decision to suspend all travel from China. He said it was hysterical, he said it was xenophobic –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence – Vice President Pence, your time is up –PENCE:– but President Trump has stood up to China and will continue to stand strong.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President Pence –PENCE:We want to improve the relationship, but we’re going to level the playing field and we’re going to hold China accountable for what they did to America with the coronavirus.PAGE:Thank you. Senator Harris, let me ask you the same question that I asked the Vice President. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Are we competitors, adversaries, enemies? You’ll have two minutes, uninterrupted.HARRIS:Susan, the Trump administration’s perspective, and approach to China has resulted in the loss of American lives, American jobs and America’s standing. There is a weird obsession that President Trump has had with getting rid of whatever accomplishment was achieved by President Obama and Vice President Biden. For example, they created, within the White House, an office that basically was responsible for monitoring pandemics. They got away, they got rid of it.PENCE:Not true.HARRIS:There was a team of disease experts that President Obama and Vice President Biden dispatched to China to monitor what is now predictable and what might happen. They pulled them out. We now are looking at 210,000 Americans who have lost their lives. Let’s look at the job situation we mentioned before, the trade deal – the trade war, they wanted to call it – with China. It resulted in the loss of over 300 manufacturing jobs, and a manufacturing recession, and the American consumer paying thousands of dollars more for goods, because of that failed war, that they called it. And let’s talk about standing. Pew, a reputable research firm, has done an analysis that shows that leaders of all of our formerly allied countries have now decided that they hold in greater esteem and respect Xi Jinping, the head of the Chinese Communist Party, than they do Donald Trump, the President of the United States, the commander in chief of the United States. This is where we are today, because of a failure of leadership by this administration.PAGE:Senator Harris, we’ve seen changes in the role of the United States, in terms of global leadership, over the past four years – and of course times do change. What’s your definition – we’ve seen strains with China, of course, as the Vice President mentioned, we’ve seen strains with our traditional allies in NATO and elsewhere. What is your definition of the role of American leadership in 2020?HARRIS:So, you know Joe is – I love talking with Joe about a lot of these issues, and you know, Joe, I think, he said it, quite well. He says, you know, ‘Foreign policy: it might sound complicated, but really it’s relationships, they’re – just think about it as relationships. And so we know this, in our personal, professional relationships – you gotta keep your word to your friends. Got to be loyal to your friends. People who have stood with you, got to stand with them. You got to know who your adversaries are, and keep them in check. But what we have seen with Donald Trump is that he has betrayed our friends and embraced dictators around the world. Let’s take for example, Russia. So, Russia – I serve on the Intelligence Committee of the United States Senate. America’s intelligence community told us Russia interfered in the election of the President of the United States in 2016 and is playing in 2020. Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, said the same, but Donald Trump, the commander in chief of the United States of America prefers to take the word of Vladimir Putin over the word of the American intelligence community. You look at our friends at NATO. He has walked away from agreements – you can look at the Iran nuclear deal, which now has put us in a position where we are less safe, because they are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal. We were in that deal, guys, we were in the Iran nuclear deal with friends, with allies around the country, and because of Donald Trump’s unilateral approach to foreign policy, coupled with his isolationism, he pulled us out and has made America less safe. So Susan, it’s about relationships. And the thing that has always been part of the strength of our nation, in addition to our great military, has been that we keep our word. But Donald Trump doesn’t understand that, because he doesn’t understand what it means to be honest.PAGE:Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Harris. Vice President Pence, let me give you a chance to respond.PENCE:Well, thank you. Well, President Trump kept his word when we moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel. When Joe Biden was vice president, they promised to do that and never did. We’ve stood strong with our allies, but we’ve been demanding. NATO is now contributing more to our common defense than ever before. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we’ve strengthen our alliances across the Asia Pacific. And we’ve stood strong against those who would do us harm. You know when President Trump came into office, ISIS had captured an area of the Middle East, the size of Pennsylvania. President Trump unleashed the American military, and our armed forces destroyed the ISIS caliphate and took down their leader al Baghdadi without one American casualty. al Baghdadi was responsible for the death of thousands. But notably, America’s hearts today are with the family of Kayla Mueller, the parents of which are here with us tonight in Salt Lake City. Today, two of the ISIS killers responsible for Kayla Mueller’s murder, were brought to justice in the United States. Jihadi John was killed on the battlefield, along with the other few. The reality is that when Joe Biden was vice president, we had an opportunity to save Kayla Mueller. Breaks my heart to reflect on it, but the military came into the Oval Office, presented a plan. They said they knew where Kayla was. Baghdadi had held her for 18 months, abused her mercilessly before they killed her. But when Joe Biden was vice president, they hesitated for a month. And when Armed Forces finally went in, it was clear she’d been moved two days earlier, and her family says — with a heart that broke the heart of every American — that if President Donald Trump had been president, they believe Kayla would be alive today.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President.PENCE:We destroyed the ISIS caliphate. And you talk about reentering the Iran nuclear deal. I mean, the last administration transferred $1.8 billion to the leading state sponsor of terrorism –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President.PENCE:President Donald Trump got us out of the deal, and when Qasim Soleimani was traveling to Baghdad, to do harm to Americans, President Donald Trump took him out. And America is safer, our allies are safer and the American people should know –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President. I would like to give Senator Harris a chance to respond, but not at such great length because of course there are other topics we want to talk about.HARRIS:But I would like equal time.PENCE:Yes. Please go ahead.HARRIS:First of all, to the Mueller family, I know about your daughter’s case, and I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry. What happened to her is awful. And it should have never happened. And I know Joe feels the same way. And I know that President Obama feels the same way. But you mentioned Soleimani. Let’s start there. So, after the strike on Soleimani, there was a counter strike on our troops in Iraq. And they suffered serious brain injuries, and do you know what Donald Trump dismissed them as? Headaches. And this is about a pattern of Donald Trump’s, where he has referred to our men who are serving in our military, as suckers and losers. Donald Trump, who went to Arlington Cemetery, and stood above the graves of our fallen heroes and said, ‘What’s in it for them?’ Because, of course, you know he only thinks about what’s in it for him. Let’s take what he said about John McCain. A great American hero. And Donald Trump says he doesn’t deserve to be called a hero because he was a prisoner of war. Take – and this is, this is very important. When you want to talk about who is the current commander in chief, and what they care about and what they don’t care about. Public reporting that Russia had bounties on the heads of American soldiers, and you know what a bounty is? Somebody puts a price on your head, and they will pay it if you are killed. And Donald Trump had talked at least six times to Vladmir Putin, and never brought up the subject. Joe Biden would never do that. Joe Biden – Joe Biden would hold Russia to account for any threat to our nation’s security or to our troops who are sacrificing their lives for the sake of our democracy and our safety.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris. This is such an important issue, but we have other important issues as well and I want to make sure we have a chance.PENCE:I really have to respond to that. She has –PAGE:Fifteen seconds, because –PENCE:Well, I’ve got to have more than that.PAGE:I’m sorry, Mr. Vice President, you’ve had more time than she’s had, so far –PENCE:The slanders against President Donald Trump regarding men and women of our armed forces are absurd.PAGE:I’m sorry, Vice President Pence –PENCE:My son is a captain in the United States Marine Corps, my son in law is deployed in the United States Navy. I can assure all of you with sons and daughters serving in our military, President Donald Trump not only respects but reveres all of those who served in our armed forces, and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous. Let me also say –PAGE:Vice President Pence. Vice President Pence. I didn’t – Vice President Pence – I did not create the rules for tonight. Your campaigns agreed to the rules for tonight’s debate, with the Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m here to enforce them, which involves moving from one topic to another, giving roughly equal time to both of you, which is what I’m trying very hard to do. So I want to go ahead and move to the next topic, which is an important one, as the last topic was, and that is the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to open hearings on Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Senator Harris, you’ll be there as a member of the committee. Her confirmation would cement the court’s conservative majority, and make it likely open to more abortion restrictions, even to overturning the landmark Roe v Wade ruling. Access to abortion would then be up to the states. Vice President Pence, you’re the former governor of Indiana. If Roe v Wade is overturned, what would you want Indiana to do? Would you want your home state to ban all abortions? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.PENCE:Well thank you for the question, but I’ll use a little bit of my time to respond to that very important issue before. The American people deserve to know, Quasem Soleimani, the Iranian general, was responsible for the death of hundreds of American servicemembers. When the opportunity came, we saw him headed to Baghdad to kill more Americans, President Trump didn’t hesitate and Quasem Soleimani is gone. But you deserve to know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually criticized the decision to take out Quasem Soleimani. It’s really inexplicable, but with regard to Joe Biden it’s explainable, because history records that Joe Biden actually opposed the raid against Osama bin Laden. It’s absolutely essential that we have a commander in chief who will not hesitate to act to protect American lives and to protect American servicemembers, and that’s what you have in President Donald Trump. Now with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States. Let me say, President Trump and I could not be more enthusiastic about the opportunity to see Judge Amy Coney Barrett become Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She’s a brilliant woman, and she will bring a lifetime of experience and a sizable American family, to the Supreme Court of the United States. And our hope is, in the hearing next week, unlike Justice Kavanaugh received with treatment from you and others. We hope she gets a fair hearing. And we particularly hope that we don’t see the kind of attacks on her Christian faith that we saw before. Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee before, when Judge Barrett was being confirmed for the Court of Appeals, expressed concern that the “dogma of her faith lived loudly in her.” Dick Durbin of Illinois said that it was a concern. Senator, I know one of our judicial nominees, you actually attacked because they were a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, just because the Knights of Columbus holds pro-life views.PAGE:Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Pence, your time is up.PENCE:My hope is that when the hearing takes place, that Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be respected –PAGE:Thank you Vice President.PENCE:– treated respectfully and voted and confirmed to the Supreme Court of United States.PAGE:Senator Harris, you’re the senator from and former Attorney General of California. So let me ask you a parallel question to the one I posed to the vice president. If Roe v Wade is overturned, what would you want California to do? Would you want your home state to enact no restrictions on access to abortion? And you have two minutes, uninterrupted.PENCE:Thank you, Susan. First of all, Joe Biden and I are both people of faith. And it’s insulting to suggest that we would knock anyone for their faith, and in fact, Joe if elected will be only the second practicing Catholic, as President of the United States. On the issue of this nomination – Joe and I are very clear, as are the majority of the American people. We are 27 days before the decision about who will be the next president of the United States. And you know before, when this conversation has come up, you know it’s been about election year or election time. We’re literally in an election. Over 4 million people have voted. People are in the process of voting right now. And so Joe has been very clear, as the American people are: Let the American people fill that seat in the White House, and then we’ll fill that seat on the United States Supreme Court. And to your point, Susan, the issues before us couldn’t be more serious. There’s the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump, and the Vice President, Michael Pence. But let’s also look at what else is before the court. It’s the Affordable Care Act. Like, literally in the midst of a public health pandemic – when over 210,000 people have died and 7 million people probably have what will be in the future considered a pre-existing condition because you contracted the virus – Donald Trump is in court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. And I’ve said it before and it bears repeating: This means that there will be no more protections, if they win, for people with pre-existing conditions. This means that over 20 million people will lose your coverage. It means that if you’re under the age of 26, you can’t stay on your parents coverage anymore. And here’s the thing. The contrast couldn’t be more clear. They’re trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden is saying let’s expand coverage, let’s give you a choice of a public option or private coverage, let’s bring down premiums, let’s lower Medicare eligibility to 60. That’s true leadership.PAGE:You know, you mentioned earlier, Vice President Pence, that the President was committed to maintaining protections for people with pre-existing conditions and — but you do have this court case that you are supporting, your administration is supporting, that would strike down the Affordable Care Act. The president says, President Trump says, that he’s going to protect people with pre-existing conditions, but he has not explained how he will do that. And that was one of the toughest nuts to crack, when they were passing the Affordable Care Act. So, tell us, specifically – how would your administration protect Americans with pre-existing conditions, have access to affordable insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down.PENCE:Well, thank you, Susan. Let me just say, addressing your very first question, I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a President who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it. And this is another one of those cases where there’s such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion, all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion. They want to increase funding to Planned Parenthood of America. Now for our part, I would never presume how Judge Amy Coney Barrett would rule on the Supreme Court of the United States but we’ll continue to stand strong for the right to life. When you speak about the Supreme Court, though, I think the American people really deserve an answer, Senator Harris. Are you and Joe Biden gonna pack the court if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed? I mean, there have been 29 vacancies on the Supreme Court during presidential election years, from George Washington to Barack Obama. Presidents have nominated in all 29 cases. But your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way. This is a classic case of if you can’t win by the rules, you’re going to change the rules. Now you’ve refused to answer the question, Joe Biden has refused to answer the question. I think the American people would really like to know. If Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, are you and Joe Biden, if somehow you win this election, going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way?HARRIS:I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more. In 1864 –PENCE:Well, I’d like you to answer the question.HARRIS:Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking. I’m speaking. In 1864, one of the, I think, political heroes – certainly of the president, and I assume of you also, Mr. Vice President – is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection, and it was 27 days before the election, and a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge, not only in the White House, but the Senate. But honest Abe said it’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next President of the United States, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land. And so Joe and I are very clear: the American people are voting right now. And it should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris and –PENCE:Well, Susan. People are voting right now. They’d like to know if you and Joe Biden are gonna pack the Supreme Court if you don’t get your way in this nomination.HARRIS:Let’s talk about packing –PENCE:Once again, you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer.HARRIS:I’m trying to answer you now.PENCE:The people deserve a straight answer. And if you haven’t figured it out yet, the straight answer is they are going to pack the Supreme Court if they somehow win this election. I gotta tell you, people across this country, if you cherish our Supreme Court, if you cherish the separation of powers, you need to reject the Biden-Harris ticket come November the third and reelect President Donald Trump. We will stand by that separation powers and a nine seat Supreme Court.HARRIS:Let’s talk about packing the court then. Let’s talk about.PENCE:Please –HARRIS:Yeah, I’m about to. So, the Trump-Pence administration has been – because I sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Susan, as you mentioned. And I’ve witnessed the appointments, for lifetime appointments to the federal courts, district courts, Courts of Appeal — people who are purely ideological people who have been reviewed by legal professional organizations and found to have been not competent, are substandard. And do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is Black? This is what they’ve been doing. You want to talk about packing a court? Let’s have that discussion.PAGE:All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Let’s go on and talk about the issue of racial justice.PENCE:I just want the record to reflect, she never answered the question. Maybe the next debate Joe Biden will answer the question. But I think the American people know the answer.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President. In March, Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency room technician in Louisville, was shot and killed after police officers executing a search warrant on a narcotics investigation broke into her apartment. The police said they identified themselves. Taylor’s boyfriend said he didn’t hear them do that. He used a gun registered to him to fire a shot, which wounded an officer. The officers then fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment. They say they were acting in self-defense. None of them have been indicted in connection with her death. Senator Harris, in the case of Breonna Taylor, was justice done? You have two minutes.HARRIS:I don’t believe so, and I’ve talked with Breonna’s mother, Tamika Palmer, and her family, and her family deserves justice. She was a beautiful young woman. She had as her life goal to become a nurse, and she wanted to become an EMT to first learn what’s going on out on the street, so she could then become a nurse and save lives. And her life was taken, unjustifiably and tragically and violently. And it just, it brings me to, you know, the eight minutes and 46 seconds that America witnessed, during which an American man was tortured and killed under the knee of an armed, uniformed police officer. And people around our country, of every race, of every age, of every gender – perfect strangers to each other – marched shoulder to shoulder, arm and arm, fighting for us to finally achieve that ideal of equal justice under law. And I was a part of those peaceful protests. And I believe strongly that, first of all, we are never going to condone violence, but we always must fight for the values that we hold dear, including the fight to achieve our ideals. And that’s why Joe Biden and I have said on this subject, look, and I’m a former career prosecutor. I know what I’m talking about. Bad cops are bad for good cops. We need reform of our policing in America and our criminal justice system, which is why Joe and I will immediately ban chokeholds and carotid holds. George Floyd would be alive today if we did that. We will require a national registry for police officers who break the law, we will – on the issue of criminal justice reform – get rid of private prisons and cash bail and we will decriminalize marijuana, and we will expunge the records of those who have been convicted of marijuana. This is a time for leadership. On a tragic, tragic issue…PAGE:Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Harris. Vice President Pence, let me pose the same question to you. In the case of Breonna Taylor, was justice done? You have two minutes, uninterrupted.PENCE:Well our heart breaks for the loss of any innocent American life, and the family of Breonna Taylor has our sympathies. But I trust our justice system, a grand jury that reviews the evidence. And it really is remarkable, that as a former prosecutor, you would assume that in a panel grand jury, looking at all the evidence, got it wrong. But you’re entitled to your opinion, Senator. And with regard to George Floyd, there’s no excuse for what happened to George Floyd. Justice will be served. But there’s also no excuse for the rioting and looting that followed. I mean, it really is astonishing. Flora Westbrook is with us here tonight in Salt Lake City. Just a few weeks ago, I stood at what used to be her salon, was burned to the ground. By rioters and looters. And Flora is still trying to put her life back together. And I must tell ya, this, this presumption that you hear consistently from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, that America is systemically racist. That as Joe Biden said, that he believes that law enforcement has an implicit bias against minorities, is a great insult to the men and women who serve in law enforcement. And I want everyone to know, who puts on the uniform of law enforcement every day, that President Trump and I stand with you. It is remarkable that when Senator Tim Scott tried to pass a police reform bill, brought together a group of Republicans and Democrats – Senator Harris, you got up and walked out of the room. And then you filibustered Senator Tim Scott’s bill on the Senate floor that would have provided new accountability, new resources. But we don’t have to choose between supporting law enforcement, improving public safety, and supporting our African American neighbors and all of our minorities. Under President Trump’s leadership –PAGE:Thank you, Mr. Vice PresidentPENCE:– we will always stand with law enforcement and we’ll do what we’ve done from day one which is improve the lives of African Americans. Record unemployment, record investments in education –PAGE:Thank you, Mr. Vice President.PENCE:– Fight for school choice, for –PAGE:Senator Harris.HARRIS:I will not sit here and be lectured by the Vice President on what it means to enforce the laws of our country. I am the only one on this stage who has personally prosecuted everything from child sexual assault to homicide. I’m the only one on this stage who has prosecuted the big banks for taking advantage of America’s homeowners. I am the only one on this stage who prosecuted for-profit colleges for taking advantage of our veterans. And the reality of this is, that we are talking about an election in 27 days where last week, the President of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists. And –PENCE:Not true.HARRIS:– it wasn’t like he didn’t have a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. And then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back. Stand by.’ And this is a part of a pattern of Donald Trump’s. He was – he called Mexicans rapists and criminals. He instituted as his first act a Muslim ban. He, on the issue of Charlottesville, where people were peacefully protesting the need for racial justice, where a young woman was killed and on the other side there were neo-Nazis carrying tiki torches shouting racial epithets, anti semitic slurs. And Donald Trump, when asked about it, said there were fine people on both sides. This is who we have as the President of the United States. And America, you deserve better. Joe Biden will be a president who brings our country together.PAGE:Senator Harris –HARRIS:– and recognizes the beauty in our diversity and the fact that we all have so much more in common than what separates us.PAGE:Vice President Pence, let me give you a minute to respond.PENCE:Thank you, Susan. I appreciate that very much. I think that’s one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, Susan. That you selectively edit, just like Senator Harris did, comments that President Trump and I, and others on our side of the aisle make. Senator Harris conveniently omitted, after the President made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis – President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people. But you talk about having personally prosecuted – I’m glad you brought up your record, Senator.PAGE:Thank you.PENCE:I really need to make this point. When you were DA in San Francisco, when you left office, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics. When you were Attorney General of California, you increased the disproportionate incarceration of Blacks in California. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass the first step back on Capitol Hill. The reality is, your record speaks for itself. President Trump and I have fought for criminal justice, for –PAGE:Thank you, Vice President PencePENCE:– fought for educational choice and opportunities for African Americans –PAGE:Thank you, sir.PENCE:And we’ll do it for four more.PAGE:Thank you. You know there is no more important issue than the final issue that we’re going to talk about tonight, and that is the issue of the election itself.HARRIS:Susan, he attacked my record. I would like an opportunity to respond.PAGE:Let me give you 30 seconds because we’re running out of time.HARRIS:I appreciate that. First of all, having served as the Attorney General of the State of California, the work that I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and we will be able to do under a Joe Biden presidency. Our agenda includes what this administration has failed to do. It will be about not only instituting a ban on chokeholds and carotid holes.PAGE:Thank you.HARRIS:I would like to go through –PAGE:These are points that you made earlier in the hour and I want to talk about the election itself before we have to –HARRIS:But I want to talk about the connection between what Joe and I will do and my record, which includes – I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate a requirement that there would be a training for law enforcement on implicit bias, because yes, Joe Biden and I recognize that implicit bias does exist, Mr. Vice President, contrary to what you may believe. We did the work of instituting reforms that were about investing in reentry. This is the work that we have done and the work we will do going forward and, again, I will not be lectured by the Vice President, on our record of what we have done in terms of law enforcement and keeping our community safe and a commitment to reforming the criminal justice system of America.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris, and I’d like to pose the – I’d like you to respond first to the question on our final topic, the election itself. President Trump has, several times, refused to commit himself to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. If your ticket wins and President Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what steps would you and Vice President Biden then take? What would happen next? You have two minutes.HARRIS:So, I’ll tell you. Joe and I are particularly proud of the coalition that we’ve built around our campaign. We probably have one of the broadest coalitions of folks that you’ve ever seen in a presidential race. Of course we have the support of Democrats, but also independents and Republicans, in fact, seven members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet are supporting our ticket. We have the support of Colin Powell, Cindy McCain, John Kasich, over 500 generals, retired generals, and former national security experts and advisors are supporting our campaign. And I believe they are doing that because they know that Joe Biden has a deep, deep seated commitment to fight for our democracy, and to fight for the integrity of our democracy, and to bring integrity back to the White House. And so, we believe in the American people. We believe in our democracy. And here’s what I’d like to say to everybody: vote. Please vote, vote early, come up with a plan to vote, go to IWillVote.com. You can also go to Joe Biden.com. We have it within our power in these next 27 days to make the decision about what will be the course of our country for the next four years. And it is within our power, and if we use our vote, and we use our voice, we will win. And we will not let anyone subvert our democracy, with what Donald Trump has been doing as he did on the debate stage last week, when again in front of 70 million people, he openly attempted to suppress the vote. Joe Biden, on the other hand, on that same debate stage – because clearly Donald Trump doesn’t think he can run on a record because it’s a failed record – Joe Biden on that stage, said, ‘Hey, just please vote.’ So I’ll repeat what Joe said. Please vote.PAGE:Thank you, Senator. Vice President Pence, President Trump has several times refused to commit himself to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. If Vice President Biden is declared the winner and President Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what would be your role and responsibility as Vice President? What would you personally do? You have two minutes.PENCE:Well, Susan, first and foremost, I think we’re gonna win this election. Because while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris rattle off a long litany, the establishment in Washington DC and the establishment Joe Biden’s been a part of for 47 years. President Donald Trump has launched a movement of everyday Americans from every walk of life. And I have every confidence that the same Americans that delivered that historic victory in 2016, they see this President’s record, where we rebuild our military, we revived our economy through tax cuts and rolling back regulation, fighting for fair trade, unleashing American energy. We appointed conservatives to our federal courts at every level. And we stood with the men and women of law enforcement every single day, and I think, I think that movement of Americans has only grown stronger in the last four years. When you talk about accepting the outcome of the election, I must tell you, Senator, your party has spent the last three and a half years trying to overturn the results of the last election. It’s amazing. When Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, the FBI actually spied on President Trump and my campaign. I mean there were documents released this week that the CIA actually made a referral to the FBI documenting that those allegations were coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and of course, we’ve all seen the avalanche with the — what, what you put the country through, for the better part of three years, until it was found that there was no obstruction, no collusion, case closed. And then Senator Harris, you and your colleagues in the Congress tried to impeach the President of the United States, over a phone call. And now Hillary Clinton has actually said to Joe Biden that under, in her words, under no circumstances should he concede the election. So let me just say, I think we’re gonna win this election. President Trump and I are fighting every day in courthouses to prevent Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from changing the rules and creating this universal mail-in voting, that’ll create a massive opportunity for voter fraud. We have a free and fair election; we know we’re going to have confidence in it. And I believe in all my heart that President Donald Trump’s gonna be reelected for four more years.PAGE:You know I’ve, I’ve asked – I’ve written all the questions that I’ve asked tonight, but for the final question of the debate, I’d like to read a question that someone else wrote. The Utah Debate Commission asked students in the state to write essays about what they would like to ask you. And I want to close tonight’s debate with the question posed by Brecklynn Brown. She’s an eighth grader at Springville Junior High in Springville, Utah, and here’s what she wrote. Quote – “When I watch the news, all I see is arguing between Democrats and Republicans. When I watch the news, all I see is citizen fighting against citizen. When I watch the news, all I see are two candidates from opposing parties, trying to tear each other down. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along?” And then she added, “Your examples could make all the difference to bring us together” – end quote. So to each of you, in turn, I’d like you to take one minute, and respond to Brecklynn. Vice President Pence, you have one minute.PENCE:Brecklynn, it’s a wonderful question. And let me just commend you for taking an interest in public life. I started following the news when I was very young. And in America, we believe in a free and open exchange of debate. And we celebrate that, and it’s how we’ve created literally the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. I would tell you that – don’t assume that what you’re seeing on your local news networks is synonymous with the American people. You know, I look at the relationship between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late justice who we just lost from the Supreme Court, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. They were on polar opposites, on the Supreme Court of the United States – one very liberal, one very conservative. But what’s been learned since her passing was the two of them and their families were the very closest of friends. Here in America, we can disagree, we can debate vigorously as Senator Harris and I have on this stage tonight. But when the debate is over, we come together as Americans. And that’s what people do in big cities and small towns all across this country, so I just want to encourage you, Brecklynn, I want to tell you that we’re going to work every day to have a government as good as our people, the American people, each and every day. We love a good debate. We love a good argument. But we always come together and are always there for one another in times of need. And we’ve especially learned that through the difficulties of this year.PAGE:Thank you, Vice President. Senator Harris, what would you say to Brecklynn?HARRIS:First of all, I love hearing from our young leaders, and when I hear her words, when I hear your words, Brecklynn, I know our future is bright, because it is that perspective on who we are and who we should be – that is a sign of leadership and is something we should all aspire to be.And that you know that brings me to Joe. Joe Biden – one of the reasons that Joe decided to run for president, is after Charlottesville, which we talked about earlier, it so troubled him and upset him, like it did all of us, that there was that kind of hate and division. What propelled Joe to run for president was to see that, over the course of the last four years, what Brecklynn described has been happening. Joe has a long-standing reputation of working across the aisle and working in a bipartisan way. And that’s what he’s going to do as President. Joe Biden has a history of lifting people up and fighting for their dignity. You mean you have to know Joe’s story to know that Joe has known pain, he has known suffering, and he has known love. And so, Brecklynn, when you think about the future, I do believe the future is bright. And it will be because of your leadership, and it will be, because we fight for each person’s voice through their vote. And we get engaged in this election, because you have the ability through your work, and through, eventually, your vote. To determine the future of our country, and what its leadership looks like.PAGE:Thank you, Senator Harris, thank you, Vice President Pence. Thank you so much for being with us tonight. We want to thank, also, the University of Utah for its hospitality, and most of all our thanks to all the Americans who watched this debate tonight. Again, our best wishes for a quick recovery to President Trump, the First Lady and everyone who is battling COVID-19. The second presidential debate is next week on October 15, a town hall style debate in Miami. We hope you’ll join us then. Good evening.",
    "id": "1e02f042-2453-4a91-86df-6d197b82126f"
  },
  {
    "year": 1984,
    "date": "October 7, 1984",
    "title": "The First Reagan-Mondale Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 7, 1984 Debate TranscriptOctober 7, 1984The First Reagan-Mondale Presidential DebateMS. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Kentucky Center for the Arts in Louisville, Kentucky. I’m Dorothy Ridings, president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of tonight’s first Presidential debate between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale.Tonight’s debate marks the third consecutive Presidential election in which the League is presenting the candidates for the Nation’s highest office in face-to-face debate.Our panelists are James Wieghart, national political correspondent for Scripps-Howard News Service; Diane Sawyer, correspondent for the CBS program “60 Minutes;” and Fred Barnes, national political correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Barbara Walters of ABC News, who is appearing in her fourth Presidential debate, is our moderator.Barbara.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Dorothy.A few words as we begin tonight’s debate about the format. The position of the candidates — that is, who answers questions first and who gives the last statement — was determined by a toss of a coin between the two candidates. Mr. Mondale won, and that means that he chose to give the final closing statement. It means, too, that the President will answer the first question first. I hope that’s clear. If it isn’t, it will become clear as the debate goes on.Further, the candidates will be addressed as they each wanted and will, therefore, be called “Mr. President” and “Mr. Mondale.”Since there will also be a second debate between the two Presidential candidates, tonight will focus primarily on the economy and other domestic issues. The debate, itself, is built around questions from the panel. In each of its segments, a reporter will ask the candidates the same general question. Then — and this is important — each candidate will have the chance to rebut what the other has said. And the final segment of the debate will be the closing segment, and the candidates will each have 4 minutes for their closing statements. And as I have said, Mr. Mondale will be the last person on the program to speak.And now I would like to add a personal note if I may. As Dorothy Ridings pointed out, I have been involved now in four Presidential debates, either as a moderator or as a panelist. In the past, there was no problem in selecting panelists. Tonight, however, there were to have been four panelists participating in this debate.The candidates were given a list of almost 100 qualified journalists from all the media and could agree on only these three fine journalists. As moderator, and on behalf of my fellow journalists, I very much regret, as does the League of Women Voters, that this situation has occurred.And now let us begin the debate with the first question from James Wieghart.Mr. Wieghart.The Nation’s EconomyMR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, in 1980 you promised the American people — in your campaign — a balanced budget by 1983. We’ve now had more and bigger deficits in the 4 years you’ve been in office. Mr. President, do you have a secret plan to balance the budget sometime in a second term, and if so, would you lay out that plan for us tonight?The President. I have a plan — not a secret plan. As a matter of fact, it is the economic recovery program that we presented when I took office in 1981.It is true that earlier, working with some very prominent economists, I had come up, during the campaign, with an economic program that I thought could rectify the great problems confronting us — the double-digit inflation, the high tax rates that I think were hurting the economy, the stagflation that we were undergoing. Before even the election day, something that none of those economists had even predicted had happened, that the economy was so worsened that I was openly saying that what we had thought on the basis of our plan could have brought a balanced budget — no, that was no longer possible.So, the plan that we have had and that we are following is a plan that is based on growth in the economy, recovery without inflation, and reducing the share that the Government is taking from the gross national product, which has become a drag on the economy.Already, we have a recovery that has been going on for about 21 months to the point that we can now call it an expansion. Under that, this year, we have seen a $21 billion reduction in the deficit from last year, based mainly on the increased revenues the Government is getting without raising tax rates.Our tax cut, we think, was very instrumental in bringing about this economic recovery. We have reduced inflation to about a third of what it was. The interest rates have come down about 9 or 10 points and, we think, must come down further. In the last 21 months, more than 6 million people have gotten jobs — there have been created new jobs for those people to where there are now 105 million civilians working, where there were only 99 million before; 107, if you count the military.So, we believe that as we continue to reduce the level of government spending — the increase, rate of increase in government spending, which has come down from 17 to 6 percent, and, at the same time, as the growth in the economy increases the revenues the Government gets, without raising taxes, those two lines will meet. And when they meet, that is a balanced budget.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has some bad news. The lines aren’t about to meet, according to their projections. They project that the budget deficit will continue to climb. In the year 1989 they project a budget deficit of $273 billion.In view of that, and in view of the economic recovery we are now enjoying, would it make sense to propose a tax increase or take some other fiscal measures to reduce that deficit now, when times are relatively good?The President. The deficit is the result of excessive government spending. I do not, very frankly, take seriously the Congressional Budget Office projections, because they have been wrong on virtually all of them, including the fact that our recovery wasn’t going to take place to begin with. But it has taken place.But, as I said, we have the rate of increase in government spending down to 6 percent. If the rate of increase in government spending can be held at 5 percent — we’re not far from there — by 1989 that would have reduced the budget deficits down to a $30 or $40 billion level. At the same time, if we can have a 4-percent recovery continue through that same period of time, that will mean — without an increase in tax rates — that will mean $400 billion more in government revenues. And so, I think that the lines can meet.Actually, in constant dollars, in the domestic side of the budget, there has been no spending increase in the 4 years that we have been here.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. Mondale, the Carter-Mondale administration didn’t come close to balancing the budget in its 4 years in office either, despite the fact that President Carter did promise a balanced budget during his term.You have proposed a plan combining tax increases and budgetary cuts and other changes in the administration of the Government that would reduce the projected budget deficit by two-thirds, to approximately $87 billion in 1989. That still is an enormous deficit that will be running for these 4 years. What other steps do you think should be taken to reduce this deficit and position the country for economic growth?MR. MONDALE: One of the key tests of leadership is whether one sees clearly the nature of the problems confronted by our nation. And perhaps the dominant domestic issue of our times is what do we do about these enormous deficits.I respect the President; I respect the Presidency, and I think he knows that. But the fact of it is, every estimate by this administration about the size of the deficit has been off by billions and billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, over 4 years, they’ve missed the mark by nearly $600 billion. We were told we would have a balanced budget in 1983. It was $200 billion deficit instead. And now we have a major question facing the American people as to whether we’ll deal with this deficit and get it down for the sake of a healthy recovery.Virtually every economic analysis that I’ve heard of, including the distinguished Congressional Budget Office, which is respected by, I think, almost everyone, says that even with historically high levels of economic growth, we will suffer a $263 billion deficit. In other words, it doesn’t converge as the President suggests. It gets larger even with growth.What that means is that we will continue to have devastating problems with foreign trade. This is the worst trade year in American history by far. Our rural and farm friends will have continued devastation. Real interest rates — the real cost of interest — will remain very, very high, and many economists are predicting that we’re moving into a period of very slow growth because the economy is tapering off and may be a recession. I get it down to a level below 2 percent of gross national product with a policy that’s fair. I’ve stood up and told the American people that I think it’s a real problem, that it can destroy long-term economic growth, and I’ve told you what I think should be done.I think this is a test of leadership, and I think the American people know the difference.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. Mondale, one other way to attack the deficit is further reductions in spending. The President has submitted a number of proposals to Congress to do just that, and in many instances the House, controlled by the Democrats, has opposed them. Isn’t it one aspect of leadership for prominent Democrats such as yourself to encourage responsible reductions in spending, and thereby reduce the deficit?MR. MONDALE: Absolutely, and I proposed over a hundred billion dollars in cuts in Federal spending over 4 years, but I am not going to cut it out of Social Security and Medicare and student assistance and things — [applause] — that people need. These people depend upon all of us for the little security that they have, and I’m not going to do it that way.The rate of defense spending increase can be slowed. Certainly we can find a coffeepot that costs something less than $7,000. And there are other ways of squeezing this budget without constantly picking on our senior citizens and the most vulnerable in American life. And that’s why the Congress, including the Republicans, have not gone along with the President’s recommendations.MS. WALTERS: I would like to ask the audience please to refrain from applauding either side; it just takes away from the time for your candidates.And now it is time for the rebuttal. Mr. President, 1 minute for rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I don’t believe that Mr. Mondale has a plan for balancing the budget; he has a plan for raising taxes. And, as a matter of fact, the biggest single tax increase in our nation’s history took place 1977. And for the 5 years previous to our taking office, taxes doubled in the United States, and the budgets increased $318 billion. So, there is no ratio between taxing and balancing a budget. Whether you borrow the money or whether you simply tax it away from the people, you’re taking the same amount of money out of the private sector, unless and until you bring down government’s share of what it is taking.With regard to Social Security, I hope there’ll be more time than just this minute to mention that, but I will say this: A President should never say “never.” But I’m going to violate that rule and say “never.” I will never stand for a reduction of the Social Security benefits to the people that are now getting them.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale?MR. MONDALE: Well, that’s exactly the commitment that was made to the American people in 1980: He would never reduce benefits. And of course, what happened right after the election is they proposed to cut Social Security benefits by 25 percent — reducing the adjustment for inflation, cutting out minimum benefits for the poorest on Social Security, removing educational benefits for dependents whose widows were trying — with widows trying to get them through college. Everybody remembers that; people know what happened.There’s a difference. I have fought for Social Security and Medicare and for things to help people who are vulnerable all my life, and I will do it as President of the United States.MS. WALTERS: Thank you very much. We’ll now begin with segment number two with my colleague, Diane Sawyer.Ms. Sawyer?Leadership QualitiesMS. SAWYER: Mr. President, Mr. Mondale, the public opinion polls do suggest that the American people are most concerned about the personal leadership characteristics of the two candidates, and each of you has questioned the other’s leadership ability. Mr. President, you have said that Mr. Mondale’s leadership would take the country down the path of defeatism and despair, and Vice President Bush has called him whining and hoping for bad news. And, Mr. Mondale, you have said that President Reagan offers showmanship, not leadership, that he has not mastered what he must know to command his government.I’d like to ask each of you to substantiate your claims — Mr. Mondale first. Give us specifics to support your claim that President Reagan is a showman, not a leader; has not mastered what he must know to be President after 4 years, and then, second, tell us what personal leadership characteristics you have that he does not.MR. MONDALE: Well, first of all, I think the first answer this evening suggests exactly what I’m saying. There is no question that we face this massive deficit, and almost everybody agrees unless we get it down, the chances for long-term, healthy growth are nil. And it’s also unfair to dump these tremendous bills on our children.The President says it will disappear overnight because of some reason. No one else believes that’s the case. I do, and I’m standing up to the issue with an answer that’s fair. I think that’s what leadership is all about. There’s a difference between being a quarterback and a cheerleader, and when there’s a real problem, a President must confront it.What I was referring to, of course, in the comment that you referred to was the situation in Lebanon. Now, for three occasions, one after another, our Embassies were assaulted in the same way by a truck with demolitions. The first time — and I did not criticize the President, because these things can happen — once, and sometimes twice — the second time the barracks in Lebanon were assaulted, as we all remember. There was two or three commission reports, recommendations by the CIA, the State Department, and the others, and the third time there was even a warning from the terrorists themselves.Now, I believe that a President must command that White House and those who work for him. It’s the toughest job on Earth, and you must master the facts and insist that things that must be done are done. I believe that the way in which I will approach the Presidency is what’s needed, because all my life that has been the way in which I have sought to lead. And that’s why in this campaign I’m telling you exactly what I want to do. I am answering your questions. I am trying to provide leadership now, before the election, so that the American people can participate in that decision.MS. SAWYER: You have said, Mr. Mondale, that the polls have given you lower ratings on leadership than President Reagan because your message has failed to get through. Given that you have been in public office for so many years, what accounts for the failure of your message to get through?MR. MONDALE: Well, I think we’re getting better all the time. And I think tonight, as we contrast for the first time our differing approach to government, to values, to the leadership in this country, I think as this debate goes forward, the American people will have for the first time a chance to weigh the two of us against each other. And I think, as a part of that process, what I am trying to say will come across, and that is that we must lead, we must command, we must direct, and a President must see it like it is. He must stand for the values of decency that the American people stand for, and he must use the power of the White House to try to control these nuclear weapons and lead this world toward a safer world.MS. SAWYER: Mr. President, the issue is leadership in personal terms. First, do you think, as Vice President Bush said, that Mr. Mondale’s campaign is one of whining and hoping for bad news? And second, what leadership characteristics do you possess that Mr. Mondale does not?THE PRESIDENT: Well, whether he does or not, let me suggest my own idea about the leadership factor, since you’ve asked it. And, incidentally, I might say that with regard to the 25-percent cut in Social Security — before I get to the answer to your question — the only 25-percent cut that I know of was accompanying that huge 1977 tax increase, was a cut of 25 percent in the benefits for every American who was born after 1916.Now, leadership. First of all, I think you must have some principles you believe in. In mine, I happen to believe in the people and believe that the people are supposed to be dominant in our society — that they, not government, are to have control of their own affairs to the greatest extent possible, with an orderly society.Now, having that, I think also that in leadership — well, I believe that you find people, positions such as I’m in who have the talent and ability to do the things that are needed in the various departments of government. I don’t believe that a leader should be spending his time in the Oval Office deciding who’s going to play tennis on the White House court. And you let those people go with the guidelines of overall policy, not looking over their shoulder and nitpicking the manner in which they go at the job. You are ultimately responsible, however, for that job.But I also believe something else about that. I believe that — and when I became Governor of California, I started this, and I continue it in this office — that any issue that comes before me, I have instructed Cabinet members and staff they are not to bring up any of the political ramifications that might surround the issue. I don’t want to hear them. I want to hear only arguments as to whether it is good or bad for the people — is it morally right? And on that basis and that basis alone, we make a decision on every issue.Now, with regard to my feeling about why I thought that his record bespoke his possible taking us back to the same things that we knew under the previous administration, his record is that he spoke in praise of deficits several times, said they weren’t to be abhorred — that, as a matter of fact, he at one time said he wished the deficit could be doubled, because they stimulate the economy and helped reduce unemployment.MS. SAWYER: As a followup, let me draw in another specific, if I could — a specific that the Democrats have claimed about your campaign — that it is essentially based on imagery. And one specific that they allege is that, for instance, recently you showed up at the opening ceremony of a Buffalo old-age housing project, when in fact, your policy was to cut Federal housing subsidies for the elderly. Yet you were there to have your picture taken with them.THE PRESIDENT: Our policy was not to cut subsidies. We have believed in partnership, and that was an example of a partnership between, not only local government and the Federal Government but also between the private sector that built that particular structure. And this is what we’ve been trying to do, is involve the Federal Government in such partnerships.We are today subsidizing housing for more than 10 million people, and we’re going to continue along that line. We have no thought of throwing people out into the snow, whether because of age or need. We have preserved the safety net for the people with true need in this country, and it has been pure demagoguery that we have in some way shut off all the charitable programs or many of them for the people who have real need. The safety net is there, and we’re taking care of more people than has ever been taken care of before by any administration in this country.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale, an opportunity for you to rebut.MR. MONDALE: Well, I guess I’m reminded a little bit of what Will Rogers once said about Hoover. He said, “It’s not what he doesn’t know that bothers me; it’s what he knows for sure that just ain’t so.” [Laughter] The fact of it is: The President’s budget sought to cut Social Security by 25 percent. It’s not an opinion; it’s a fact. And when the President was asked the other day, “What do you want to cut in the budget?”, he said, “Cut those things I asked for but didn’t get.” That’s Social Security and Medicare.The second fact is that the housing unit for senior citizens that the President dedicated in Buffalo was only made possible through a Federal assistance program for senior citizens that the President’s budget sought to terminate. So, if he’d had his way, there wouldn’t have been any housing project there at all. This administration has taken a meat cleaver out, in terms of Federal-assisted housing, and the record is there. We have to see the facts before we can draw conclusions.MS. WALTERS: Mr. President?THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me just respond with regard to Social Security. When we took office, we discovered that the program that the Carter-Mondale administration had said would solve the fiscal problems of Social Security for the next 50 years wouldn’t solve them for 5. Social Security was due to go bankrupt before 1983.Any proposals that I made at that time were at the request of the chairman, a Democrat, of one of the leading committees, who said we have to do something before the program goes broke and the checks bounce. And so, we made a proposal. And then in 1982, they used that proposal in a demagogic fashion for the 1982 campaign. And 3 days after the election in 1982, they came to us and said, Social Security, we know, is broke. Indeed, we had to borrow $17 billion to pay the checks. And then I asked for a bipartisan commission, which I’d asked for from the beginning, to sit down and work out a solution.And so, the whole matter of what to do with Social Security has been resolved by bipartisan legislation, and it is on a sound basis now for as far as you can see into the next century.MS. WALTERS: Mr. President, we begin segment number three with Fred Barnes.ReligionMR. BARNES: Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian, and explain how these beliefs affect your Presidential decisions?THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church, we did not use that term, “born again,” so I don’t know whether I would fit that — that particular term. But I have — thanks to my mother, God rest her soul — the firmest possible belief and faith in God. And I don’t believe — I believe, I should say, as Lincoln once said, that I could not — I would be the most stupid man in the world if I thought I could confront the duties of the office I hold if I could not turn to someone who was stronger and greater than all others. And I do resort to prayer.At the same time, however, I have not believed that prayer should be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign — or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact, I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr. Mondale’s running mate said I wasn’t a good Christian.So, it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so. And, as I say, I don’t believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.MR. BARNES: Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don’t you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do?THE PRESIDENT: The answer to your question is very simple about why I don’t go to church. I have gone to church regularly all my life, and I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where Embassies do get blown up in Beirut — we’re supposed to talk about that on the debate the 21st, I understand — but I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church.I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to be built around the White House. And, therefore, I don’t feel — and my minister knows this and supports me in this position — I don’t feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places, in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church, but I think the Lord understands. [Applause]MS. WALTERS: May I ask you, please — [applause] — may I ask the audience please to refrain from applause.Fred, your second question.MR. BARNES: Mr. Mondale, would you describe your religious beliefs and mention whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian, and explain how those beliefs would affect your decisions as President?MR. MONDALE: First of all, I accept President Reagan’s affirmation of faith. I’m sure that we all accept and admire his commitment to his faith, and we are strengthened, all of us, by that fact.I am a son of a Methodist minister. My wife is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. And I don’t know if I’ve been born again, but I know I was born into a Christian family. And I believe I have sung at more weddings and more funerals than anybody ever to seek the Presidency. Whether that helps or not, I don’t know.I have a deep religious faith. Our family does. It is fundamental. It’s probably the reason that I’m in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us, about the moral life that we should lead. And I think we’re all together on that.What bothers me is this growing tendency to try to use one’s own personal interpretation of faith politically, to question others’ faith, and to try to use the instrumentalities of government to impose those views on others. All history tells us that that’s a mistake.When the Republican platform says that from here on out, we’re going to have a religious test for judges before they’re selected for the Federal court, and then Jerry Falwell announces that that means they get at least two Justices of the Supreme Court, I think that’s an abuse of faith in our country.This nation is the most religious nation on Earth — more people go to church and synagogues than any other nation on Earth — and it’s because we kept the politicians and the state out of the personal exercise of our faith. That’s why faith in the United States is pure and unpolluted by the intervention of politicians. And I think if we want to continue — as I do — to have a religious nation, lets keep that line and never cross it.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Mr. Barnes, next question. We have time for rebuttal now.MR. BARNES: I think I have a followup.MS. WALTERS: Yes, I asked you if you did. I’m sorry — —MR. BARNES: Yes, I do.MS. WALTERS: — — I thought you waived it.MR. BARNES: Yes, Mr. Mondale, you’ve complained, just now, about Jerry Falwell, and you’ve complained other times about other fundamentalists in politics. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall your ever complaining about ministers who are involved in the civil rights movement or in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations or about black preachers who’ve been so involved in American politics. Is it only conservative ministers that you object to?MR. MONDALE: No. What I object to — [applause] — what I object to — what I object to is someone seeking to use his faith to question the faith of another or to use that faith and seek to use the power of government to impose it on others.A minister who is in civil rights or in the conservative movement, because he believes his faith instructs him to do that, I admire. The fact that the faith speaks to us and that we are moral people, hopefully, I accept and rejoice in. It’s when you try to use that to undermine the integrity of private political — or private religious faith and the use of the state is where — for the most personal decisions in American life — that’s where I draw the line.MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Now, Mr. President, rebuttal.THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it’s very difficult to rebut, because I find myself in so much agreement with Mr. Mondale. I, too, want that wall that is in the Constitution of separation of church and state to remain there. The only attacks I have made are on people who apparently would break away at that wall from the government side, using the government, using the power of the courts and so forth to hinder that part of the Constitution that says the government shall not only not establish a religion, it shall not inhibit the practice of religion. And they have been using these things to have government, through court orders, inhibit the practice of religion. A child wants to say grace in a school cafeteria and a court rules that they can’t do it because it’s school property. These are they types of things that I think have been happening in a kind of a secular way that have been eroding that separation, and I am opposed to that.With regard to a platform on the Supreme Court, I can only say one thing about that. I have appointed one member to the Supreme Court: Sandra Day O’Connor. I’ll stand on my record on that. And if I have the opportunity to appoint any more, I’ll do it in the same manner that I did in selecting her.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal, please.MR. MONDALE: The platform to which the President refers, in fact, calls for a religious test in the selection of judges. And Jerry Falwell says that means we get two or three judges. And it would involve a religious test for the first time in American life.Let’s take the example that the President cites. I believe in prayer. My family prays. We’ve never had any difficulty finding time to pray. But do we want a constitutional amendment adopted of the kind proposed by the President that gets the local politicians into the business of selecting prayers that our children must either recite in school or be embarrassed and asked to excuse themselves? Who would write the prayer? What would it say? How would it be resolved when those disputes occur?It seems to me that a moment’s reflection tells you why the United States Senate turned that amendment down, because it will undermine the practice of honest faith in our country by politicizing it. We don’t want that.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. Mondale. Our time is up for this round.We go into the second round of our questioning, begin again with Jim Wieghart.Jim?Political IssuesMR. WIEGHART: After that discussion, this may be like going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but here goes. I have a political question for you, Mr. Mondale. [Laughter]Polls indicate a massive change in the electorate, away from the coalition that has long made the Democratic Party a majority. Blue-collar workers, young professionals, their children, and much of the middle class now regard themselves as Independents or Republican instead of Democrats, and the gap — the edge the Democrats had in party registration seems to be narrowing.I’d like to ask you, Mr. Mondale, what is causing this? Is the Democratic Party out of sync with the majority of Americans? And will it soon be replaced as the majority party by the Republicans? What do you think needs to be done about it, as a Democrat?MR. MONDALE: My answer is that this campaign isn’t over yet. And when people vote, I think you’re going to see a very strong verdict by the American people that they favor the approach that I’m talking about.The American people want arms control. They don’t want this arms race. And they don’t want this deadly new effort to bring weapons into the heavens. And they want an American foreign policy that leads toward a safer world.The American people see this debt, and they know it’s got to come down. And if it won’t come down, the economy’s going to slow down, maybe go into a recession. They see this tremendous influx and swamping of cheap foreign imports in this country that has cost over 3 million jobs, given farmers the worst year in American history. And they know this debt must come down as well, because it’s unfair to our children.The American people want this environment protected. They know that these toxic waste dumps should have been cleaned up a long time ago, and they know that people’s lives and health are being risked, because we’ve had an administration that has been totally insensitive to the law and the demand for the protection of the environment.The American people want their children educated. They want to get our edge back in science, and they want a policy headed by the President that helps close this gap that’s widening between the United States and Europe and Japan.The American people want to keep opening doors. They want those civil rights laws enforced. They want the equal rights amendment ratified. They want equal pay for comparable effort for women. And they want it because they’ve understood from the beginning that when we open doors, we’re all stronger, just as we were at the Olympics.I think as you make the case, the American people will increasingly come to our cause.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. Mondale, isn’t it possible that the American people have heard your message — and they are listening — but they are rejecting it?MR. MONDALE: Well, tonight we had the first debate over the deficit. The President says it’ll disappear automatically. I’ve said it’s going to take some work. I think the American people will draw their own conclusions.Secondly, I’ve said that I will not support the cuts in Social Security and Medicare and the rest that the President has proposed. The President answers that it didn’t happen or, if it did, it was resolved later in a commission. As the record develops, I think it’s going to become increasingly clear that what I am saying and where I want to take this country is exactly where the country wants to go, and the comparison of approaches is such that I think will lead to further strength.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, you and your party are benefiting from what appears to be an erosion of the old Democratic coalition, but you have not laid out a specific agenda to take this shift beyond November 6th. What is your program for America for the next decade, with some specificity?THE PRESIDENT: Well, again, I’m running on the record. I think sometimes Mr. Mondale’s running away from his. But I’m running on the record of what we have asked for. We’ll continue to try to get things that we didn’t get in a program that has already brought the rate of spending of government down from 17 percent to 6.1 percent, a program of returning authority and autonomy to the local and State governments that has been unjustly seized by the Federal Government. And you might find those words in a Democratic platform of some years ago — I know, because I was a Democrat at that time. And I left the party eventually, because I could no longer follow the turn in the Democratic leadership that took us down an entirely different path, a path of centralizing authority in the Federal Government, lacking trust in the American people.I promised, when we took office, that we would reduce inflation. We have, to one-third of what it was. I promised that we would reduce taxes. We did, 25 percent across the board. That barely held even with — if it did that much — with the gigantic tax increase imposed in 1977. But at least it took that burden away from them.I said that we would create jobs for our people, and we did — 6 million in the last 20 or 21 months. I said that we would become respected in the world once again and that we would refurbish our national defense to the place that we could deal on the world scene and then seek disarmament, reduction of arms, and, hopefully, an elimination of nuclear weapons. We have done that.All of the things that I said we would do, from inflation being down, interest rates being down, unemployment falling, all of those things we have done. And I think this is something the American people see.I think they also know that we had a commission that came in a year ago with a recommendation on education — on excellence in education. And today, without the Federal Government being involved other than passing on to them, the school districts, the words from that commission, we find 35 States with task forces now dealing with their educational problems. We find that schools are extending the curriculum to now have forced teaching of mathematics and science and so forth. All of these things have brought an improvement in the college entrance exams for the first time in some 20 years.So, I think that many Democrats are seeing the same thing this Democrat saw: The leadership isn’t taking us where we want to go.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, much of what you said affects the quality of life of many Americans — their income, the way they live, and so forth — but there’s an aspect to quality of life that lies beyond the private sector which has to do with our neighborhoods, our cities, our streets, our parks, our environment. In those areas, I have difficulty seeing what your program is and what you feel the Federal responsibility is in these areas of the quality of life in the public sector that affects everybody, and even enormous wealth by one individual can’t create the kind of environment that he might like.THE PRESIDENT: There are tasks that government legitimately should enforce and tasks that government performs well, and you’ve named some of them. Crime has come down the last 2 years, for the first time in many, many decades that it has come down — or since we’ve kept records — 2 consecutive years, and last year it came down the biggest drop in crime that we’ve had. I think that we’ve had something to do with that, just as we have with the drug problem nationwide.The environment? Yes, I feel as strongly as anyone about the preservation of the environment. When we took office, we found that the national parks were so dirty and contained so many hazards, lack of safety features, that we stopped buying additional park land until we had rectified this with what was to be a 5-year program — but it’s just about finished already — a billion dollars. And now we’re going back to budgeting for additional lands for our parks. We have added millions of acres to the wilderness lands, to the game refuges. I think that we’re out in front of most — and I see that the red light is blinking, so I can’t continue. But I’ve got more.MS. WALTERS: Well, you’ll have a chance when your rebuttal time comes up, perhaps, Mr. President. Mr. Mondale, now it’s your turn for rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: The President says that when the Democratic Party made its turn, he left it. The year that he decided we had lost our way was the year that John F. Kennedy was running against Richard Nixon. I was chairman of “Minnesotans for Kennedy;” President Reagan was chairman of a thing called “Democrats for Nixon.” Now, maybe we made a wrong turn with Kennedy, but I’ll be proud of supporting him all of my life. And I’m very happy that John Kennedy was elected, because John Kennedy looked at the future with courage, saw what needed to be done, and understood his own government.The President just said that his government is shrinking. It’s not. It’s now the largest peacetime government ever in terms of the take from the total economy. And instead of retreating — instead of being strong where we should be strong, he wants to make it strong and intervene in the most private and personal questions in American life. That’s where government should not be.MS. WALTERS: Mr. President?THE PRESIDENT: Before I campaigned as a Democrat for a Republican candidate for President, I had already voted for Dwight Eisenhower to be President of the United States. And so, my change had come earlier than that. I hadn’t gotten around to reregistering as yet. I found that was rather difficult to do. But I finally did it.There are some other things that have been said here — back, and you said that I might be able to dredge them up. Mr. Mondale referred to the farmers’ worst year. The farmers are not the victims of anything this administration has done. The farmers were the victims of the double-digit inflation and the 21\\1/2\\-percent interest rates of the Carter-Mondale administration and the grain embargo, which destroyed our reliability nationwide as a supplier. All of these things are presently being rectified, and I think that we are going to salvage the farmers. As a matter of fact, there has been less than one-quarter of 1 percent of foreclosures of the 270,000 loans from government that the farmers have.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. President. We’ll now turn to Diane Sawyer for her round of questions.Diane?AbortionMS. SAWYER: I’d like to turn to an area that I think few people enjoy discussing, but that we probably should tonight because the positions of the two candidates are so clearly different and lead to very different policy consequences — and that is abortion and right to life. I’m exploring for your personal views of abortion and specifically how you would want them applied as public policy.First, Mr. President. Do you consider abortion murder or a sin? And second, how hard would you work — what kind of priority would you give in your second term legislation to make abortion illegal? And specifically, would you make certain, as your party platform urges, that Federal justices that you appoint be prolife?THE PRESIDENT: I have believed that in the appointment of judges that all that was specified in the party platform was that they respect the sanctity of human life. Now, that I would want to see in any judge and with regard to any issue having to do with human life. But with regard to abortion, and I have a feeling that this is — there’s been some reference without naming it here in the remarks of Mr. Mondale tied to injecting religion into government. With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it’s a problem of the Constitution.I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us. And I think that this is what we should concentrate on, is trying — I know there were weeks and weeks of testimony before a Senate committee, there were medical authorities, there were religious — there were clerics there — everyone talking about this matter of prolife. And at the end of all of that, not one shred of evidence was introduced that the unborn child was not alive. We have seen premature births that are now grown-up, happy people going around.Also, there is a strange dichotomy in this whole position about our courts ruling that abortion is not the taking of a human life. In California, sometime ago, a man beat a woman so savagely that her unborn child was born dead with a fractured skull, and the California State Legislature unanimously passed a law that was signed by the then-Democratic Governor — signed a law that said that any man who so abuses a pregnant woman that he causes the death of her unborn child shall be charged with murder. Now, isn’t it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child, and it was abortion and not murder, but if somebody else does it, that’s murder? And it used the term “death of the unborn child.”So, this has been my feeling about abortion, that we have a problem now to determine — and all the evidence so far comes down on the side of the unborn child being a living human being.MS. SAWYER: A two-part followup. Do I take it from what you’ve said about the platform, then, that you don’t regard the language and don’t regard in your own appointments, abortion position a test of any kind for justices — that it should be? And also, if abortion is made illegal, how would you want it enforced? Who would be the policing units that would investigate? And would you want the women who have abortions to be prosecuted?THE PRESIDENT: The laws regarding that always were State laws. It was only when the Supreme Court handed down a decision that the Federal Government intervened in what had always been a State policy. Our laws against murder are State laws. So, I would think that this would be the point of enforcement on this.As I say, I feel that we have a problem here to resolve. And no one has approached it from that matter. It does not happen that the church that I belong to had that as part of its dogma. I know that some churches do.Now, it is a sin if you’re taking a human life. At the same time, in our Judeo-Christian tradition, we recognize the right of taking a human life in self-defense. And therefore, I’ve always believed that a mother, if medically it is determined that her life is at risk if she goes through with the pregnancy, she has a right then to take the life of even her own unborn child in defense of her own.MS. SAWYER: Mr. Mondale, to turn to you, do you consider abortion a murder or a sin? And bridging from what President Reagan said, he has written that if society doesn’t know whether life does — human life, in fact, does begin at conception, as long as there is a doubt, that the unborn child should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and that there should be protection for that unborn child.MR. MONDALE: This is one of the most emotional and difficult issues that could possibly be debated. I think your questions, however, underscore the fact there is probably no way that government should or could answer this question in every individual case and in the private lives of the American people.The constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan would make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion if she had been raped or suffered from incest. Is it really the view of the American people, however you feel on the question of abortion, that government ought to be reaching into your livingrooms and making choices like this? I think it cannot work, won’t work, and will lead to all kinds of cynical evasions of the law. Those who can afford to have them will continue to have them. The disadvantaged will go out in the back alley as they used to do.I think these questions are inherently personal and moral, and every individual instance is different. Every American should be aware of the seriousness of the step. But there are some things that government can do and some things they cannot do.Now, the example that the President cites has nothing to do with abortion. Somebody went to a woman and nearly killed her. That’s always been a serious crime and always should be a serious crime. But how does that compare with the problem of a woman who is raped? Do we really want those decisions made by judges who’ve been picked because they will agree to find the person guilty? I don’t think so, and I think it’s going in exactly the wrong direction.In America, on basic moral questions we have always let the people decide in their own personal lives. We haven’t felt so insecure that we’ve reached for the club of state to have our point of view. It’s been a good instinct. And we’re the most religious people on Earth.One final point: President Reagan, as Governor of California, signed a bill which is perhaps the most liberal proabortion bill of any State in the Union.MS. SAWYER: But if I can get you back for a moment on my point, which was the question of when human life begins — a two-part followup. First of all, at what point do you believe that human life begins in the growth of a fetus? And second of all, you said that government shouldn’t be involved in the decisions. Yet there are those who would say that government is involved, and the consequence of the involvement was 1.5 million abortions in 1980. And how do you feel about that?MR. MONDALE: The basic decision of the Supreme Court is that each person has to make this judgment in her own life, and that’s the way it’s been done. And it’s a personal and private, moral judgment. I don’t know the answer to when life begins. And it’s not that simple, either. You’ve got another life involved. And if it’s rape, how do you draw moral judgments on that? If it’s incest, how do you draw moral judgments on that? Does every woman in America have to present herself before some judge picked by Jerry Falwell to clear her personal judgment? It won’t work. [Applause]MS. WALTERS: I’m sorry to do this, but I really must talk to the audience.You’re all invited guests. I know I’m wasting time in talking to you, but it really is very unfair of you to applaud — sometimes louder, less loud — and I ask you, as people who were invited here, and polite people, to refrain.We have our time now for rebuttal. Mr. President.THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, with regard to this being a personal choice, isn’t that what a murderer is insisting on, his or her right to kill someone because of whatever fault they think justifies that?Now, I’m not capable, and I don’t think you are, any of us, to make this determination that must be made with regard to human life. I am simply saying that I believe that that’s where the effort should be directed — to make that determination.I don’t think that any of us should be called upon here to stand and make a decision as to what other things might come under the self-defense tradition. That, too, would have to be worked out then, when you once recognize that we’re talking about a life. But in this great society of ours, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense, in this gentle and kind society, if we had a program that made it possible for when incidents come along in which someone feels they must do away with that unborn child, that instead we make it available for the adoption? There are a million and a half people out there standing in line waiting to adopt children who can’t have them any other way.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale.MR. MONDALE: I agree with that, and that’s why I was a principal sponsor of a liberal adoption law, so that more of these children could come to term, so that the young mothers were educated, so we found an option, an alternative. I’m all for that. But the question is whether this other option proposed by the President should be pursued. And I don’t agree with it.Since I’ve got about 20 seconds, let me just say one thing. The question of agriculture came up a minute ago. Net farm income is off 50 percent in the last 3 years, and every farmer knows it. And the effect of these economic policies is like a massive grain embargo, which has caused farm exports to drop 20 percent. It’s been a big failure. I opposed the grain embargo in my administration. I’m opposed to these policies as well.MS. WALTERS: I’m sitting here like the great schoolteacher, letting you both get away with things — because one did it, the other one did it. May I ask in the future that the rebuttal stick to what the rebuttal is. And also, foreign policy will be the next debate. Stop dragging it in by its ear into this one. [Laughter]Now, having admonished you, I would like to say to the panel, you are allowed one question and one followup. Would you try, as best you could, not to ask two and three — I know it’s something we all want to do — two and three questions as part one and two and three as part two.Having said that, Fred, it’s yours.Federal TaxationMR. BARNES: Thank you. Mr. Mondale, let me ask you about middle-class Americans and the taxes they pay. Now, I’m talking not about the rich or the poor — I know your views on their taxes — but about families earning 25,000 to 45,000 a year. Do you think that those families are overtaxed or undertaxed by the Federal Government?MR. MONDALE: In my opinion, as we deal with this deficit, people from about $70,000 a year on down have to be dealt with very, very carefully, because they are the ones who didn’t get any relief the first time around.Under the 1981 tax bill, people making $200,000 a year got $60,000 in tax relief over 3 years, while people making $30,000 a year, all taxes considered, got no relief at all or their taxes actually went up. That’s why my proposal protects everybody from $25,000 a year or less against any tax increases, and treats those $70,000 and under in a way that is more beneficial than the way the President proposes with a sales tax or a flat tax.What does this mean in real life? Well, the other day, Vice President Bush disclosed his tax returns to the American people. He’s one of the wealthiest Americans, and he’s our Vice President. In 1981 I think he paid about 40 percent in taxes. In 1983, as a result of these tax preferences, he paid a little over 12 percent, 12.8 percent in taxes. That meant that he paid a lower percent in taxes than the janitor who cleaned up his office or the chauffeur who drives him to work.I believe we need some fairness. And that’s why I’ve proposed what I think is a fair and a responsible proposal that helps protect these people who’ve already got no relief or actually got a tax increase.MR. BARNES: It sounds as if you are saying you think this group of taxpayers making 25,000 to 45,000 a year is already overtaxed, yet your tax proposal would increase their taxes. I think your aides have said those earning about 25,000 to 35,000, their tax rate would go up — their tax bill would go up a hundred dollars, and from 35,000 to 45,000, more than that, several hundred dollars. Wouldn’t that stifle their incentive to work and invest and so on, and also hurt the recovery?MR. MONDALE: The first thing is, everybody 25,000 and under would have no tax increase.Mr. Reagan, after the election, is going to have to propose a tax increase, and you will have to compare what he proposes. And his Secretary of the Treasury said he’s studying a sales tax or a value-added tax. They’re the same thing. They hit middle- and moderate-income Americans and leave wealthy Americans largely untouched.Up until about $70,000, as you go up the ladder, my proposals will be far more beneficial. As soon as we get the economy on a sound ground as well, I’d like to see the total repeal of indexing. I don’t think we can do that for a few years. But at some point, we want to do that as well.MR. BARNES: Mr. President, let me try this on you. Do you think middle-income Americans are overtaxed or undertaxed?THE PRESIDENT: You know, I wasn’t going to say this at all, but I can’t help it. There you go again. [Laughter] I don’t have a plan to tax — or increase taxes. I’m not going to increase taxes. I can understand why you are, Mr. Mondale, because as a Senator you voted 16 times to increase taxes.Now, I believe that our problem has not been that anybody in our country is undertaxed; it’s that government is overfed. And I think that most of our people — this is why we had a 25-percent tax cut across the board which maintained the same progressivity of our tax structure in the brackets on up. And, as a matter of fact, it just so happens that in the quirks of administering these taxes, those above $50,000 actually did not get quite as big a tax cut percentage-wise as did those from 50,000 down. From 50,000 down, those people paid two-thirds of the taxes, and those people got two-thirds of the tax cut.Now, the Social Security tax of ’77 — this indeed was a tax that hit people in the lower brackets the hardest. It had two features. It had several tax increases phased in over a period of time — there are two more yet to come between now and 1989. At the same time every year, it increased the amount of money — virtually every year, there may have been one or two that were skipped in there — that was subject to that tax. Today it is up to about $38,000 of earnings that is subject to the payroll tax for Social Security. And that tax, there are no deductions, so a person making anywhere from 10, 15, 20 — they’re paying that tax on the full gross earnings that they have after they have already paid an income tax on that same amount of money.Now, I don’t think that to try and say that we were taxing the rich, and not the other way around, it just doesn’t work out that way. The system is still where it was with regard to the progressivity, as I’ve said, and that has not been changed. But if you take it in numbers of dollars instead of percentage, yes, you could say, well, that person got 10 times as much as this other person. Yes, but he paid 10 times as much, also. But if you take it in percentages, then you find out that it is fair and equitable across the board.MR. BARNES: I thought I caught, Mr. President, a glimmer of a stronger statement there in your answer than you’ve made before. I think the operative position you had before was that you would only raise taxes in a second term as a last resort, and I thought you said flatly that “I’m not going to raise taxes.” Is that what you meant to say, that you will not — that you will flatly not raise taxes in your second term as President?THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I had used — “last resort” would always be with me. If you got the Government down to the lowest level, that you yourself could say it could not go any lower and still perform the services for the people, and if the recovery was so complete that you knew you were getting the ultimate amount of revenues that you could get through that growth, and there was still some slight difference there between those two lines, then I had said once that, yes, you would have to then look to see if taxes should not be adjusted.I don’t foresee those things happening, so I say with great confidence I’m not going to go for a tax.With regard to assailing Mr. Bush about his tax problems and the difference from the tax he once paid and then the later tax he paid, I think if you looked at the deductions, there were great legal expenses in there — had to do, possibly, with the sale of his home, and they had to do with his setting up of a blind trust. All of those are legally deductions, deductible in computing your tax, and it was a 1-year thing with him.MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale, here we go again. It’s time for rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Well, first of all, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the house deal. I’m just talking about the 12.8 percent that he paid, and that’s what’s happening all over this country with wealthy Americans. They’ve got so many loopholes they don’t have to pay much in taxes.Now, Mr. President, you said, “There you go again,” right?THE PRESIDENT: Yes.MR. MONDALE: You remember the last time you said that?THE PRESIDENT: Mm-hmm.MR. MONDALE: You said it when President Carter said that you were going to cut Medicare, and you said, “Oh, no, there you go again, Mr. President.” And what did you do right after the election? You went out and tried to cut $20 billion out of Medicare. And so, when you say, “There you go again” — people remember this, you know. [Laughter] And people will remember that you signed the biggest tax increase in the history of California and the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States, and what are you going to do? You’ve got a $260 billion deficit. You can’t wish it away. You won’t slow defense spending; you refuse to do that — —MS. WALTERS: Mr. Mondale, I’m afraid your time is up.MR. MONDALE: Sorry.MS. WALTERS: Mr. President?THE PRESIDENT: Yes. With regard to Medicare, no, but it’s time for us to say that Medicare is in pretty much the same condition that Social Security was, and something is going to have to be done in the next several years to make it fiscally sound. And, no, I never proposed any $20 billion should come out of Medicare; I have proposed that the program we must treat with that particular problem. And maybe part of that problem is because during the 4 years of the Carter-Mondale administration medical costs in this country went up 87 percent.MS. WALTERS: All right. Fine.THE PRESIDENT: I gave you back some of that time. [Laughter]MS. WALTERS: We can’t keep going back for other rebuttals; there’ll be time later.We now go to our final round. The way things stand now, we have time for only two sets of questions, and by lot, it will be Jim and Diane. And we’ll start with Jim Wieghart.Social Welfare ProgramsMR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, the economic recovery is real, but uneven. The Census Bureau, just a month ago, reported that there are more people living under poverty now, a million more people living under it, than when you took office.There have been a number of studies, including studies by the Urban Institute and other nonpolitical organizations, that say that the impact of the tax and budget cuts and your economic policies have impacted severely on certain classes of Americans — working mothers, head of households, minority groups, elderly poor. In fact, they’re saying the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under your policies.What relief can you offer to the working poor, to the minorities, and to the women head of households who have borne the brunt of these economic programs? What can you offer them in the future, in your next term?THE PRESIDENT: Well, some of those facts and figures just don’t stand up. Yes, there has been an increase in poverty, but it is a lower rate of increase than it was in the preceding years before we got here. It has begun to decline, but it is still going up.On the other hand, women heads of household — single women heads of household have — for the first time there’s been a turndown in the rate of poverty for them. We have found also in our studies that in this increase in poverty, it all had to do with their private earnings. It had nothing to do with the transfer of payments from government by way of many programs.We are spending now 37 percent more on food for the hungry in all the various types of programs than was spent in 1980. We’re spending a third more on all of the — well, all of the programs of human service. We have more people receiving food stamps than were ever receiving them before — 2,300,000 more are receiving them — even though we took 850,000 off the food stamp rolls because they were making an income that was above anything that warranted their fellow citizens having to support them. We found people making 185 percent of the poverty level were getting government benefits. We have set a line at 130 percent so that we can direct that aid down to the truly needy.Some time ago, Mr. Mondale said something about education and college students and help of that kind. Half — one out of two of the full-time college students in the United States are receiving some form of Federal aid. But there, again, we found people that there under the previous administration, families that had no limit to income were still eligible for low-interest college loans. We didn’t think that was right. And so, we have set a standard that those loans and those grants are directed to the people who otherwise could not go to college, their family incomes were so low.So, there are a host of other figures that reveal that the grant programs are greater than they have ever been, taking care of more people than they ever have. 7.7 million elderly citizens who were living in the lowest 20 percent of earnings — 7.7 million have moved up into another bracket since our administration took over, leaving only 5 million of the elderly in that bracket when there had been more than 13 million.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. President, in a visit to Texas — in Brownsville, I believe it was, in the Rio Grande Valley — you did observe that the economic recovery was uneven.THE PRESIDENT: Yes.MR. WIEGHART: In that particular area of Texas, unemployment was over 14 percent, whereas statewide, it was the lowest in the country, I believe — 5.6 percent. And you made the comment, however, that man does not live by bread alone. What did you mean by that comment? And if I interpret it correctly, it would be a comment more addressed to the affluent who obviously can look beyond just the bread they need to sustain them, with their wherewithal.THE PRESIDENT: That had nothing to do with the other thing of talking about their needs or anything. I remember distinctly, I was segueing into another subject. I was talking about the things that have been accomplished, and that was referring to the revival of patriotism and optimism, the new spirit that we’re finding all over America. And it is a wonderful thing to see when you get out there among the people. So, that was the only place that that was used.I did avoid, I’m afraid, in my previous answer, also, the idea of uneven, yes. There is no way that the recovery is even across the country, just as in the depths of the recession, there were some parts of the country that were worse off, but some that didn’t even feel the pain of the recession.We’re not going to rest and not going to be happy until every person in this country who wants a job can have one, until the recovery is complete across the country.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. Mondale, as you can gather from the question to the President, the celebrated War on Poverty obviously didn’t end the problem of poverty, although it may have dented it. The poor and the homeless and the disadvantaged are still with us. What should the Federal Government’s role be to turn back the growth in the number of people living below the poverty level, which is now 35 million in the United States, and to help deal with the structural unemployment problems that the President was referring to in an uneven recovery?MR. MONDALE: Number one, we’ve got to get the debt down to get the interest rates down so the economy will grow and people will be employed.Number two, we have to work with cities and others to help generate economic growth in those communities — through the Urban Development Action Grant Program. I don’t mind those enterprise zones; let’s try them, but not as a substitute for the others. Certainly education and training is crucial. If these young Americans don’t have the skills that make them attractive to employees, they’re not going to get jobs.The next thing is to try to get more entrepreneurship in business within the reach of minorities so that these businesses are located in the communities in which they’re found. The other thing is, we need the business community as well as government heavily involved in these communities to try to get economic growth.There is no question that the poor are worse off. I think the President genuinely believes that they’re better off. But the figures show that about 8 million more people are below the poverty line than 4 years ago. How you can cut school lunches, how you can cut student assistance, how you can cut housing, how you can cut disability benefits, how you can do all of these things and then the people receiving them — for example, the disabled, who have no alternative — how they’re going to do better, I don’t know. Now, we need a tight budget, but there’s no question that this administration has singled out things that affect the most vulnerable in American life, and they’re hurting.One final point if I might. There’s another part of the lopsided economy that we’re in today, and that is that these heavy deficits have killed exports and are swamping the Nation with cheap imports. We are now $120 billion of imports, 3 million jobs lost, and farmers are having their worst year. That’s another reason to get the deficit down.MR. WIEGHART: Mr. Mondale, is it possible that the vast majority of Americans who appear to be prosperous have lost interest in the kinds of programs you’re discussing to help those less privileged than they are?MR. MONDALE: I think the American people want to make certain that that dollar is wisely spent. I think they stand for civil rights. I know they’re all for education in science and training, which I strongly support. They want these young people to have a chance to get jobs and the rest. I think the business community wants to get involved. I think they’re asking for new and creative ways to try to reach it with everyone involved. I think that’s part of it. I think also that the American people want a balanced program that gives us long-term growth so that they’re not having to take money that’s desperate to themselves and their families and give it to someone else. I’m opposed to that, too.MS. WALTERS: And now it is time for our rebuttal for this period. Mr. President?THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The connection that’s been made again between the deficit and the interest rates — there is no connection between them. There is a connection between interest rates and inflation, but I would call to your attention that in 1981 while we were operating still on the Carter-Mondale budget that we inherited — that the interest rates came down from 21\\1/2\\, down toward the 12 or 13 figure. And while they were coming down, the deficits had started their great increase. They were going up. Now, if there was a connection I think that there would be a different parallel between deficits getting larger and interest rates going down.The interest rates are based on inflation. And right now I have to tell you I don’t think there is any excuse for the interest rates being as high as they are because we have brought inflation down so low. I think it can only be that they’re anticipating or hope — expecting, not hoping, that maybe we don’t have a control of inflation and it’s going to go back up again. Well, it isn’t going to go back up. We’re going to see that it doesn’t.And I haven’t got time to answer with regard to the disabled.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. President.MR. MONDALE:MR. MONDALE: Mr. President, if I heard you correctly, you said that these deficits don’t have anything to do with interest rates. I will grant you that interest rates were too high in 1980, and we can have another debate as to why — energy prices and so on. There’s no way of glossing around that. But when these huge deficits went in place in 1981, what’s called the real interest rates — the spread between inflation and what a loan costs you doubled — and that’s still the case today. And the result is interest costs that have never been seen before in terms of real charges, and it’s attributable to the deficit.Everybody — every economist, every businessman — believes that. Your own Council of Economic Advisers — Mr. Feldstein in his report told you that. Every chairman of the Finance and Ways and Means Committee, Republican leaders in the Senate and the House are telling you that. That deficit is ruining the long-term hopes for this economy. It’s causing high interest rates. It’s ruining us in trade. It’s given us the highest small business failure in 50 years. The economy is starting downhill with housing failure — —MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. Mondale.You’re both very obedient. I have to give you credit for that.We now start our final round of questions. We do want to have time for your rebuttal.We start with Diane — Diane Sawyer.Presidential CampaignMS. SAWYER: Since we are reaching the end of the question period, and since in every Presidential campaign, the candidates tend to complain that the opposition candidate is not held accountable for what he or she says, let me give you the chance to do that.Mr. Mondale, beginning with you. What do you think the most outrageous thing is your opponent said in this debate tonight? [Laughter]MR. MONDALE: Do you want to give me some suggestions? [Laughter] I’m going to use my time a little differently. I’m going to give the President some credit. I think the President has done some things to raise the sense of spirit, morale, good feeling in this country, and he’s entitled to credit for that. What I think we need, however, is not just that but to move forward, not just congratulating ourselves but challenging ourselves to get on with the business of dealing with America’s problems.I think in education, when he lectured the country about the importance of discipline, I didn’t like it at first, but I think it helped a little bit. But now we need both that kind of discipline and the resources and the consistent leadership that allows this country to catch up in education and science and training.I like President Reagan. And this is not personal — there are deep differences about our future, and that’s the basis of my campaign.MS. SAWYER: Follow up in a similar vein, then. What remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer?MR. MONDALE: Without any doubt, I have stood up and told the American people that that $263 billion deficit must come down. And I’ve done what no candidate for President has ever done, I told you before the election what I’d do.Mr. Reagan, as you saw tonight — President Reagan takes the position it will disappear by magic. It was once called voodoo economics. I wish the President would say: Yes, the CBO is right. Yes, we have a $263 billion deficit. This is how I’m going to get it done. Don’t talk about growth, because even though we need growth, that’s not helping. It’s going to go in the other direction, as they’ve estimated.And give us a plan. What will you cut? Whose taxes will you raise? Will you finally touch that defense budget? Are you going to go after Social Security and Medicare and student assistance and the handicapped again as you did last time? If you’d just tell us what you’re going to do, then the American people could compare my plan for the future with your plan. And that’s the way it should be. The American people would be in charge.MS. SAWYER: Mr. President, the most outrageous thing your opponent has said in the debate tonight?THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, I have to start with a smile, since his kind words to me.I’ll tell you what I think has been the most outrageous thing in political dialog, both in this campaign and the one in ’82. And that is the continued discussion and claim that somehow I am the villain who is going to pull the Social Security checks out from those people who are dependent on them.And why I think it is outrageous — first of all, it isn’t true. But why it is outrageous is because, for political advantage, every time they do that, they scare millions of senior citizens who are totally dependent on Social Security, have no place else to turn. And they have to live and go to bed at night thinking, “Is this true? Is someone going to take our check away from us and leave us destitute?” And I don’t think that that should be a part of political dialog.Now, to — I still — I just have a minute here?MS. WALTERS: You have more time.THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I — —MS. WALTERS: You can keep going.THE PRESIDENT: Okay. All right.Now, Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all. I told you never would I do such a thing. But I tell you also now, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the out-go of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce a deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So, Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.Now, again, to get to whether I am depending on magic, I think I have talked in straight economic terms about a program of recovery that I was told wouldn’t work. And then, after it worked, I was told that lowering taxes would increase inflation. And none of these things happened. It is working, and we’re going to continue on that same line.As to what we might do, and find in further savings cuts, no, we’re not going to starve the hungry. But we have 2,478 specific recommendations from a commission of more than 2,000 business people in this country, through the Grace commission, that we’re studying right now — and we’ve already implemented 17 percent of them — that are recommendations as to how to make government more efficient, more economic.MS. SAWYER: And to keep it even, what remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer?THE PRESIDENT: Why the deficits are so much of a problem for him now, but that in 1976, when the deficit was $52 billion and everyone was panicking about that, he said, no, that he thought it ought to be bigger, because a bigger deficit would stimulate the economy and would help do away with unemployment. In 1979 he made similar statements, the same effect, that the deficits — there was nothing wrong with having deficits.Remember, there was a trillion dollars in debt before we got here. That’s got to be paid by our children and grandchildren, too, if we don’t do it. And I’m hoping we can start some payments on it before we get through here. That’s why I want another 4 years.MS. WALTERS: Well, we have time now, if you’d like to answer the President’s question, or whatever rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Well, we’ve just finished almost the whole debate. And the American people don’t have the slightest clue about what President Reagan will do about these deficits. [Laughter] And yet, that’s the most important single issue of our time.I did support the ’76 measure that he told about, because we were in a deep recession and we needed some stimulation. But I will say as a Democrat, I was a real piker, Mr. President. In 1979 we ran a $29 billion deficit all year. This administration seems to run that every morning. And the result is exactly what we see. This economy is starting to run downhill. Housing is off. Last report on new purchases, it’s the lowest since 1982. Growth is a little over 3 percent now. Many people are predicting a recession. And the flow of imports into this country is swamping the American people.We’ve got to deal with this problem, and those of us who want to be your President should tell you now what we’re going to do, so you can make a judgment.MS. WALTERS: Thank you very much. We must stop now. I want to give you time for your closing statements. It’s indeed time for that from each of you. We will begin with President Reagan.Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Reagan, you had your rebuttal, and I just cut you off because our time is going. You have a chance now for rebuttal before your closing statement. Is that correct?THE PRESIDENT: No, I might as well just go with — —MS. WALTERS: Do you want to go with your — —THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. I’m all confused now.MS. WALTERS: Technically, you did. I have little voices that come in my ear. [Laughter] You don’t get those same voices. I’m not hearing it from here — I’m hearing it from here.THE PRESIDENT: All right.MS. WALTERS: You have waived your rebuttal. You can go with your closing statement.Closing StatementsTHE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll include it in that.MS. WALTERS: Okay.THE PRESIDENT: Four years ago, in similar circumstances to this, I asked you, the American people, a question. I asked: “Are you better off than you were 4 years before?” The answer to that obviously was no, and as the result, I was elected to this office and promised a new beginning.Now, maybe I’m expected to ask that same question again. I’m not going to, because I think that all of you — or not everyone, those people that are in those pockets of poverty and haven’t caught up, they couldn’t answer the way I would want them to — but I think that most of the people in this country would say, yes, they are better off than they were 4 years ago.The question, I think, should be enlarged. Is America better off than it was 4 years ago? And I believe the answer to that has to also be “yes.” I promised a new beginning. So far, it is only a beginning. If the job were finished, I might have thought twice about seeking reelection for this job.But we now have an economy that, for the first time — well, let’s put it this way: In the first half of 1980, gross national product was down a minus 3.7 percent. The first half of ’84 it’s up 8\\1/2\\ percent. Productivity in the first half of 1980 was down a minus 2 percent. Today it is up a plus 4 percent.Personal earnings after taxes per capita have gone up almost $3,000 in these 4 years. In 1980 — or 1979, a person with a fixed income of $8,000 was $500 above the poverty line, and this maybe explains why there are the numbers still in poverty. By 1980 that same person was $500 below the poverty line.We have restored much of our economy. With regard to business investment, it is higher than it has been since 1949. So, there seems to be no shortage of investment capital. We have, as I said, cut the taxes, but we have reduced inflation, and for 2 years now it has stayed down there, not at double digit, but in the range of 4 or below. We believe that we had also promised that we would make our country more secure.Yes, we have an increase in the defense budget. But back then we had planes that couldn’t fly for lack of spare parts or pilots. We had navy vessels that couldn’t leave harbor because of lack of crew or, again, lack of spare parts. Today we’re well on our way to a 600-ship navy. We have 543 at present.We have — our military, the morale is high. I think the people should understand that two-thirds of the defense budget pays for pay and salary, or pay and pension. And then you add to that food and wardrobe, and all the other things, and you only have a small portion going for weapons. But I am determined that if ever our men are called on, they should have the best that we can provide in the manner of tools and weapons. There has been reference to expensive spare parts, hammers costing $500. Well, we are the ones who found those.I think we’ve given the American people back their spirit. I think there’s an optimism in the land and a patriotism, and I think that we’re in a position once again to heed the words of Thomas Paine, who said: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. Reagan.Mr. Mondale, the closing words are now yours.MR. MONDALE: I want to thank the League of Women Voters and the city of Louisville for hosting this evening’s debate. I want to thank President Reagan for agreeing to debate. He didn’t have to, and he did, and we all appreciate it.The President’s favorite question is: Are you better off? Well, if you’re wealthy, you’re better off. If you’re middle income, you’re about where you were. And if you’re modest income, you’re worse off. That’s what the economists tell us.But is that really the question that should be asked? Isn’t the real question is will we be better off? Will our children be better off? Are we building the future that this nation needs? I believe that if we ask those questions that bear on our future, not just congratulate ourselves but challenge us to solve those problems, you’ll see that we need new leadership.Are we better of with this arms race? Will we be better off if we start this star wars escalation into the heavens? Are we better off when we deemphasize our values in human rights? Are we better off when we load our children with this fantastic debt? Would fathers and mothers feel proud of themselves if they loaded their children with debts like this nation is now — over a trillion dollars on the shoulders of our children? Can we say, really say that we will be better off when we pull away from sort of that basic American instinct of decency and fairness?I would rather lose a campaign about decency than win a campaign about self-interest. I don’t think this nation is composed of people who care only for themselves. And when we sought to assault Social Security and Medicare, as the record shows we did, I think that was mean-spirited. When we terminated 400,000 desperate, hopeless, defenseless Americans who were on disability — confused and unable to defend themselves, and just laid them out on the street, as we did for 4 years, I don’t think that’s what America is all about.America is a fair society, and it is not right that Vice President Bush pays less in taxes than the janitor who helps him. I believe there’s fundamental fairness crying out that needs to be achieved in our tax system.I believe that we will be better off if we protect this environment. And contrary to what the President says, I think their record on the environment is inexcusable and often shameful. These laws are not being enforced, have not been enforced, and the public health and the air and the water are paying the price. That’s not fair for our future.I think our future requires a President to lead us in an all-out search to advance our education, our learning, and our science and training, because this world is more complex and we’re being pressed harder all the time.I believe in opening doors. We won the Olympics, in part, because we’ve had civil rights laws and the laws that prohibit discrimination against women. I have been for those efforts all my life. The President’s record is quite different.The question is our future. President Kennedy once said in response to similar arguments, “We are great, but we can be greater.” We can be better if we face our future, rejoice in our strengths, face our problems, and by solving them, build a better society for our children.Thank you.MS. WALTERS: Thank you, Mr. Mondale. [Applause] Please, we have not finished quite yet.Thank you, Mr. Mondale, and thank you, Mr. President. And our thanks to our panel members, as well.And so we bring to a close this first of the League of Women Voters Presidential debates of 1984. You two can go at each again in the final League debate on October 21st, in Kansas City, Missouri. And this Thursday night, October 11th, at 9 p.m. eastern daylight time, the Vice President, George Bush, will debate Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro in Philadelphia.And I hope that you will all watch once again. No matter what the format is, these debates are very important. We all have an extremely vital decision to make.Once more, gentlemen, our thanks. Once more, to you, our thanks.Now, this is Barbara Walters wishing you a good evening.Note: The debate began at 9 p.m. in the Robert S. Whitney Hall at the Kentucky Center for the Arts",
    "id": "a25d0f86-79fa-4ec8-b079-ccbffe3088d1"
  },
  {
    "year": 2016,
    "date": "October 4, 2016",
    "title": "The Kain-Pence Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 4, 2016 Debate TranscriptVice Presidential Debate at Longwood University in Farmville, VirginiaOctober 4, 2016PARTICIPANTS:Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) andGovernor Mike Pence (R-IN)MODERATOR:Elaine Quijano (CBS News)QUIJANO: Good evening. From Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia, and welcome to the first, and only, vice presidential debate of 2016, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.I’m Elaine Quijano, anchor at CBSN, and correspondent for CBS News. It’s an honor to moderate this debate between Senator Tim Kaine and Governor Mike Pence. Both are longtime public servants who are also proud fathers of sons serving in the U.S. Marines.The campaigns have agreed to the rules of this 90-minute debate. There will be nine different segments covering domestic and foreign policy issues. Each segment will begin with a question to both candidates who will each have two minutes to answer. Then I’ll ask follow-up questions to facilitate a discussion between the candidates. By coin toss, it’s been determined that Senator Kaine will be first to answer the opening question.We have an enthusiastic audience tonight. They’ve agreed to only express that enthusiasm once at the end of the debate and right now as we welcome Governor Mike Pence and Senator Tim Kaine. [applause]Gentlemen, welcome. It truly is a privilege to be with both of you tonight.I’d like to start with the topic of presidential leadership. Twenty-eight years ago tomorrow night, Lloyd Bentsen said the vice presidential debate was not about the qualifications for the vice presidency, but about how if tragedy should occur, the vice president has to step in without any margin for error, without time for preparation, to take over the responsibility for the biggest job in the world.What about your qualities, your skills, and your temperament equip you to step into that role at a moment’s notice? Senator Kaine?KAINE: Elaine, thank you for being here tonight, and, Governor Pence, welcome. It is so great to be back at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia.This is a very special place. Sixty-five years ago, a young, courageous woman, Barbara Johns, led a walkout of her high school, Moton High School. She made history by protesting school segregation. She believed our nation was stronger together. And that walkout led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that moved us down the path toward equality.I am so proud to be running with another strong, history-making woman, Hillary Clinton, to be president of the United States. I’m proud because her vision of stronger together, building an economy that works for all, not just those at the top, being safe in the world not only with a strong military, but also strong alliances to battle terrorism and climate change, and also to build a community of respect, just like Barbara Johns tried to do 65 years ago. That’s why I’m so proud to be her running mate.Hillary told me why she asked me to be her running mate. She said the test of a Clinton administration will not be the signing of a bill or the passage of a bill. It’ll be whether we can make somebody’s life better, whether we can make a classroom better learning environment for schoolkids or teachers, whether we can make a safer — it’s going to be about results.And she said to me, you’ve been a missionary and a civil rights lawyer. You’ve been a city councilman and mayor. You’ve been a lieutenant governor and governor and now a U.S. senator. I think you will help me figure out how to govern this nation so that we always keep in mind that the success of the administration is the difference we make in people’s lives.And that’s what I bring to the ticket, that experience having served at all levels of government. But my primary role is to be Hillary Clinton’s right-hand person and strong supporter as she puts together the most historic administration possible. And I relish that role. I’m so proud of her.I’ll just say this: We trust Hillary Clinton, my wife and I, and we trust her with the most important thing in our life. We have a son deployed overseas in the Marine Corps right now. We trust Hillary Clinton as president and commander-in-chief, but the thought of Donald Trump as commander-in-chief scares us to death.QUIJANO: Governor Pence?PENCE: Well, first off, thank you, Elaine, and thank you to — thank you to Norwood University for their wonderful hospitality and the Commission on Presidential Debates. It’s deeply humbling for me to be here, to be surrounded by my — my wonderful family.And, Senator Kaine, it’s an honor to be here with you, as well. And I just — I also want to say — I want to say thanks to everyone that’s looking in tonight, who understands what an enormously important time this is in the life of our nation.For the last seven-and-a-half years, we’ve seen America’s place in the world weakened. We’ve seen an economy stifled by more taxes, more regulation, a war on coal, and a failing health care reform come to be known as Obamacare, and the American people know that we need to make a change. And so I want to thank all of you for being — being with us tonight.I also want to thank Donald Trump for making that call and inviting us to be a part of this ticket. I have to tell you, I’m a — I’m a small-town boy from a place not too different from Farmville. I grew up with a cornfield in my backyard. My grandfather had immigrated to this country when he was about my son’s age. My mom and dad built a — everything that matters in a small town in Southern Indiana. They built a family and — and a good name and a business. And they raised a family. And I dreamed some day of representing my home town in Washington, D.C., but I — honestly, Elaine, I never imagined — never imagined I’d have the opportunity to be governor of the state that I love, let alone be sitting at a table like this in this kind of a position.So to answer your question, I would say I — I would hope that if — if the responsibility ever fell to me in this role, that I would meet it with the way that I’m going to meet the responsibility should I be elected vice president of the United States. And that’s to bring a lifetime of experience, a lifetime growing up in a small town, a lifetime where I’ve served in the Congress of the United States, where — where I’ve led a state that works in the great state of Indiana, and whatever other responsibilities might follow from this, I — I would hope and, frankly, I would pray to be able to meet that moment with that — that lifetime of experience.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, on the campaign trail, you praised Secretary Clinton’s character, including her commitment to public service, yet 60 percent of voters don’t think she’s trustworthy. Why do so many people distrust her? Is it because they have questions about her e-mails and the Clinton Foundation?KAINE: Elaine, let me tell you why I trust Hillary Clinton. Here’s what people should look at as they look at a public servant. Do they have a passion in their life that showed up before they were in public life? And have they held onto that passion throughout their life, regardless of whether they were in office or not, succeeding or failing?Hillary Clinton has that passion. From a time as a kid in a Methodist youth group in the suburbs of Chicago, she has been focused on serving others with a special focus on empowering families and kids. As a civil rights lawyer in the South, with the Children’s Defense Fund, first lady of Arkansas and this country, senator, secretary of state, it’s always been about putting others first. And that’s a sharp contrast with Donald Trump.Donald Trump always puts himself first. He built a business career, in the words of one of his own campaign staffers, “off the backs of the little guy.” And as a candidate, he started his campaign with a speech where he called Mexicans rapists and criminals, and he has pursued the discredited and really outrageous lie that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.It is so painful to suggest that we go back to think about these days where an African-American could not be a citizen of the United States. And I can’t imagine how Governor Pence can defend the insult-driven selfish “me first” style of Donald Trump.QUIJANO: Governor Pence, let me ask you, you have said Donald Trump is, quote, “thoughtful, compassionate, and steady.” Yet 67 percent of voters feel he is a risky choice, and 65 percent feel he does not have the right kind of temperament to be president. Why do so many Americans think Mr. Trump is simply too erratic?PENCE: Well, let me — let me say first and foremost that, Senator, you and Hillary Clinton would know a lot about an insult-driven campaign. It really is remarkable. At a time when literally, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, where she was the architect of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, we see entire portions of the world, particularly the wider Middle East, literally spinning out of control. I mean, the situation we’re watching hour by hour in Syria today is the result of the failed foreign policy and the weak foreign policy that Hillary Clinton helped lead in this administration and create. The newly emboldened — the aggression of Russia, whether it was in Ukraine or now their heavy-handed approach…KAINE: You guys love Russia. You both have said…PENCE: … their heavy-handed approach.KAINE: You both have said — you both have said Vladimir Putin is a better leader than the president.PENCE: Well…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: Well, we’re going to get to Russia in just a moment. But I do want to get back to the question at…PENCE: But in the midst — Elaine, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, I’ll…KAINE: These guys have praised Vladimir Putin as a great leader. How can that…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: Yes, and we will get to that, Senator. We do have that coming up here. But in the meantime, the questions…PENCE: Well, Senator, I must have hit a…[crosstalk]…I must have hit a nerve here.QUIJANO: Why the disconnect?PENCE: Because at a time of great challenge in the life of this nation, where we’ve weakened America’s place in the world, stifled America’s economy, the campaign of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine has been an avalanche of insults.Look, to get to your question about trustworthiness, Donald Trump has built a business through hard times and through good times. He’s brought an extraordinary business acumen. He’s employed tens of thousands of people in this country.KAINE: And paid few taxes and lost a billion a year.[crosstalk]QUIJANO: And why the disconnect with your running mate?PENCE: But there’s a — there’s a reason why people question the trustworthiness of Hillary Clinton. And that’s because they’re paying attention. I mean, the reality is, when she was secretary of state, Senator, come on. She had a Clinton Foundation accepting contributions from foreign governments.KAINE: You are Donald Trump’s apprentice. Let me talk about this…[crosstalk]PENCE: Senator, I think I’m still on my time.KAINE: Well, I think — isn’t this a discussion?QUIJANO: This is our open discussion.KAINE: Yeah, let’s talk about the state of…[crosstalk]PENCE: Well, let me interrupt — let me interrupt you and finish my sentence, if I can.KAINE: Finish your sentence.PENCE: The Clinton Foundation accepted foreign contributions from foreign governments and foreign donors while she was secretary of state.KAINE: OK, now I can weigh in. Now…PENCE: She had a private server…KAINE: Now, I get to weigh in. Now, let me just say this…PENCE: … that was discovered…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: … Senator, you have an opportunity to respond.PENCE: … keep that pay to play process out of the reach of the public.KAINE: Governor Pence — Governor Pence doesn’t think the world’s going so well and he, you know, is going to say it’s everybody’s fault.PENCE: Do you?KAINE: Let me tell you this. When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Governor Pence, do you know that Osama bin Laden was alive?PENCE: Yes.KAINE: Do you know that we had 175,000 troops deployed in the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you know that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon and Russia was expanding its stockpile?Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, she was part of the national team, public safety team that went after and revived the dormant hunt against bin Laden and wiped him off the face of the Earth. She worked to deal with the Russians to reduce their chemical weapons stockpile. She worked a tough negotiation with nations around the world to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.PENCE: Eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program?KAINE: Absolutely, without firing a shot. And instead of 175,000 American troops deployed overseas, we now have 15,000.PENCE: Right and…KAINE: These are very, very good things.PENCE: And Iraq has been overrun by ISIS, because Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate…KAINE: Well, if you want to put more American troops in Iraq, you can propose that.PENCE: Hillary Clinton — Hillary Clinton — Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate a status of forces agreement…KAINE: No, that is incorrect. That’s incorrect.PENCE: And so we removed — we removed all of our…QUIJANO: Gentlemen, we’ll get to…[crosstalk]PENCE: … troops from Iraq, and ISIS was able to be conjured up in that vacuum.KAINE: But I’d like to correct…PENCE: … and overrun vast areas of Iraq.KAINE: Governor, President Bush said we would leave Iraq at the end of 2011. And, Elaine, Iraq didn’t want our troops to stay, and they wouldn’t give us the protection for our troops. And guess what? If a nation where our troops are serving does not want us to stay, we’re not going to stay without their protection.PENCE: It was a failure of the secretary of state…QUIJANO: We need to move on to the next topic, gentlemen.KAINE: If Governor Pence wants to put more troops back in Iraq, that’s…QUIJANO: There are a lot of people wondering in this country about the economy. Let’s turn to the issue of the economy.KAINE: OK.QUIJANO: According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, neither of your economic plans will reduce the growing $19 trillion gross national debt. In fact, your plans would add even more to it.Both of you were governors who balanced state budgets. Are you concerned that adding more to the debt could be disastrous for the country. Governor Pence?PENCE: I think the fact that — that under this past administration of which Hillary Clinton was a part, we’ve almost doubled the national debt is atrocious. I mean, I’m very proud of the fact that — I come from a state that works. The state of Indiana has balanced budgets. We cut taxes, we’ve made record investments in education and in infrastructure, and I still finish my term with $2 billion in the bank.That’s a little bit different than when Senator Kaine was governor here in Virginia. He actually — he actually tried to raise taxes by about $4 billion. He left his state about $2 billion in the hole. In the state of Indiana, we’ve cut unemployment in half; unemployment doubled when he was governor.But I think he’s a very fitting running mate for Hillary Clinton, because in the wake of a season where American families are struggling in this economy under the weight of higher taxes and Obamacare and the war on coal and the stifling avalanche of regulation coming out of this administration, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want more of the same. It really is remarkable that they actually are advocating a trillion dollars in tax increases, which I get that. You tried to raise taxes here in Virginia and were unsuccessful.But a trillion dollars in tax increases, more regulation, more of the same war on coal, and more of Obamacare that now even former President Bill Clinton calls Obamacare a crazy plan. But Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want to build on Obamacare. They want to expand it into a single-payer program. And for all the world, Hillary Clinton just thinks Obamacare is a good start.Look, Donald Trump and I have a plan to get this economy moving again just the way that it worked in the 1980s, just the way it worked in the 1960s, and that is by lowering taxes across the board for working families, small businesses and family farms, ending the war on coal that is hurting jobs and hurting this economy even here in Virginia, repealing Obamacare lock, stock, and barrel, and repealing all of the executive orders that Barack Obama has signed that are stifling economic growth in this economy.We can get America moving again. Put on top of that the kind of trade deals that’ll put the American worker first, and you’ve got a prescription for real growth. And when you get the economy growing, Elaine, that’s when you can deal with the national debt. When we get back to 3.5 percent to 4 percent growth with Donald Trump’s plan will do, then we’re going to have the resources to meet our nation’s needs at home and abroad, and we’re going to have the ability to bring down the national debt.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine?KAINE: Elaine, on the economy, there’s a fundamental choice for the American electorate. Do you want a “you’re hired” president in Hillary Clinton or do you want a “you’re fired” president in Donald Trump? I think that’s not such a hard choice.Hillary and I have a plan that’s on the table that’s a “you’re hired” plan. Five components. First thing we do is we invest in manufacturing, infrastructure, and research in the clean energy jobs of tomorrow. Second thing is we invest in our workforce, from pre-K education to great teachers to debt-free college and tuition-free college for families that make less than $125,000 a year.Third, we promote fairness by raising the minimum wage, so you can’t work full-time and be under the poverty level, and by paying women equal pay for equal work.Fourth, we promote small business growth, just as we’ve done in Virginia, to make it easier to start and grow small businesses. Hillary and I each grew up in small-business families. My dad, who ran an iron working and welding shop, is here tonight.And, fifth, we have a tax plan that targets tax relief to middle- class individuals and small businesses and asks those at the very top who’ve benefited as we’ve come out of recession to pay more.The Trump plan is a different plan. It’s a “you’re fired” plan. And there’s two key elements to it. First, Donald Trump said wages are too high. And both Donald Trump and Mike Pence think we ought to eliminate the federal minimum wage.Mike Pence, when he was in Congress, voted against raising the minimum wage above $5.15. And he has been a one-man bulwark against minimum wage increases in Indiana.The second component of the plan is massive tax breaks for the very top, trillions of dollars of tax breaks for people just like Donald Trump. The problem with this, Elaine, is that’s exactly what we did 10 years ago and it put the economy into the deepest recession — the deepest recession since the 1930s.Independent analysts say the Clinton plan would grow the economy by 10.5 million jobs. The Trump plan would cost 3.5 million jobs. And Donald Trump — why would he do this? Because his tax plan basically helps him. And if he ever met his promise and he gave his tax returns to the American public like he said he would, we would see just how much his economic plan is really a Trump-first plan.QUIJANO: On that point, Governor Pence, recently the New York Times released part of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax return and reported that he could have avoided paying federal income taxes for years. Yesterday, Mr. Trump said he brilliantly used the laws to pay as little tax as legally possible. Does that seem fair to you?PENCE: Well, first, let me say, I appreciated the “you’re hired,” “you’re fired” thing, Senator. You use that a whole lot. And I think your running mate used a lot of pre-done lines.Look, what — what you all just heard out there is more taxes, $2 trillion in more spending, more deficits, more debt, more government. And if you think that’s all working, then you look at the other side of the table. I mean, the truth of the matter is, the policies of this administration, which Hillary Clinton and Senator Kaine want to continue, have run this economy into a ditch. We’re in the…KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?PENCE: … slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression.KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?QUIJANO: Governor…[crosstalk]PENCE: There are millions more people living in poverty today than the day that Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton at his side…KAINE: And the poverty level and the median income…PENCE: … stepped into the Oval Office.KAINE: … improved dramatically between 2014 and 2015.PENCE: You — honestly, Senator, you can roll out the numbers and the sunny side, but I got to tell you, people in Scranton know different. People in Fort Wayne, Indiana, know different. I mean, this economy is struggling. The answer to this economy is not more taxes.KAINE: But it’s not the giveaway tax relief to the folks at the top.PENCE: It’s not more spending…[crosstalk]KAINE: I am interested to hear whether he’ll defend his running mate’s not releasing taxes and not paying taxes.PENCE: Absolutely I will.QUIJANO: Governor, with all due respect, the question was about whether it seems fair to you that Mr. Trump said he brilliantly used the laws to pay as little tax as legally possible.PENCE: Well, this is probably the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Senator Kaine. And, I mean, Hillary Clinton and Senator Kaine — God bless you for it, career public servants, that’s great — Donald Trump is a businessman, not a career politician. He actually built a business.Those tax returns that were — that came out publicly this week show that he faced some pretty tough times 20 years ago. But like virtually every other business, including the New York Times not too long ago, he used what’s called net operating loss. We have a tax code, Senator, that actually is designed to encourage entrepreneurship in this country.KAINE: But why won’t he release his tax returns?PENCE: Well, we’re answering the question about — about a business thing, is he…KAINE: I do want to come back to that, but…PENCE: His tax returns — his tax returns showed he went through a very difficult time, but he used the tax code just the way it’s supposed to be used. And he did it brilliantly.KAINE: How do you know that? You haven’t seen his tax returns.PENCE: He created a runway — because he’s created a business that’s worth billions of dollars today.KAINE: How do you know that?PENCE: And with regard to paying taxes, this whole riff about not paying taxes and people saying he didn’t pay taxes for years, Donald Trump has created tens of thousands of jobs. And he’s paid payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes…KAINE: Elaine, let me talk about something.QUIJANO: Senator, I’m going to give you about 30 seconds to respond, and I have question on Social Security for you.KAINE: OK.PENCE: The only issue on taxes — Hillary Clinton is going to raise taxes, and Donald Trump and I are going to cut them.KAINE: Donald Trump started this campaign in 2014 and he said, “If I run for president, I will absolutely release my taxes.” He’s broken his first…PENCE: And he will.KAINE: He’s broken his first promise. Second, he stood on the stage…PENCE: He hasn’t broken his promise. He said he’s…KAINE: He stood on the stage last week and when Hillary said, you haven’t been paying taxes, he said, “That makes me smart.” So it’s smart not to pay for our military? It’s smart not to pay for veterans? It’s smart not to pay for teachers? And I guess all of us who do pay for those things, I guess we’re stupid. And the last thing I’ll say is this…PENCE: Senator, do you take all the deductions that you’re entitled to?KAINE: The last thing — the last thing I want to ask Governor Pence is…PENCE: I do.KAINE: Governor Pence had to give Donald Trump his tax returns to show he was qualified to be vice president. Donald Trump must give the American public his tax returns to show that he’s qualified to be president. And he’s breaking his promise.PENCE: Elaine, I have to respond to this.QUIJANO: You get very little time, 20 seconds.PENCE: I’ll be — I’ll be very respectful.QUIJANO: Governor?PENCE: Look, Donald Trump has filed over 100 pages of financial disclosure, which is what the law requires.KAINE: But he said he would release his tax returns.QUIJANO: All right, Gentlemen…PENCE: The American people can review that. And he’s going — Senator, he’s going to release his tax returns when the audit is over…QUIJANO: … I need to ask you about Social Security…KAINE: Richard Nixon released tax returns when he was under audit.PENCE: They’re going to raise your taxes. We’re going to cut your taxes.QUIJANO: Gentlemen…KAINE: If you can’t meet Nixon’s standard…QUIJANO: The people at home cannot understand either one of you when you speak over each other. I would please ask you to wait until it is that the other is finished.KAINE: All right. We’re having fun up here.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, on the issue of Social Security, in 18 years, when the Social Security Trust Funds run out of money, you’ll be 76. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates your benefits could be cut by as much as $7,500 per year. What would your administration do to prevent this cut?KAINE: First, we’re going to protect Social Security, which is one of the greatest programs that the American government has ever done. It happened at a time when you would work your whole life, your whole life, raising your kids, working, being a Little League coach or a Sunday school teacher, and then you would retire into poverty. And Social Security has enabled people to retire with dignity and overwhelmingly not be in poverty.We have to keep it solvent. And we will keep it solvent. And we’ll look for strategies like adjusting the payroll tax cap upward in order to do that.Here’s what Hillary and I will not do. And I want to make this very plain. We will never, ever engage in a risky scheme to privatize Social Security. Donald Trump wrote a book and he said Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and privatization would be good for all of us.And when Congressman Pence was in Congress, he was the chief cheerleader for the privatization of Social Security. Even after President Bush stopped pushing for it, Congressman Pence kept pushing for it. We’re going to stand up against efforts to privatize Social Security. And we’ll look for ways to keep it solvent going forward, focusing primarily on the payroll tax cap.QUIJANO: Governor Pence, I’ll give you an opportunity to respond.PENCE: Well, thanks, Elaine. There they go again. OK…KAINE: Go read — go read the book.PENCE: All Donald Trump — all Donald Trump and I have said about Social Security is we’re going to meet our obligations to our seniors. That’s it.KAINE: Go read the book.PENCE: We’ve said we’re going to meet the obligations of Medicare. That’s what this campaign is really about, Senator. And I get, this is — this is the old scare tactic that they roll out…KAINE: But — but you have a voting record, Governor.PENCE: And I get all of that. I just, look…KAINE: I…PENCE: There’s a question that you asked a little bit earlier that I want to go back to.KAINE: I can’t believe that you won’t defend your own voting record.PENCE: I have to go back to.QUIJANO: We…PENCE: Well, look, I — you’re running with Hillary Clinton, who wants to raise taxes by $1 trillion, increase spending by $2 trillion, and you say you’re going to keep the promises of Social Security. Donald Trump and I are going to cut taxes. We’re going to — we’re going to — we’re going to…KAINE: You’re not going to cut taxes. You’re going to raise taxes on the middle class.PENCE: … reform government programs so we can meet the obligations of Social Security and Medicare.QUIJANO: All right. PENCE: Stay on the path that your party has us on, we’re going to be in a — in a mountain range of debt. And we’re going to face hard choices and…[crosstalk]Gentleman, I want to move on now.KAINE: You did ask this question about debt, and the debt explosion on the Trump plan is much, much bigger than anything on the Clinton side.QUIJANO: All right. Let me move on now…PENCE: Three hundred and five economists said your plan is bad for the economy.QUIJANO: … to the issue of law enforcement and race relations. Law enforcement and race relations. After the Dallas police shooting, Police Chief David Brown said, quote, “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country. Every societal failure we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding, not enough drug addiction funding, schools fail, let’s give it to the cops.”Do we ask too much of police officers in this country? And how would you specifically address the chief’s concerns? Senator Kaine?KAINE: Elaine, I think that’s a very fair comment. I think we put a lot on police shoulders. And this is something I got a lot of scar tissue and experience on.I was a city councilman and mayor in Richmond. And when I came in, we had one of the highest homicide rates in the United States. We fought very, very hard over the course of my time in local office with our police department, and we reduced our homicide rate nearly in half.And then when I was governor of Virginia, we worked hard, too. And we did something we had really wanted to do. For the first time ever, we cracked the top 10, 10 safest states, because we worked together.Here’s what I learned as a mayor and a governor. The way you make communities safer and the way you make police safer is through community policing. You build the bonds between the community and the police force, build bonds of understanding, and then when people feel comfortable in their communities, that gap between the police and the communities they serve narrows. And when that gap narrows, it’s safer for the communities and it’s safer for the police.That model still works across our country, but there are some other models that don’t work, an overly aggressive, more militarized model. Donald Trump recently said we need to do more stop-and-frisk around the country. That would be a big mistake because it polarizes the relationship between the police and the community.So here’s what we’ll do. We’ll focus on community policing. We will focus on — and Hillary Clinton has rolled out a really comprehensive mental health reform package that she worked on with law enforcement professionals, and we will also fight the scourge of gun violence in the United States.I’m a gun-owner. I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter. But I’ve got a lot of scar tissue, because when I was governor of Virginia, there was a horrible shooting at Virginia Tech, and we learned that through that painful situation that gaps in the background record check system should have been closed and it could have prevented that crime, and so we’re going to work to do things like close background record checks. And if we do, we won’t have the tragedies that we did.One of those killed at Virginia Tech was a guy named Liviu Librescu. He was a 70-plus-year-old Romanian Holocaust survivor. He had survived the Holocaust. Then he survived the Soviet Union takeover of his country. But then he was a visiting professor at Virginia Tech, and he couldn’t survive the scourge of gun violence.We can support the Second Amendment and do things like background record checks and make us safer, and that will make police safer, too.QUIJANO: Governor Pence?PENCE: You know, my uncle was a cop, a career cop, on the beat in downtown Chicago. He was my hero when I was growing up. And we’d go up to visit my dad’s family in Chicago. My three brothers and I would marvel at my uncle when he would come out in his uniform, sidearm at his side.Police officers are the best of us. And the men and women, white, African-American, Asian, Latino, Hispanic, they put their lives on the line every single day. And let me say, at the risk of agreeing with you, community policing is a great idea. It’s worked in the Hoosier state. And we fully support that.Donald Trump and I are going to make sure that law enforcement have the resources and the tools to be able to really restore law and order to the cities and communities in this nation. It’s probably — probably why the 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Donald Trump as the next president of the United States of America, because they see his commitment to them. They see his commitment to law and order.But they also — they also hear the bad mouthing, the bad mouthing that comes from people that seize upon tragedy in the wake of police action shootings as — as a reason to — to use a broad brush to accuse law enforcement of — of implicit bias or institutional racism. And that really has got to stop.I mean, when an African-American police officer in Charlotte named Brentley Vinson, an all-star football player who went to Liberty University here in the state, came home, followed his dad into law enforcement, joined the force in Charlotte, joined the force in Charlotte in 2014, was involved in a police action shooting that claimed the life of Keith — Keith Lamont Scott, it was a tragedy. I mean, I — we — we mourn with those who mourn. We — we grieve with those who grieve. And we’re saddened at the loss of life.But Hillary Clinton actually referred to that moment as an example of implicit bias in the police force, where — where she used — when she was asked in the debate a week ago whether there was implicit bias in law enforcement, her only answer was that there’s implicit bias in everyone in the United States. I just think…KAINE: Can I — can I explain…PENCE: … I just think what we ought to do is we ought to stop seizing on these moments of tragedy. We ought to assure the public that we’ll have a full and complete and transparent investigation whenever there’s a loss of life because of police action. But, Senator, please, you know, enough of this seeking every opportunity to demean law enforcement broadly by making the accusation of implicit bias every time tragedy occurs.KAINE: Elaine — Elaine, people shouldn’t be afraid to bring up issues of bias in law enforcement. And if you’re afraid to have…PENCE: I’m not afraid to bring that up.KAINE: And if — if you’re afraid to have the discussion, you’ll never solve it. And so here’s — here’s an example, heartbreaking. We would agree this is a heartbreaking example.The guy, Philando Castile, who was killed in St. Paul, he was a worker, a valued worker in a local school. And he was killed for no apparent reason in an incident that will be discussed and will be investigated.But when folks went and explored this situation, what they found is that Philando Castile, who was a — they called him Mr. Rogers with Dreadlocks in the school that he worked. The kids loved him. But he had been stopped by police 40 or 50 times before that fatal incident. And if you look at sentencing in this country, African-Americans and Latinos get sentenced for the same crimes at very different rates.PENCE: We need criminal justice reform.KAINE: Well, we do.PENCE: Indiana has passed criminal justice reform.KAINE: But I just want to say, those who say that we should not…PENCE: But that’s not what you’re talking about.KAINE: … we should not be able to bring up and talk about bias in the system, we’ll never solve the problem…QUIJANO: Governor Pence…[crosstalk]…Governor Pence…PENCE: Senator, when African-American police officers involved in a police action shooting involving an African-American, why would Hillary Clinton accuse that African-American police officer of implicit bias?KAINE: Well, I guess I can’t believe you are defending the position that there is no bias and it’s a topic we don’t even…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: Governor Pence, I have a question on that point.PENCE: I did not make that statement. I…QUIJANO: Your fellow Republican, Governor Pence, Senator Tim Scott, who is African-American, recently spoke on the Senate floor. He said he was stopped seven times by law enforcement in one year.KAINE: A U.S. senator.QUIJANO: He said, “I have felt the anger, the frustration, the sadness, and the humiliation that comes with feeling like you’re being targeted for nothing more than being just yourself.” What would you say to Senator Scott about his experiences?PENCE: Well, I have the deepest respect for Senator Scott, and he’s a close friend. And what I would say is that we — we need to adopt criminal justice reform nationally. I — I signed criminal justice reform in the state of Indiana, Senator, and we’re very proud of it.I worked when I was in Congress on the second chance act. We have got to do a better job recognizing and correcting the errors in the system that do reflect on institutional bias in criminal justice. But what — what — what Donald Trump and I are saying is let’s not have the reflex of assuming the worst of men and women in law enforcement. We truly do believe that law enforcement is not a force for racism or division in our country…KAINE: Elaine, can I…QUIJANO: So what would you say to Senator Scott, Governor?PENCE: Law enforcement in this country is a force for good. They are the — they truly are people that put their lives on the line every single day. But I would — I would suggest to you, what we need to do is assert a stronger leadership at the national level to support law enforcement. You just heard Senator Kaine reject stop-and-frisk. Well, I would suggest to you that the families that live in our inner cities that are besieged by crime…KAINE: Elaine, let me — let me…QUIJANO: Governor, the question is about Senator Scott. What would — what would you tell Senator Scott?KAINE: Elaine, if I could — if I could jump in. I’ve heard Senator Scott make that eloquent plea. And look, criminal justice is about respecting the law and being respected by the law. So there is a fundamental respect issue here.And I just want to talk about the tone that’s set from the top. Donald Trump during his campaign has called Mexicans rapists and criminals. He’s called women slobs, pigs, dogs, disgusting. I don’t like saying that in front of my wife and my mother. He attacked an Indiana-born federal judge and said he was unqualified to hear a federal lawsuit because his parents were Mexican. He went after John McCain, a POW, and said he wasn’t a hero because he’d been captured. He said African-Americans are living in Hell. And he perpetrated this outrageous and bigoted lie that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.If you want to have a society where people are respected and respect laws, you can’t have somebody at the top who demeans every group that he talks about. And I just — again, I cannot believe that Governor Pence will defend the insult-driven campaign that Donald Trump has run.QUIJANO: All right. I want to turn to our next segment now, immigration. Your running mates have both said that undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes should be deported. What would you tell the millions of undocumented immigrants who have not committed violent crimes? Governor Pence?PENCE: Donald Trump’s laid out a plan to end illegal immigration once and for all in this country. We’ve been talking it to death for 20 years. Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want to continue the policies of open borders, amnesty, catch and release, sanctuary cities, all the things that are driving — that are driving wages down in this country, Senator, and also too often with criminal aliens in the country, it’s bringing heartbreak.But I — Donald Trump has a plan that he laid out in Arizona, that will deal systemically with illegal immigration, beginning with border security, internal enforcement. It’s probably why for the first time in the history of Immigration and Customs Enforcement their union actually endorsed Donald Trump as the next president of the United States, because they know they need help to enforce the laws of this country.And Donald Trump has laid out a priority to remove criminal aliens, remove people that have overstayed their visas. And — and once we have accomplished all of that, which will — which will strengthen our economy, strengthen the rule of law in the country and make our communities safer once the criminal aliens are out, then we’ll deal with those that remain.But I have to tell you, I just — I was listening to the avalanche of insults coming out of Senator Kaine a minute ago. KAINE: These were Donald’s — hold on a second, Governor.[crosstalk]PENCE: It’s my time, Senator.QUIJANO: It is, in fact, the governor’s time.KAINE: I apologize. It’s your two minutes. I apologize.PENCE: Thanks. I forgive you. He says ours is an insult-driven campaign. Did you all just hear that? Ours is an insult-driven campaign?I mean, to be honest with you, if Donald Trump had said all of the things that you’ve said he said in the way you said he said them, he still wouldn’t have a fraction of the insults that Hillary Clinton leveled when she said that half of our supporters were a basket of deplorables. It’s — she said they were irredeemable, they were not American.I mean, it’s extraordinary. And then she labeled one after another “ism” on millions of Americans who believe that we can have a stronger America at home and abroad, who believe we can get this economy moving again, who believe that we can end illegal immigration once and for all. So, Senator, this — this insult-driven campaign, I mean…QUIJANO: Governor…PENCE: That’s small potatoes compared to Hillary Clinton…QUIJANO: Senator Kaine?PENCE: …. calling half of Donald Trump’s supporters a basket of deplorables.KAINE: Hillary Clinton said something on the campaign trail, and the very next day, she said, you know what, I shouldn’t have said that.PENCE: She said she shouldn’t have said half.QUIJANO: Governor, this is Senator Kaine’s two minutes, please.KAINE: Yeah, that’s right, so now we’re even.PENCE: Yeah. [laughter]KAINE: Look for Donald Trump apologizing to John McCain for saying he wasn’t a hero…PENCE: Oh…KAINE: … to Donald Trump apologizing for calling women slobs, pigs, dogs, disgusting.PENCE: She apologized for saying “half.”QUIJANO: Governor. It is his two minutes, please.KAINE: Did Donald Trump apologize for taking after somebody in a Twitter war and making fun of her weight? Did he apologize for saying African-Americans are living in Hell? Did he apologize for saying President Obama was not even a citizen of the United States? You will look in vain to see Donald Trump ever taking responsibility for anybody and apologizing.Immigration. There’s two plans on the table. Hillary and I believe in comprehensive immigration reform. Donald Trump believes in deportation nation. You’ve got to pick your choice. Hillary and I want a bipartisan reform that will put keeping families together as the top goal, second, that will help focus enforcement efforts on those who are violent, third, that will do more border control, and, fourth, that will provide a path to citizenship for those who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, and take criminal background record checks.That’s our proposal. Donald Trump proposes to deport 16 million people, 11 million who are here without documents. And both Donald Trump and Mike Pence want to get rid of birthright citizenship. So if you’re born here, but your parents don’t have documents, they want to eliminate that. That’s another 4.5 million people.These guys — and Donald Trump has said it — deportation force. They want to go house to house, school to school, business to business, and kick out 16 million people. And I cannot believe…PENCE: That’s nonsense. That’s nonsense.KAINE: I cannot believe that Governor Pence would sit here and defend his running mate’s claim that we should create a deportation force to — so that they’ll all be gone.PENCE: Senator, we have a deportation force. It’s called Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. And the union for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the first time in their history endorsed Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States of America.KAINE: So you like the 16 million deportations?PENCE: Senator, that’s — that’s nonsense. Look, what you just heard is they have a plan for open borders, amnesty. That’s…[crosstalk]KAINE: Our plan is like Ronald Reagan’s plan from 1986.PENCE: They call it comprehensive immigration reform — they call it comprehensive immigration reform on Capitol Hill. We all know the routine. It’s amnesty. And you heard one of the last things he mentioned was border security.That’s how Washington always plays it.KAINE: No, I…PENCE: They always say we’re going to do this, we’re going to do that, we’ll eventually get the border…[crosstalk]KAINE: … border security three years ago, and Governor Pence was against it.QUIJANO: Governor, Mr. Trump has said…PENCE: Ronald Reagan said a nation without borders is not a nation. Donald Trump is committed to restoring the borders of this nation and securing our nation, enforcing our laws.QUIJANO: So, Governor, how would these millions of undocumented immigrants leave? Would they be forcibly removed?PENCE: Well, I think Donald Trump laid out a series of priorities that doesn’t ends with border security. It begins with border security. And after we secure the border, not only build a wall, but beneath the ground and in the air, we do internal enforcement.But he said the focus has to be on criminal aliens. We just — we just had a conversation about law enforcement. We just had a conversation about the — the violence that’s besetting our cities. The reality is that there’s heartbreak and tragedy that has struck American families because people that came into this country illegally are now involved in criminal enterprise and activity. And we don’t have the resources or the will to deport them systematically.Donald Trump has said we’re going to move those people out, people who’ve overstayed their visas. We’re going to enforce the law of this country. We’re going to strengthen Immigrations and Customs Enforcements with more resources and more personnel to be able to do that. And then Donald Trump has made it clear, once we’ve done all of those things, that we’re going to reform the immigration system that we have…KAINE: I just have to correct Governor Pence….PENCE: … where people can come into this country.KAINE: I have to…PENCE: That’s the order that you should do it. Border security, removing criminal aliens, upholding with law, and then — but then, Senator, I’ll work you when you go back to the Senate, I promise you, we’ll work with you to reform the immigration system.KAINE: I look forward to working together in whatever capacities we serve in. But I just want to make it very, very clear that he’s trying to fuzz up what Donald Trump has said. When Donald Trump spoke in Phoenix, he looked the audience in the eye and he said, no, we’re building a wall, and we’re deporting everybody. He said, quote, “They will all be gone.” “They will all be gone.” And this is one of these ones where you can just go to the tape on it and see what Donald Trump has said. And to add…PENCE: He’s talking about criminal aliens.KAINE: And to add to it, and to add to it, and to add to it, we are a nation of immigrants. Mike Pence and I both are descended from immigrant families. Some things, you know, maybe weren’t said so great about the Irish when they came, but we’ve done well by absorbing immigrants, and it’s made our nation stronger.When Donald Trump says Mexicans are rapists and criminals, Mexican immigrants, when Donald Trump says about your judge, a Hoosier judge, he said that Judge Curiel was unqualified to hear a case because his parents were Mexican, I can’t imagine how you could defend that.QUIJANO: Gentleman, I’d like to shift now to the threat of terrorism. Do you think the world today is a safer or more dangerous place than it was eight years ago? Has the terrorist threat increased or decreased? Senator Kaine?KAINE: The terrorist threat has decreased in some ways, because bin Laden is dead. The terrorist threat has decreased in some ways because an Iranian nuclear weapons program has been stopped. The terrorist threat to United States troops has been decreased in some ways because there’s not 175,000 in a dangerous part of the world. There’s only 15,000.But there are other parts of the world that are challenging. Let me tell you this: To beat terrorism, there’s only one candidate who can do it, and it’s Hillary Clinton. Remember, Hillary Clinton was the senator from New York on 9/11. She was there at the World Trade Center when they were still searching for victims and survivors. That’s seared onto her, the need to beat terrorism.And she’s got a plan to do it. She was part of the national security team that wiped out bin Laden. Here’s her plan to defeat ISIL. First, we’ve got to keep taking out their leaders on the battlefield. She was part of the team that got bin Laden, and she’ll lead the team that will get Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS.Second, we’ve got to disrupt financing networks, third, disrupt their ability to recruit on the Internet, in their safe havens. But, fourth, we also have to work with allies to share and surge intelligence. That’s the Hillary Clinton plan; she’s got the experience to do it.Donald Trump. Donald Trump can’t start a Twitter war with Miss Universe without shooting himself in the foot. Donald Trump doesn’t have a plan. He said, “I have a secret plan,” and then he said, “Um, I know more than all the generals about ISIL.” And then he said, “I’m going to call the generals to help me figure out a plan.” And finally he said, “I’m going to fire all the generals.” He doesn’t have a plan.But he does have dangerous ideas. Here’s four. He trash talks the military. The military is a disaster, John McCain’s no hero, the generals need all to be fired, and I know more than them. He wants to tear up alliances. NATO is obsolete, and we’ll only work together with Israel if they pay “big league.”Third, he loves dictators. He’s got kind of a personal Mount Rushmore, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Moammar Gadhafi…PENCE: Oh, please. Come on.KAINE: … and Saddam Hussein. And last and most dangerously, Donald Trump believes — Donald Trump believes that the world will be safer if more nations have nuclear weapons. He’s said Saudi Arabia should get them, Japan should get them, Korea should get them. And when he was confronted with this, and told, wait a minute, terrorists could get those, proliferation could lead to nuclear war, here’s what Donald Trump said, and I quote: “Go ahead, folks, enjoy yourselves.”I’d love to hear Governor Pence tell me what’s so enjoyable or comical about nuclear war.QUIJANO: Governor Pence?PENCE: Did you work on that one a long time? Because that had a lot of really creative lines in it.KAINE: Well, I’m going to see if you can defend any of it.PENCE: Well, look, I can defend — I — I — I can — I can make very clear to the American people, after traveling millions of miles as our secretary of state, after being the architect of the foreign policy of this administration, America is less safe today than it was the day that Barack Obama became president of the United States. It’s absolutely inarguable.We’ve weakened America’s place in the world. It’s been a combination of factors, but mostly it’s been a lack of leadership. I mean, I will give you — and I was in Washington, D.C., on 9/11. I saw the clouds of smoke rise from the Pentagon.KAINE: I was in Virginia where the Pentagon’s…[crosstalk]PENCE: I know you were. We all lived through that day as a nation. It was heartbreaking. And I want to give this president credit for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.But the truth is, Osama bin Laden led Al Qaida. Our primary threat today is ISIS. And because Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate a status of forces agreement that would have allowed some American combat troops to remain in Iraq and secure the hard fought gains the American soldier had won by 2009, ISIS was able to be literally conjured up out of the desert, and it’s overrun vast areas that the American soldier had won in Operation Iraqi Freedom.My heart breaks for the likes of Lance Cpl. Scott Zubowski. He fell in Fallujah in 2005. He fought hard through some of the most difficult days in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom and secure that nation. And that nation was secured in 2009.But because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama failed to provide a status of forces agreement and leave sufficient troops in there, we are back at war. The president just ordered more troops on the ground. We are back at war in Iraq. And Scott Zubowski, whose mom would always come to Memorial Day events in Newcastle, Indiana, to see me, and I’d always give her a hug and tell her we’re never going to forget her son and we never will, Scott Zubowski and the sacrifices the American soldier made were squandered in Iraq because this administration created a vacuum in which ISIS was able to grow.And a reference to the Iranian deal, the Iranian deal that Hillary Clinton initiated, $150 billion to the radical mullahs in Iran.KAINE: Stopping a nuclear weapons program without firing a shot?PENCE: You didn’t stop the nuclear weapons program.KAINE: Yes, we did.PENCE: You essentially…KAINE: Even the Israeli military says it stopped.PENCE: … guaranteed that Iran will someday become a nuclear power, because there’s no limitations once the period of time of the treaty comes off.QUIJANO: Governor Pence, Mr. Trump has proposed extreme vetting of immigrants from parts of the world that export terrorism. But that does not address many of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States, such as the Orlando nightclub massacre and the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey. Those were homegrown, committed by U.S. citizens and legal residents. What specific tools would you use to prevent those kinds of attacks?PENCE: Well, I think it’s — I think it’s a great question, Elaine, but it really does begin with us reforming our immigration system and putting the interests, particularly the safety and security of the American people, first.I mean, Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting for people coming into this country so that we don’t bring people into the United States who are hostile to our Bill of Rights freedoms, who are hostile to the American way life.But also, Donald Trump and I are committed to suspending the Syrian refugee program and programs and immigration from areas of the world that have been compromised by terrorism. Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want to increase the Syrian refugee program by 500…[crosstalk]KAINE: Elaine, I want to…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: Governor, the question was about homegrown.PENCE: Yeah, and so — but first, you know, let’s make sure we’re putting the safety and security of the American people first instead of Hillary Clinton expanding the Syrian refugee program…KAINE: Or instead of you violating the Constitution by blocking people based on their national origin rather than whether they’re dangerous.PENCE: That’s not — that’s absolutely false.KAINE: That’s what the Seventh Circuit decided just — here’s the difference, Elaine.PENCE: The Seventh Circuit…KAINE: We have different views on — on refugee issues and on immigration. Hillary and I want to do enforcement based on, are people dangerous? These guys say all Mexicans are bad.PENCE: That’s absolutely false.KAINE: And with respect to refugees, we want to keep people out if they’re dangerous. Donald Trump said keep them out if they’re Muslim. Mike Pence…PENCE: Absolutely…KAINE: … put a program in place to keep them out if they’re from Syria. And yesterday an appellate court with three Republican judges struck down the Pence plan…PENCE: Right. Right.KAINE: … and said it was discriminatory…PENCE: And those judges — those judges said…KAINE: We should focus upon danger, not upon discrimination.QUIJANO: Governor?PENCE: Elaine, to your point, those judges said it was because there wasn’t any evidence yet that — that ISIS had infiltrated the United States. Well, Germany just arrested three Syrian refugees that were connected to ISIS.[crosstalk]KAINE: But they told you there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it.PENCE: But, look, if you’re going to be critical of me on that, that’s fair game. I will tell you, after two Syrian refugees were involved in the attack in Paris that is called Paris’ 9/11, as governor of the state of Indiana, I have no higher priority than the safety and security of the people of my state.KAINE: But, Governor Pence…PENCE: So you bet I suspended that program.KAINE: But, Governor Pence, I just…PENCE: And I stand by that decision. And if I’m vice president of the United States or Donald Trump is president, we’re going to put the safety and security of the American people first.KAINE: Sure. Can we just be clear — Hillary and I will do immigration enforcement and we’ll vet refugees based on whether they’re dangerous or not. We won’t do it based on discriminating against you from the country you come from or the religion that you practice.PENCE: But the problem with that…KAINE: That is completely antithetical to the Jeffersonian values of…[crosstalk]PENCE: Elaine, the director of the FBI, our homeland security, said we can’t know for certain who these people are coming from Syria.KAINE: Yes, we can, and when we don’t let them know, we don’t let them in.PENCE: So — the FBI…KAINE: When we don’t know who they are, we don’t let them in.PENCE: The FBI and homeland security said we can’t know for certain. You’ve got to err on the side of the safety and security of the American people, Senator. I understand the…KAINE: By trashing all Syrians or trashing all Muslims?PENCE: … the U.N. wants us to expand the Syrian refugee program…QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, let me ask you this. Secretary Clinton…PENCE: We’re going to put the safety and security of the American people first.QUIJANO: … has talked about an intelligence surge.KAINE: Yes.QUIJANO: What exactly would an intelligence surge look like? And how would that help identify terrorists with no operational connection to a foreign terrorist organization?KAINE: Intelligence surge is two things, Elaine. It’s two things. It’s, first, dramatically expanding our intelligence capacities by hiring great professionals, but also we’ve got some of the best intel and cyber employees in the world right here in the United States working for many of our private sector companies.So it involves increasing our own workforce, but striking great partnerships with some of our cyber and intel experts in the private sector so that we can, consistent with constitutional principles, gather more intelligence.But the second piece of this is really, really important. It also means creating stronger alliances, because you gather intelligence and then you share your intelligence back and forth with allies. And that’s how you find out who may be trying to recruit, who may be trying to come from one country to the next. Alliances are critical.That’s why Donald Trump’s claim that he wants to — that NATO is obsolete and that we need to get rid of NATO is so dangerous.PENCE: That’s not his plan. KAINE: Well, he said NATO is obsolete. And, look, if you put aside — push aside your alliances, who you’re going to share intelligence with? Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state who knows how to build alliances. She built the sanctions regime around the world that stopped the Iranian nuclear weapons program. And that’s what an intelligence surge means. Better skill and capacity, but also better alliances.QUIJANO: All right. I’d like to turn now to the tragedy in Syria. Two hundred fifty thousand…PENCE: Can I speak about the cybersecurity surge at all?QUIJANO: You can — you can have 30 seconds, Governor, quickly, please.PENCE: First, Donald Trump just spoke about this issue this week. We have got to bring together the best resources of this country to understand that cyber warfare is the new warfare of the asymmetrical enemies that we face in this country. And I look forward if I’m privileged to be in this role of working with you in the Senate to make sure that we resource that effort.KAINE: We will work together in whatever roles we inhabit.PENCE: We have an intelligence, sir. But I will also tell you that it’s important in this moment to remember that Hillary Clinton had a private server in her home that had classified information on it…QUIJANO: And I don’t — 30 seconds is on up.PENCE: … about drone strikes, e-mails from the president of the United States of America were on there.QUIJANO: Right.PENCE: Her private server was subject to being hacked by foreign…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: I’d like to ask you about Syria, Governor.PENCE: We could put cybersecurity first if we just make sure the next secretary of state doesn’t have a private server.[crosstalk]KAINE: A full investigation concluded that not one reasonable prosecutor would take any additional step. You don’t get to decide the rights and wrongs of this. We have a justice system that does that. And a Republican FBI director did an investigation and concluded that…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: All right, we are moving on now. Two hundred fifty thousand people…PENCE: If your son or my son handled classified information the way Hillary Clinton did…QUIJANO: … one hundred thousand of them children — Governor…PENCE: … they’d be court martialed.KAINE: That is absolutely false and you know that.PENCE: Absolutely true.KAINE: And you know that, Governor.QUIJANO: Governor…PENCE: It’s absolutely true.QUIJANO: Gentlemen, please.KAINE: Because the FBI did an investigation.QUIJANO: Gentlemen.KAINE: And they concluded that there was no reasonable prosecutor who would take it further. Sorry.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, Governor Pence, please.KAINE: Syria.QUIJANO: I want to turn now to Syria. Two hundred fifty thousand people, 100,000 of them children, are under siege in Aleppo, Syria. Bunker buster bombs, cluster munitions, and incendiary weapons are being dropped on them by Russian and Syrian militaries. Does the U.S. have a responsibility to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties on this scale, Governor Pence?PENCE: The United States of America needs to begin to exercise strong leadership to protect the vulnerable citizens and over 100,000 children in Aleppo. Hillary Clinton’s top priority when she became secretary of state was the Russian reset, the Russian reset. After the Russian reset, the Russians invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea.And the small and bullying leader of Russia is now dictating terms to the United States to the point where all the United States of America — the greatest nation on Earth — just withdraws from talks about a cease-fire while Vladimir Putin puts a missile defense system in Syria while he marshals the forces and begins — look, we have got to begin to lean into this with strong, broad-shouldered American leadership.It begins by rebuilding our military. And the Russians and the Chinese have been making enormous investments in the military. We have the smallest Navy since 1916. We have the lowest number of troops since the end of the Second World War. We’ve got to work with the Congress, and Donald Trump will, to rebuild our military and project American strength in the world.But about Aleppo and about Syria, I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and vulnerable families with children can move out of those areas, work with our Arab partners, real time, right now, to make that happen.And secondly, I just have to tell you that the provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength. And if Russia chooses to be involved and continue, I should say, to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo.There’s a broad range of other things that we ought to do, as well. We ought to deploy a missile defense shield to the Czech Republic and Poland which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pulled back on out of not wanting to offend the Russians back in 2009.QUIJANO: Governor, your two minutes are up.PENCE: We’ve just got to have American strength on the world stage. When Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, the Russians and other countries in the world will know they’re dealing with a strong American president.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine?KAINE: Hillary and I also agree that the establishment of humanitarian zones in northern Syria with the provision of international human aid, consistent with the U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed in February 2014, would be a very, very good idea.And Hillary also has the ability to stand up to Russia in a way that this ticket does not. Donald Trump, again and again, has praised Vladimir Putin. And it’s clear that he has business dealings with Russian oligarchs who are very connected to Putin.The Trump campaign management team had to be fired a month or so ago because of those shadowy connections with pro-Putin forces. Governor Pence made the odd claim, he said inarguably Vladimir Putin is a better leader than President Obama. Vladimir Putin has run his economy into the ground. He persecutes LGBT folks and journalists. If you don’t know the difference between dictatorship and leadership, then you got to go back to a fifth-grade civics class.I’ll tell you what offends me…PENCE: Well, that offended me.KAINE: Governor Pence just said — Governor Pence just said that Donald Trump will rebuild the military. No, he won’t. Donald Trump is avoiding paying taxes. The New York Times story — and we need to get this — but the New York Times suggested that he probably didn’t pay taxes for about 18 years starting in 1995. Those years included the years of 9/11.So get this. On 9/11, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s hometown was attacked by the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. Young men and women — young men and women signed up to serve in the military to fight terrorism. Hillary Clinton went to Washington to get funds to rebuild her city and protect first responders, but Donald Trump was fighting a very different fight. It was a fight to avoid paying taxes so that he wouldn’t support the fight against terror.QUIJANO: The question was about Aleppo, Senator.KAINE: He wouldn’t support troops. He wouldn’t — he wouldn’t support — this is important, Elaine. When a guy running for president will not support the troops, not support veterans, not support teachers, that’s really important.QUIJANO: Right.KAINE: And I said about Aleppo, we do agree the notion is we have to create a humanitarian zone in northern Syria. It’s very important.QUIJANO: Governor Pence, you had mentioned a no-fly zone. Where would you propose setting up a safe zone specifically? How would you keep it safe?PENCE: Well, first and foremost, Donald Trump supports our troops. Donald Trump supports our veterans.KAINE: He won’t pay taxes.PENCE: Donald Trump has paid all the taxes that he’s — do you not take deductions? How does that work?QUIJANO: Gentlemen, this is about Syria. I’d like to…[crosstalk]PENCE: Honestly, Senator. Honestly, Senator.KAINE: It is about our troops. It is about our troops.PENCE: I understand why you want to change — I understand why you want to change the subject.KAINE: How can you support the troops if you won’t pay taxes?PENCE: I understand why you want to change the subject. And let me be very clear on this Russian thing. The larger question here…KAINE: Do you think Donald Trump is smart to not pay taxes?QUIJANO: Gentlemen, we’re going to have time to get to Russia here.PENCE: What we’re dealing with is the — you know, there’s an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates. And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East.And all the while, all we do is fold our arms and say we’re not having talks anymore. To answer your question, we just need American strength. We need to — we need to marshal the resources of our allies in the region, and in the immediate, we need to act and act now to get people out of harm’s way.QUIJANO: And exactly how would those safe zones work? How would they remain safe?PENCE: The — the safe zones would have to be — as the senator said, there’s already a framework for this that’s been recognized by the international community. The United States of America needs to be prepared to work with our allies in the region to create a route for safe passage and then to protect people in those areas, including with a no-fly zone.But, look, this is very tough stuff. I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee for a decade. I traveled in and out of that region for 10 years. I saw what the American soldier won in Operation Iraqi Freedom. And to see the weak and feckless leadership that Hillary Clinton was the architect of and the foreign policy of the Obama administration…KAINE: Well, let me — let me come back…PENCE: … is deeply troubling to me. That will all change the day Donald Trump becomes president of the United States.KAINE: … and talk about — let me talk about the things that Governor Pence doesn’t want to acknowledge, Elaine. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that we stopped the Iranian nuclear weapons program. He doesn’t want to acknowledge…PENCE: You didn’t.KAINE: … that Hillary was part of the team that got bin Laden. He doesn’t want to acknowledge…PENCE: I just did.KAINE: … that it’s a good thing, not a bad thing, that it’s a good thing — not a bad thing — that we’re down from 175,000 troops deployed overseas to 15,000.But let me tell you what will really make the Middle East dangerous. Donald Trump’s idea that more nations should get nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea. Ronald Reagan said something really interesting about nuclear proliferation back in the 1980s. He said the problem with nuclear proliferation is that some fool or maniac could trigger a catastrophic event. And I think that’s who Governor Pence’s running mate is, exactly who Governor Reagan warned us about.PENCE: And come on. Senator. Senator, that was even beneath you and Hillary Clinton. And that — that’s pretty low.KAINE: But do you — do you think — do you think we should have — more nuclear weapons in the world will make us safer?PENCE: Senator, the…KAINE: That’s what Donald Trump thinks.PENCE: Ronald Reagan also said nuclear war should never be fought because it can never be won. And the United States of America needs to make investments in modernizing our nuclear force for both deterrence…KAINE: But can you defend Donald Trump’s claim that more nations should get nuclear weapons?PENCE: … and assurance to our allies. But let me go back to this Iran thing. I mean, he keeps saying that they prevented — that Hillary Clinton started the deal with the Iranians prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.[crosstalk]KAINE: That’s what the Israeli joint chiefs of staff is saying right now.PENCE: Well, that’s not what — that’s not what Israel thinks.KAINE: Gadi Eizenkot, you can go check it.PENCE: You wouldn’t necessarily know that.KAINE: Go to the tape.PENCE: I know you boycotted Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech when he came before the Congress.KAINE: No, I visited him in his office. I visited him in his office.PENCE: You boycotted the speech. The point is, what this Iran — so-called Iran deal did was essentially guarantee — I mean, when I was in Congress, I fought hard on a bipartisan basis with Republican and Democrat members to move forward the toughest sanctions, it — literally in the history of the United States, against Iran.KAINE: And then Hillary used them to get a deal.PENCE: We were bringing them to heel, but the goal was always that we would only lift the sanctions if Iran permanently renounced their nuclear ambitions.KAINE: Elaine, let me just mention one thing.[crosstalk]PENCE: They have not — Elaine, let me finish a sentence. They have not renounced their nuclear ambitions. And when the deal’s period runs out, there’s no limitation on them obtaining weapons. That…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: And very quickly, Senator.KAINE: Elaine…PENCE: … and the fact that they got $1.7 billion in a ransom payment…QUIJANO: We need to talk about Russia. Very quickly, though, Senator, please.PENCE: … is astonishing to the American people.KAINE: Six times tonight, I have said to Governor Pence I can’t imagine how you can defend your running mate’s position on one issue after the next. And in all six cases, he’s refused to defend his running mate.PENCE: Well, let’s — no, no, don’t put words in my mouth.QUIJANO: All right.PENCE: He’s going…[crosstalk]KAINE: And yet he is asking everybody to vote for somebody that he cannot defend. And I just think that should be underlined.PENCE: No, I’m — look…[crosstalk]QUIJANO: All right, gentlemen, let’s talk about Russia. This is a topic that has come up.PENCE: I’m very, very happy to defend Donald Trump. If he wants to take these one at a time, I’ll take them one at a time.QUIJANO: I will give you an opportunity to do that.KAINE: More nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that.PENCE: Don’t put words in my mouth. Well, he never said that, Senator.KAINE: He absolutely said it. Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan.PENCE: Most of the stuff you’ve said, he’s never said.QUIJANO: Gentlemen, Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and has provided crucial military support to the Assad regime. What steps, if any, would your administration take to counter these actions? Senator Kaine?KAINE: You’ve got to be tough on Russia. So let’s start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said he’s a great leader. And Donald Trump has business…PENCE: No, we haven’t.KAINE: … has business dealings — has business dealings with Russia that he refuses to disclose. Hillary Clinton has gone toe-to-toe with Russia. She went toe-to-toe with Russia as secretary of state to do the New START Agreement to reduce Russia’s nuclear stockpile. She’s had the experience doing it.She went toe-to-toe with Russia and lodged protests when they went into Georgia. And we’ve done the same thing about Ukraine, but more than launching protests, we’ve put punishing economic sanctions on Russia that we need to continue.Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn’t know that Russia had invaded the Crimea.PENCE: Oh, that’s nonsense.KAINE: He was on a TV show a couple months back, and he said, “I’ll guarantee you this, Russia’s not going into the Ukraine.” And he had to be reminded that they had gone into the Crimea two years before.PENCE: He knew that.KAINE: Hillary Clinton has gone toe-to-toe with Russia to work out a deal on New START. She got them engaged in a meaningful way to cap Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And yet she stood up to them on issues such as Syria and their invasion of Georgia. You’ve got to have the ability to do that, and Hillary does.On the other hand, in Donald Trump, you have somebody who praises Vladimir Putin all the time. America should really wonder about a President Trump, who had a campaign manager with ties to Putin, pro-Putin elements in the Ukraine, who had to be fired for that reason. They should wonder — when Donald Trump is sitting down with Vladimir Putin, is it going to be America’s bottom line or is it going to be Donald Trump’s bottom line that he’s going to be worried about with all of his business dealings?Now, this could be solved if Donald Trump would be willing to release his tax returns, as he told the American public that he would do. And I know he’s laughing at this, but every president…PENCE: But what’s it got to do with Russia?KAINE: Every president since Richard Nixon has done it, and Donald Trump has said I’m doing business with Russia. The only way the American public will see whether he has a conflict of interest…PENCE: No, he hasn’t said that.KAINE: He has, actually.QUIJANO: Senator, your time is up. Governor?PENCE: Well, thanks. I’m just trying to keep up with the insult-driven campaign on the other side of the table.KAINE: You know, I’m just saying facts about your running mate.PENCE: Yeah.KAINE: And I know you can’t defend.QUIJANO: Senator, please. This is the governor’s two minutes.PENCE: I’m happy to defend him, Senator. Don’t put words in my mouth that I’m not defending him.KAINE: You’re not.PENCE: I’m happy to defend him. Most of what you said is completely false, and the American people know that.KAINE: I’ll run through the list of things where you won’t defend…PENCE: This isn’t the old days where you can just say stuff and people believe it.QUIJANO: Senator, please. This is Governor Pence’s two minutes.PENCE: Look, this is the alternative universe of Washington, D.C., versus reality. Hillary Clinton said her number-one priority was a reset with Russia. That reset resulted in the invasion of Ukraine, after they’d infiltrated with what are called little green men, Russian soldiers that were dressing up like Ukrainian dissidents, and then they moved all the way into Crimea, took over the Crimean Peninsula. Donald Trump knew that happened. He basically was saying it’s not going to happen again. The truth of the matter is that what you have in the rise of aggressive Russia, which has had — increased its influence in Iran, that’s now — now because of this deal is on a pathway in the future to obtain a nuclear — the leading state sponsor of terror in the world in Iran now has a closer working relationship with Russia because of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s foreign policy and $150 billion and sanctions all being lifted.And then, of course, Syria, I mean, it really is extraordinary that — Syria is imploding. You just asked a very thoughtful question about the disaster in Aleppo. ISIS is headquartered in Raqqa. It is — ISIS from Raqqa has overrun vast areas that at great sacrifice the American soldier won in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet Senator Kaine still sits here, loyal soldier — I get all that — in saying that the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama somehow made the world more secure. I mean, it really is astonishing that on the day…KAINE: We wiped out the leader of Al Qaida.PENCE: … on the day that Iran released four American hostages…KAINE: We stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons.QUIJANO: Governor…PENCE: … we delivered $400 million in cash as a ransom payment for Americans held by the radical mullahs in Tehran.[crosstalk]QUIJANO: Governor, yesterday, Mr. Trump said…KAINE: And we stopped a nuclear weapons program without a shot.QUIJANO: … quote, “Putin has no respect for Hillary Clinton and no respect for Obama.” Why do you think he’ll respect a Trump-Pence administration?PENCE: Strength. Plain and simple.KAINE: Business dealings.PENCE: Donald Trump — that’s nonsense. Donald Trump is a strong leader…KAINE: Donald Trump’s son says that the Trump organization…PENCE: … who is going to lead with American strength.QUIJANO: Please, Senator, I’ll give you a chance to respond.PENCE: We’re going to rebuild our military. And let me — let me — this whole Putin thing. Look, America is stronger than Russia. Our economy is 16 times larger than the Russian economy. America’s political system is superior to the crony, corrupt capitalist system in Russia in every way.When Donald Trump and I observe that, as I’ve said in Syria, in Iran, in Ukraine, that the small and bullying leader of Russia has been stronger on the world stage than this administration, that’s stating painful facts. That’s not an endorsement of Vladimir Putin. That’s an indictment of the weak and feckless leadership…QUIJANO: Senator Kaine?PENCE: … of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.KAINE: Well, this is one where we can just kind of go to the tape on it. But Governor Pence said, inarguably, Vladimir Putin is a better leader than President Obama.PENCE: That is absolutely inaccurate.KAINE: And — and — and I just think a guy who praises…PENCE: He said he’s stronger — he’s been stronger on the world stage.KAINE: No, he said leader. And if — and I’ll just say this, Governor.PENCE: You just said better.KAINE: If you mistake leadership for dictatorship, and you can’t tell the difference, a country that’s running its economy into the ground…PENCE: Yeah, here we go. This is the grade school thing again?KAINE: … persecuting journalists…PENCE: Right, this is grade school.KAINE: … if you can’t tell the difference, you shouldn’t be commander-in-chief.PENCE: Yeah.KAINE: And with Donald Trump — Donald Trump’s sons say that they have all these business dealings with Russia. Those could be disclosed with tax returns, but they refuse to do them. Americans need to worry about whether Donald Trump will be watching out for America’s bottom line or his own bottom line.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, what went wrong with the Russia reset?KAINE: Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is a dictator.QUIJANO: And what would do you differently?KAINE: Vladimir Putin is a dictator. He’s not a leader. Anybody who thinks otherwise doesn’t know Russian history and they don’t know Vladimir Putin. Hillary Clinton knows exactly who this guy is. John McCain said, I look in his eyes and I see KGB. And Hillary kind of has that same feeling.PENCE: Right.KAINE: So how do deal with him? You’ve got to — we do have to deal with Russia in a lot of different ways. There are areas where we can cooperate. So it was Hillary Clinton who worked with Russia on the New START Treaty to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpile. It was Hillary Clinton that worked with Russia to get them engaged in a community of nations to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.She’s not going around praising Vladimir Putin as a great guy. But she knows how to sit down at a table and negotiate tough deals. This is a very challenging part of the world, and we ought to have a commander-in-chief who is prepared and done it, rather than somebody who goes around praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader.QUIJANO: All right, I’d like to ask now about North Korea, Iran and the threat of nuclear weapons. North Korea recently conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear test.PENCE: Right.QUIJANO: What specific steps would you take to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear-armed missile capable of reaching the United States? Governor Pence?PENCE: Well, first, we need to — we need to make a commitment to rebuild our military, including modernizing our nuclear forces. And we also need — we also need an effective American diplomacy that will marshal the resources of nations in the Asian Pacific Rim to put pressure on North Korea, on Kim Jong-un, to abandon his nuclear ambitions. It has to remain the policy of the United States of America the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, plain and simple.And when Donald Trump is president of the United States, we’re — we’re not going to have the — the kind of posture in the world that has Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine, that has the Chinese building new islands in the South China Sea, that has literally the world, including North Korea, flouting American power. We’re going to — we’re going to go back to the days of peace through strength.But I have to tell you that — that all this talk about tax returns — and I get it, you know, you want to keep bringing that up. It must have — must have…KAINE: Until he…[crosstalk]PENCE: … done well in some focus group. But here — Hillary Clinton and her husband set up a private foundation called the Clinton Foundation. While she was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and foreign donors.Now, you all need to know out there, this is basic stuff. Foreign donors, and certainly foreign governments, cannot participate in the American political process. They cannot make financial contributions. But the Clintons figured out a way to create a foundation where foreign governments and foreign donors could donate millions of dollars. And then we found, thanks to the good work of the Associated Press, that more than half of her private meetings when she was secretary of state were given to major donors of the Clinton Foundation. When you talk about all these — all these baseless rumors about Russia and the rest, Hillary Clinton — you asked the trustworthy question at the very beginning — the reason…QUIJANO: Governor, your two minutes are up.PENCE: … the reason the American people don’t trust Hillary Clinton is because they are looking at the pay to play politics that she operated with the Clinton Foundation through a private server…QUIJANO: Governor, please.PENCE: … while she’s secretary of state.QUIJANO: Your two minutes are up, Governor.PENCE: And they’re saying enough is enough.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine?KAINE: I’m going to talk about the foundation, and then I’ll talk about North Korea. So, on the foundation. I am glad to talk about the foundation. The Clinton Foundation is one of the highest- rated charities in the world. It provides AIDS drugs to about 11.5 million people. It helps Americans deal with opioid overdoses. It gets higher rankings for its charity than the American Red Cross does. The Clinton Foundation does an awful lot of good work.Hillary Clinton as secretary of state took no action to benefit the foundation. The State Department did an investigation, and they concluded that everything Hillary Clinton did as secretary of state was completely in the interest of the United States. So the foundation does good work. And Hillary Clinton as secretary of state acted in the interests of the United States.But let’s compare this now with the Trump organization and the Trump Foundation. The Trump organization is an octopus-like organization with tentacles all over the world whose conflict of interests could only be known if Donald Trump would release his tax returns. He’s refused to do it.His sons have said that the organization has a lot of business dealings in Russia. And remember, the Trump organization is not a non-profit. It’s putting money into Donald Trump’s pockets and into the pockets of his children, whereas the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit and no Clinton family member draws any salary.PENCE: The Trump Foundation is a non-profit.KAINE: In addition, Donald Trump has a foundation. The foundation was just fined for illegally contributing foundation dollars to a political campaign of a Florida attorney general. They made an illegal contribution, and then they tried to hide it by disguising it to somebody else. And the person they donated to was somebody whose office was charged with investigating Trump University.This is the difference between a foundation that does good work and a secretary of state who acted in accord with American interest and somebody who is conflicted and doing work around the world and won’t share with the American public what he’s doing and what those conflicts are.QUIJANO: Governor, I will give you 30 seconds to respond, because I know you want to, but, again, I would remind you both this was about North Korea. [laughter]PENCE: Well, thank you. Thank you. The Trump Foundation is a private family foundation. They give virtually every cent in the Trump Foundation to charitable causes.KAINE: Political contributions?PENCE: Less than ten cents on the dollar in the Clinton Foundation has gone to charitable causes.KAINE: A $20,000 portrait of Donald Trump? PENCE: Less than 10 cents on the dollar of the Clinton Foundation has gone to charitable causes.KAINE: Ninety percent.PENCE: It has been a platform for the Clintons to travel the world, to have staff. But honestly, Senator, we would know a lot more about it if Hillary Clinton would just turn over the 33,000 e-mails…QUIJANO: All right, let’s turn back to North Korea…PENCE: … that she refused to turn over in her private server…QUIJANO: Senator Kaine…PENCE: … and we’d have a much better picture of what the Clinton Foundation was about.QUIJANO: Senator Kaine, if you had intelligence that North Korea was about to launch a missile, a nuclear-armed missile capable of reaching the United States, would you take preemptive action?KAINE: If we — look, a president should take action to defend the United States against imminent threat. You have to. A president has to do that. Now exactly what action, you would have to determine what your intelligence was, how certain you were of that intelligence, but you would have to take action.You asked the question about how do we deal with a North Korea. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee. We just did an extensive sanctions package against North Korea. And interestingly enough, Elaine, the U.N. followed and did this — virtually the same package. Often China will use their veto in the Security Council to veto a package like that. They’re starting to get worried about North Korea, too. So they actually supported the sanctions package, even though many of the sanctions are against Chinese firms, Chinese financial institutions.So we’re working together with China, and we need to. China’s another one of those relationships where it’s competitive, it’s also challenging, and in times like North Korea, we have to be able to cooperate. Hillary understands that very well. She went once famously to China and stood up at a human rights meeting and looked them in the eye and said, “Women’s rights are human rights.” They didn’t want her to say that, but she did.But she’s also worked on a lot of diplomatic and important diplomatic deals with China. And that’s what it’s going to take.The thing I would worry a little bit about is that Donald Trump owes about $650 million to banks, including the Bank of China. I’m not sure he could stand up so tough to the people who have loaned him money.QUIJANO: All right. I’d like to turn to our next segment now. And in this, I’d like to focus on social issues. You have both been open about the role that faith has played in your lives. Can you discuss in detail a time when you struggled to balance your personal faith and a public policy position? Senator Kaine?KAINE: Yeah, that’s an easy one for me, Elaine. It’s an easy one. I’m really fortunate. I grew up in a wonderful household with great Irish Catholic parents. My mom and dad are sitting right here. I was educated by Jesuits at Rockhurst High School in Kansas City. My 40th reunion is in 10 days.And I worked with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras, now nearly 35 years ago, and they were the heroes of my life. I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life. But I don’t believe in this nation, a First Amendment nation, where we don’t raise any religion over the other, and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be mandated for everyone.For me, the hardest struggle in my faith life was the Catholic Church is against the death penalty and so am I. But I was governor of a state, and the state law said that there was a death penalty for crimes if the jury determined them to be heinous. And so I had to grapple with that.When I was running for governor, I was attacked pretty strongly because of my position on the death penalty. But I looked the voters of Virginia in the eye and said, look, this is my religion. I’m not going to change my religious practice to get one vote, but I know how to take an oath and uphold the law. And if you elect me, I will uphold the law.And I was elected, and I did. It was very, very difficult to allow executions to go forward, but in circumstances where I didn’t feel like there was a case for clemency, I told Virginia voters I would uphold the law, and I did.That was a real struggle. But I think it is really, really important that those of us who have deep faith lives don’t feel like we could just substitute our own views for everybody else in society, regardless of their views.QUIJANO: Governor Pence?PENCE: Well, it’s a wonderful question. And my Christian faith is at the very heart of who I am. I was also raised in a wonderful family of faith. It was a church on Sunday morning and grace before dinner.But my Christian faith became real for me when I made a personal decision for Christ when I was a freshman in college. And I’ve tried to live that out however imperfectly every day of my life since. And with my wife at my side, we’ve followed a calling into public service, where we’ve — we’ve tried to — we’ve tried to keep faith with the values that we cherish.And with regard to when I struggle, I appreciate, and — and — and — I have a great deal of respect for Senator Kaine’s sincere faith. I truly do.KAINE: That’s shared.PENCE: But for me, I would tell you that for me the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that — that ancient principle that — where God says before you were formed in the womb, I knew you, and so for my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life.The state of Indiana has also sought to make sure that we expand alternatives in health care counseling for women, non-abortion alternatives. I’m also very pleased at the fact we’re well on our way in Indiana to becoming the most pro-adoption state in America. I think if you’re going to be pro-life, you should — you should be pro-adoption.But what I can’t understand is with Hillary Clinton and now Senator Kaine at her side is to support a practice like partial-birth abortion. I mean, to hold to the view — and I know Senator Kaine, you hold pro-life views personally — but the very idea that a child that is almost born into the world could still have their life taken from them is just anathema to me.And I cannot — I can’t conscience about — about a party that supports that. Or that — I know you’ve historically opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. But Hillary Clinton wants to — wants to repeal the longstanding provision in the law where we said we wouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.So for me, my faith informs my life. I try and spend a little time on my knees every day. But it all for me begins with cherishing the dignity, the worth, the value of every human life.KAINE: Elaine, this is a fundamental question, a fundamental question. Hillary and I are both people out of religious backgrounds, from Methodist church experience, which was really formative for her as a public servant.But we really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm the commands of your faith. But it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else.So let’s talk about abortion and choice. Let’s talk about them. We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that.And we don’t think that women should be punished, as Donald Trump said they should, for making the decision to have an abortion.Governor Pence wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. He said he wants to put it on the ash heap of history. And we have some young people in the audience who weren’t even born when Roe was decided. This is pretty important. Before Roe v. Wade, states could pass criminal laws to do just that, to punish women if they made the choice to terminate a pregnancy.I think you should live your moral values. But the last thing, the very last thing that government should do is have laws that would punish women who make reproductive choices. And that is the fundamental difference between a Clinton-Kaine ticket and a Trump-Pence ticket that wants to punish women who make that choice.PENCE: No, it’s really not. Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that punished women who made the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy.KAINE: Then why did Donald Trump say that?PENCE: We just never would.KAINE: Why did he say that?PENCE: Well, look, it’s — look, he’s not a polished politician like you and Hillary Clinton. And so…KAINE: Well, I would admit that’s not a polished…[crosstalk]PENCE: You know, things don’t always come out exactly the way he means them.KAINE: Well, can I say…PENCE: But I’m telling you what the policy of our administration would be.KAINE: Great line from the — great line from the gospel of Matthew. From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.PENCE: Yeah.KAINE: When Donald Trump says women should be punished or Mexicans are rapists and criminals…PENCE: I’m telling you…KAINE: … or John McCain is not a hero, he is showing you who he is.PENCE: Senator, you’ve whipped out that Mexican thing again. He — look…KAINE: Can you defend it?PENCE: There are criminal aliens in this country, Tim, who have come into this country illegally who are perpetrating violence and taking American lives.KAINE: You want to — you want to use a big broad brush against Mexicans on that?PENCE: He also said and many of them are good people. You keep leaving that out of your quote. And if you want me to go there, I’ll go there.But here’s — there is a choice, and it is a choice on life. I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with Donald Trump, who’s standing for the right to life. It’s a principle that — Senator Kaine — and I’m very gentle about this, because I really do respect you — it’s a principle that you embrace.And I have appreciated the fact that you’ve supported the Hyde amendment, which bans the use of taxpayer funding for abortion, in the past, but that’s not Hillary Clinton’s view. People need to understand, we can come together as a nation. We can create a culture of life. More and more young people today are embracing life because we know we are — we’re better for it. We can — like Mother Teresa said at that famous national prayer breakfast…KAINE: This is important —PENCE: … bring the — let’s welcome the children into our world. There are so many families around the country who can’t have children. We could improve adoption…KAINE: But, Governor…PENCE: … so that families that can’t have children can adopt more readily those children from crisis pregnancies.KAINE: Governor, why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves? We can encourage people to support life. Of course we can. But why don’t you trust women? Why doesn’t Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves?That’s what we ought to be doing in public life. Living our lives of faith or motivation with enthusiasm and excitement, convincing each other, dialoguing with each other about important moral issues of the day…PENCE: Because there are…KAINE: … but on fundamental issues of morality, we should let women make their own decisions.PENCE: Because there is — a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn. I believe it with all my heart. And I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with a pro-life candidate in Donald Trump.QUIJANO: I do have one final question for you both tonight. It has been a divisive campaign. Senator Kaine, if your ticket wins, what specifically are you going to do to unify the country and reassure the people who voted against you?KAINE: That’s a really important one. That may be the $64,000 question, because it has been a divisive campaign. And again, Hillary is running a campaign about stronger together, and Donald Trump — and this is — this is not directed at this man, except to the extent that he can’t defend Donald Trump — Donald Trump has run a campaign that’s been about one insult after the next.But we do have to bring the country together. So here’s what we’ll do. Hillary Clinton was first lady, then senator for eight years and secretary of state. And I served in the Senate. And I’m really amazed, Elaine, as I talk to Republican senators, how well they regard and respect Hillary Clinton.She was on the Armed Services Committee. She was on other committees. She worked across the aisle when she was first lady to get the CHIP program passed so that 8 million low-income kids have health insurance in this country, including 150,000 in Indiana.She worked across the aisle after 9/11 to get health benefits for the first responders who bravely went into the towers and into the Pentagon. She worked to get benefits for — TRICARE benefits for National Guard members, including Hoosiers and Virginians in the National Guard.She has a track record of working across the aisle to make things happen. And, you know, Elaine, I have the same track record. I was a governor of Virginia with two Republican houses. And in the Senate, I have good working relationships across the aisle.Because I think it’s fine to be a Democrat or Republican or independent, but after Election Day, the goal is work together. And Hillary Clinton has a track record of accomplishment across the aisle that will enable her to do just that when we work with the new Congress in January.QUIJANO: Governor, how will you unify the country if you win?PENCE: Well, thank you, Elaine, and thanks for a great discussion…KAINE: Absolutely.PENCE: … tonight. Thank you, Senator.This is a very challenging time in the life of our nation. Weakened America’s place in the world after the leadership of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the world stage has been followed by an economy that is truly struggling, stifled by an avalanche of more taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, the war on coal, and the kind of trade deals that have put American workers in the back seat. I think the best way that we can bring people together is through change in Washington, D.C.You know, I served in Washington, D.C., for 12 years in the Congress of the United States. And I served with many Republicans and Democrats, men and women of goodwill. The potential is there to really change the direction of this country, but it’s going to take leadership to do it.The American people want to see our nation standing tall on the world stage again. They want to see us supporting our military, rebuilding our military, commanding the respect of the world, and they want to see the American economy off to the races again. They want to see an American comeback.And Donald Trump’s entire career has been about building. It’s been about — it’s going through hardship just like a businessperson does and finding a way through smarts and ingenuity and resilience to fight forward and — when Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, we’re going to have a stronger America.When you hear him say he wants to make America great again, when we do that, I truly do believe the American people are going to be standing taller. They’re going to see that real change can happen after decades of just talking about it. And when that happens, the American people are going to stand tall, stand together, and we’ll have the kind of unity that’s been missing for way too long.QUIJANO: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much.This concludes the vice presidential debate. My thanks to the candidates, the commission, and to you for watching. Please tune in this Sunday for the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis and the final debate on October 19th at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.From Farmville, Virginia, I’m Elaine Quijano of CBS News. Good night.",
    "id": "2b9f90eb-4ea4-43e6-a549-051066006b55"
  },
  {
    "year": 2012,
    "date": "October 22, 2012",
    "title": "The Third Obama-Romney Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 22, 2012 Debate TranscriptPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY,R-MASS., PARTICIPATE IN A CANDIDATES DEBATE, LYNNUNIVERSITY, BOCA RATON, FLORIDAOCTOBER 22, 2012SPEAKERS: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.,PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMABOB SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR[*]SCHIEFFER: Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the Commission on Presidential Debates.This one’s on foreign policy. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News. The questions are mine, and I have not shared them with the candidates or their aides.SCHIEFFER: The audience has taken a vow of silence — no applause, no reaction of any kind, except right now when we welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. They’ve asked me to divide the evening into segments. I’ll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. You will each have two minutes to respond and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment.Tonight’s debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, perhaps the closest we’ve ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad.So let’s begin.SCHIEFFER: The first segment is the challenge of a changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism. I’m going to put this into two segments so you’ll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. The first question, and it concerns Libya. The controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American ambassador. Questions remain. What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unraveling before our very eyes.SCHIEFFER: I’d like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that.Governor Romney, you won the toss. You go first.ROMNEY: Thank you, Bob. And thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. Thank you to Lynn University for welcoming us here. And Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again. We were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it’s nice to maybe funny this time, not on purpose. We’ll see what happens.This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world, and to America in particular, which is to see a — a complete change in the — the structure and the — the environment in the Middle East.With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we’ve seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. Of course we see in Syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in — in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against — against our people there, four people dead.Our hearts and — and minds go out to them. Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals. We have in — in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And — and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on — on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda.But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is — it’s certainly not on the run.ROMNEY: It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe. And that’s what we’ve done over the last four years.We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.In addition, we’re now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security. And that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened, and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans and we would bring them to justice. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.But I think it’s important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq, liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years. Got rid of a despot who had killed Americans and as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying America is our friend. We stand with them.OBAMA: Now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. And, you know, Governor Romney, I’m glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after Al Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East.ROMNEY: Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to — to kill them, to take them out of the picture.But my strategy is broader than that. That’s — that’s important, of course. But the key that we’re going to have to pursue is a — is a pathway to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own.We don’t want another Iraq, we don’t want another Afghanistan. That’s not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world.And how do we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the — the world reject these — these terrorists. And the answer they came up with was this:One, more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.Number two, better education.Number three, gender equality.Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies.But what’s been happening over the last couple of years is, as we’ve watched this tumult in the Middle East, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see Al Qaida rushing in, you see other jihadist groups rushing in. And — and they’re throughout many nations in the Middle East.ROMNEY: It’s wonderful that Libya seems to be making some progress, despite this terrible tragedy.But next door, of course, we have Egypt. Libya’s 6 million population; Egypt, 80 million population. We want — we want to make sure that we’re seeing progress throughout the Middle East. With Mali now having North Mali taken over by Al Qaida; with Syria having Assad continuing to — to kill, to murder his own people, this is a region in tumult.And, of course, Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon, we’ve got real (inaudible).SCHIEFFER: We’ll get to that, but let’s give the president a chance.OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy — but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite that fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day. You indicated that we shouldn’t be passing nuclear treaties with Russia despite the fact that 71 senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for it. You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies.OBAMA: So, what — what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that’s the kind of opinions that you’ve offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul.SCHIEFFER: I’m going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond.ROMNEY: Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said. They don’t happen to be accurate. But — but I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and — and confusion. And — and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.But I’ll respond to a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone. Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: Oh you didn’t? You didn’t want a status of…OBAMA: What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East.ROMNEY: I’m sorry, you actually — there was a — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor?ROMNEY: … I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: … no troops through whatsoever.OBAMA: This was just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq.ROMNEY: No, I…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …I’m sorry that’s a…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: You — you…ROMNEY: …that’s a — I indicated…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …major speech.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …I indicated that you failed to put in place a status…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor?(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.OBAMA: Governor — here — here’s — here’s one thing…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …here’s one thing I’ve learned as commander in chief.(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: Let him answer…OBAMA: You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. And so what I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts.Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.Number three, we do have to make sure that we’re protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can’t develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing.Number four, we do have to develop their economic — their economic capabilities.But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can’t continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need.SCHIEFFER: Let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the Middle East and so on, and that is, you both mentioned — alluded to this, and that is Syria.The war in Syria has now spilled over into Lebanon. We have, what, more than 100 people that were killed there in a bomb. There were demonstrations there, eight people dead.Mr. President, it’s been more than a year since you saw — you told Assad he had to go. Since then, 30,000 Syrians have died. We’ve had 300,000 refugees.The war goes on. He’s still there. Should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there? Or is that even possible?And you go first, sir.OBAMA: What we’ve done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go. We’ve mobilized sanctions against that government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize, and we’re particularly interested in making sure that we’re mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria.But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. And so everything we’re doing, we’re doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria; coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this.This — what we’re seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that’s why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region.And I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered. But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. SCHIEFFER: Governor?ROMNEY: Well, let’s step back and talk about what’s happening in Syria and how important it is. First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. Secondly, Syria is an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now.ROMNEY: Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a — a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don’t want to have military involvement there. We don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict.And so the right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a — in a form of — if not government, a form of — of — of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. We do need to make sure that they don’t have arms that get into the — the wrong hands. Those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with — with Israel.But the Saudi’s and the Qatari, and — and the Turks are all very concerned about this. They’re willing to work with us. We need to have a very effective leadership effort in Syria, making sure that the — the insurgent there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed, are people who will be the responsible parties. Recognize — I believe that Assad must go. I believe he will go. But I believe — we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place, steps that in the years to come we see Syria as a — as a friend, and Syria as a responsible party in the Middle East.This — this is a critical opportunity for America. And what I’m afraid of is we’ve watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, well we’ll let the U.N. deal with it. And Assad — excuse me, Kofi Annan came in and said we’re going to try to have a ceasefire. That didn’t work. Then it went to the Russians and said, let’s see if you can do something. We should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military.SCHIEFFER: All right.ROMNEY: …by the leadership role.OBAMA: We are playing the leadership role. We organized the Friends of Syria. We are mobilizing humanitarian support, and support for the opposition. And we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. But going back to Libya — because this is an example of how we make choices. When we went in to Libya, and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there, because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize. We also had to make sure that Moammar Gadhafi didn’t stay there.And to the governor’s credit, you supported us going into Libya and the coalition that we organized. But when it came time to making sure that Gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, Governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle.Imagine if we had pulled out at that point. You know, Moammar Gadhafi had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Osama bin Laden. And so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. That’s part of the reason why the Libyans stand with us.But we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with, and we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to Syria. That’s exactly what we’re doing.SCHIEFFER: Governor, can I just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do, like for example, would you put in no-fly zones over Syria?ROMNEY: I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria. I don’t think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage. I don’t anticipate that in the future.As I indicated, our objectives are to replace Assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible. And I want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove — to remove Assad.But I do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our — of our troops.SCHIEFFER: Well —ROMNEY: And this isn’t — this isn’t going to be necessary.We — we have, with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. But look, this has been going on for a year. This is a time — this should have been a time for American leadership. We should have taken a leading role, not militarily, but a leading role organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties; to find responsible parties.As you hear from intelligence sources even today, the — the insurgents are highly disparate. They haven’t come together. They haven’t formed a unity group, a council of some kind. That needs to happen. America can help that happen. And we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which is getting rid of Assad.SCHIEFFER: Can we get a quick response, Mr. President, because I want to…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Well, I’ll — I’ll be very quick. What you just heard Governor Romney said is he doesn’t have different ideas. And that’s because we’re doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a — an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown. That’s the kind of leadership we’ll continue to show.SCHIEFFER: May I ask you, you know, during the Egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for President Mubarak to go.OBAMA: Right.SCHIEFFER: Some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. Do you have any regrets about that?OBAMA: No, I don’t, because I think that America has to stand with democracy. The notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in Tahrir Square, that is not the kind of American leadership that John F. Kennedy talked about 50 years ago.But what I’ve also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in Egypt, that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities. And we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they’re doing that; to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. These countries can’t develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need.They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels.They have to make sure that they’re cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism.And we will help them with respect to developing their own economy, because ultimately what’s going to make the Egyptian revolution successful for the people of Egypt, but also for the world, is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities.Their aspirations are similar to young people’s here. They want jobs, they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. They want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future.And so one of the things that we’ve been doing is, is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these Egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that’s noncorrupt, that’s transparent. But what is also important for us to understand is, is that for America to be successful in this region there’s some things that we’re going to have to do here at home as well.You know, one of the challenges over the last decade is we’ve done experiments in nation building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and we’ve neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. And it’s very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we’re not doing what we need to do…SCHIEFFER: Governor Romney, I want to hear your response to that, but I would just ask you, would you have stuck with Mubarak?ROMNEY: No. I believe, as the president indicated, and said at the time that I supported his — his action there. I felt that — I wish we’d have had a better vision of the future.I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president’s term and even further back than that, that we’d have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world, and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government, such that it didn’t explode in the way that it did.But once it exploded, I felt the same as the president did, which is these freedom voices and the streets of Egypt, where the people who were speaking of our principles and the President Mubarak had done things which were unimaginable and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support.Let me step back and talk about what I think our mission has to be in the Middle East and even more broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more — is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war. That’s our purpose.And the mantle of leadership for the — promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn’t ask for it. But it’s an honor that we have it.But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong. And that begins with a strong economy here at home. Unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. When the — when the president of Iraq — excuse me, of Iran, Ahmadinejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country, that’s a frightening thing.Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy.We need to have as well a strong military. Our military is second to none in the world. We’re blessed with terrific soldiers, and extraordinary technology and intelligence. But the idea of a trillion dollar in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that. We need to have strong allies. Our association and connection with our allies is essential to America’s strength. We’re the great nation that has allies, 42 allies and friends around the world.ROMNEY: And, finally, we have to stand by our principles. And if we’re strong in each of those things, American influence will grow. But unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is America’s influence will grow. But unfortunately, in — nowhere in the world is America’s influence greater today than it was four years ago.SCHIEFFER: All right.ROMNEY: And that’s because we’ve become weaker in each of those four…(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: …you’re going to get a chance to respond to that, because that’s a perfect segue into our next segment, and that is, what is America’s role in the world? And that is the question. What do each of you see as our role in the world, and I believe, Governor Romney, it’s your chance to go first.ROMNEY: Well I — I absolutely believe that America has a — a responsibility, and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that — that make the world more peaceful. And those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections. Because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. They don’t vote for war. So we want to promote those principles around the world. We recognize that there are places of conflict in the world.We want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. But in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, America must be strong. America must lead. And for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. You can’t have 23 million people struggling to get a job. You can’t have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. You can’t have kids coming out of college, half of them can’t find a job today, or a job that’s commensurate with their college degree. We have to get our economy going.And our military, we’ve got to strengthen our military long-term. We don’t know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. We — we make decisions today in the military that — that will confront challenges we can’t imagine. In the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So, we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty, and that means a strong military. I will not cut our military budget. We have to also stand by our allies. I — I think the tension that existed between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate.I think also that pulling our missile defense program out of Poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us.And then, of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake. We have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?OBAMA: America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.Because we ended the war in Iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in Afghanistan.It also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade.And Governor Romney, our alliances have never been stronger, in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel, where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.But what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding America, and that’s what my plan does. Making sure that we’re bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we’re creating jobs here, as we’ve done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Making sure that we’ve got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow.Doing everything we can to control our own energy. We’ve cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we’ve developed oil and natural gas. But we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. That’s the kind of leadership that we need to show.And we’ve got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. Unfortunately, Governor Romney’s plan doesn’t do it. We’ve got to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don’t need, but also asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. That way we can invest in the research and technology that’s always kept us at the cutting edge.Now, Governor Romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. Both at home and abroad, he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. He’s praised George Bush as a good economic steward and Dick Cheney as somebody who’s — who shows great wisdom and judgment. And taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century.SCHIEFFER: Governor Romney, “wrong and reckless” policies?ROMNEY: I’ve got a policy for the future and agenda for the future. And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. And what we’ve seen over the last four years is something I don’t want to see over the next four years.The president said by now we’d be a 5.4 percent unemployment. We’re 9 million jobs short of that. I will get America working again and see rising take-home pay again, and I’ll do it with five simple steps. Number one, we are going to have North American energy independence. We’re going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables.Number two, we’re going to increase our trade. Trade grows about 12 percent year. It doubles about every — every five or so years. We can do better than that, particularly in Latin America. The opportunities for us in Latin America we have just not taken advantage of fully. As a matter of fact, Latin America’s economy is almost as big as the economy of China. We’re all focused on China. Latin America is a huge opportunity for us — time zone, language opportunities.Number three, we’re going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first, and the teachers’ unions going to have to go behind.And then we’re going to have to get to a balanced budget. We can’t expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their company’s money and invest in America if they think we’re headed to the road to Greece. And that’s where we’re going right now unless we finally get off this spending and borrowing binge. And I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget.And finally, number five, we’ve got to champion small business. Small business is where jobs come from. Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. New business formation is down to the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. I want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home pay.OBAMA: Well, let’s talk about what we need to compete. First of all, Governor Romney talks about small businesses. But, Governor, when you were in Massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48th, I think out of 50 states in Massachusetts, because the policies that you are promoting actually don’t help small businesses.And the way you define small businesses includes folks at the very top. And they include you and me. That’s not the kind of small business promotion we need. But let’s take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century and that’s our education policy. We didn’t have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate.You know, under my leadership, what we’ve done is reformed education, working with governors, 46 states. We’ve seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time. And they’re starting to finally make progress.And what I now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science, because we know that we’ve fallen behind when it comes to math and science. And those teachers can make a difference.Now, Governor Romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn’t going to help the economy grow.OBAMA: When you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don’t make a difference.But I tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. And if we’ve got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that’s what’s going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here. Companies are going to locate here depending on whether we’ve got the most highly skilled workforce.And the kinds of budget proposals that you’ve put forward, when we don’t ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit, but instead we slash support for education, that’s undermining our long-term competitiveness. That is not good for America’s position in the world, and the world notices.SCHIEFFER: Let me get back to foreign policy.(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: Can I just get back…ROMNEY: Well — well, I need to speak a moment…SCHIEFFER: OK.ROMNEY: … if you’ll let me, Bob, just about education…SCHIEFFER: OK.ROMNEY: … because I’m — I’m so proud of the state that I had the chance to be governor of.We have every two years tests that look at how well our kids are doing. Fourth graders and eighth graders are tested in English and math. While I was governor, I was proud that our fourth graders came out number one of all 50 states in English, and then also in math. And our eighth graders number one in English and also in math. First time one state had been number one in all four measures.How did we do that? Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom.OBAMA: Ten years earlier…ROMNEY: And that was — that was — that was what allowed us to become the number one state in the nation.OBAMA: But that was 10 years before you took office.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: And then you cut education spending when you came into office.ROMNEY: The first — the first — the first — and we kept our schools number one in the nation. They’re still number one today.SCHIEFFER: All right.ROMNEY: And the principles that we put in place, we also gave kids not just a graduation exam that determined whether they were up to the skills needed to — to be able compete, but also if they graduated the quarter of their class, they got a four-year tuition- free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning.OBAMA: That happened before you came into office.SCHIEFFER: Governor…ROMNEY: That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong.(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: Let me get — I want to try to shift it, because we have heard some of this in the other debates.Governor, you say you want a bigger military. You want a bigger Navy. You don’t want to cut defense spending. What I want to ask you — we were talking about financial problems in this country. Where are you going to get the money?ROMNEY: Well, let’s come back and talk about the military, but all the way — all the way through. First of all, I’m going through from the very beginning — we’re going to cut about 5 percent of the discretionary budget, excluding military. That’s number one.SCHIEFFER: But can you do this without driving deeper…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEHY: The good news is (inaudible). I’d be happy to have you take a look. Come on our website. You look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting — by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one I get rid of is Obamacare.There are a number of things that sound good, but frankly, we just can’t afford them. And that one doesn’t sound good and it’s not affordable. So I’d get rid of that one from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out. We take program after program that we don’t absolutely have to have, and we get rid of them.Number two, we take some programs that we are doing to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor; we’ll take that healthcare program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently.As a governor, I thought please, give me this program. I can run this more efficiently than the federal government and states, by the way, are proving it. States like Arizona, Rhode Island have taken these — these Medicaid dollars; have shown they can run these programs more cost-effectively. I want to do those two things and get this — get this to a balanced budget with eight — eight to 10 years.But the military — let’s get back to the military, though.(CROSSTALK) SCHIEFFER: That’s what I’m trying…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: He should have answered the first question.OBAMA: Look, Governor Romney’s called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he’s going to pay for by closing deductions. Now, the math doesn’t work, but he continues to claim that he’s going to do it. He then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for.Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I’ve been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined; China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it. The next 10. And what I did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about, what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe?And that’s the budget that we’ve put forward. But, what you can’t do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts. You say that you’re going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions, without naming what those loopholes and deductions are. And then somehow you’re also going to deal with the deficit that we’ve already got. The math simply doesn’t work. But when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not, you know just budgets, we’ve got to think about capabilities.We need to be thinking about cyber security. We need to be talking about space. That’s exactly what our budget does, but it’s driven by strategy. It’s not driven by politics. It’s not driven by members of Congress, and what they would like to see. It’s driven by, what are we going to need to keep the American people safe? That’s exactly what our budget does, and it also then allows us to reduce our deficit, which is a significant national security concern. Because we’ve got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas.ROMNEY: I’m pleased that I’ve balanced budgets. I was on the world of business for 25 years. If you didn’t balance your budget, you went out of business. I went into the Olympics that was out of balance, and we got it on balance, and made a success there. I had the chance to be governor of a state. Four years in a row, Democrats and Republicans came together to balance the budget. We cut taxes 19 times and balanced our budget. The president hasn’t balanced a budget yet. I expect to have the opportunity to do so myself.SCHIEFFER: All right.ROMNEY: I’m going to be able to balance the budget.Let’s talk about military spending, and that’s this.(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: Thirty seconds.ROMNEY: Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947.We’ve changed for the first time since FDR — since FDR we had the — we’ve always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we’re changing to one conflict. Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people.And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is a combination of the budget cuts the president has, as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is making — is making our future less certain and less secure.OBAMA: Bob, I just need to comment on this.First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.The budget that we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. It is maintaining it.But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works.You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.OBAMA: And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting slips. It’s what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home.OBAMA: And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you’re putting forward because it just doesn’t work.SCHIEFFER: All right.OBAMA: And, you know, we visited the website quite a bit and it still doesn’t work.SCHIEFFER: A lot to cover. I’d like — I’d like to move to the next segment: red lines, Israel and Iran.Would either of you — and you’ll have two minutes — and, President Obama, you have the first go at this one — would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, which, of course, is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan.And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It’s certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long time when we made that — we made — we made that promise to our allies.Mr. President?OBAMA: First of all, Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I’ve made that clear throughout my presidency. And…SCHIEFFER: So you’re — you’re saying we’ve already made that declaration.OBAMA: I will stand with Israel if they are attacked. And this is the reason why, working with Israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history.In fact, this week we’ll be carrying out the largest military exercise with Israel in history, this very week. But to the issue of Iran, as long as I’m president of the United States Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I made that clear when I came into office.OBAMA: We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles.And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to Israel’s national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that’s unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map.So the work that we’ve done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice. They can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we’re not going to take any options off the table.The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake, because when I’ve sent young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.SCHIEFFER: Two minutes.ROMNEY: Well, first of all, I want to underscore the same point the president mad,e which is that if I’m President of the United States, when I’m President of the United States, we will stand with Israel.And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That’s number one.Number two, with regards to Iran and the threat of Iran, there’s no question but that a nuclear Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable to America. It presents a threat not only to our friends but ultimately a threat to us to have Iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that could be used against us or used to be threatening to us.ROMNEY: It is also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. And crippling sanctions are something I called for five years ago, when I was in Israel, speaking at the Herzliya Conference. I laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one. And they do work. You’re seeing it right now in the economy. It’s absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions. I would have put them in place earlier. But it’s good that we have them.Number two, something I would add today is I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well. Not only ships couldn’t, but I’d say companies that are moving their oil can’t, people who are trading in their oil can’t. I would tighten those sanctions further. Secondly, I’d take on diplomatic isolation efforts. I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. The same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa.We need to increase pressure time, and time again on Iran because anything other than a — a — a solution to this, which says — which stops this — this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to America. And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only – only consider if all of the other avenues had been — had been tried to their full extent.SCHIEFFER: Let me ask both of you, there — as you know, there are reports that Iran and the United States a part of an international group, have agreed in principle to talks about Iran’s nuclear program. What is the deal, if there are such talks? What is the deal that you would accept, Mr. President?OBAMA: Well, first of all those are reports in the newspaper. They are not true. But our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. Because they have the opportunity to reenter the community of nations, and we would welcome that.There — there are people in Iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world for a better life. And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision, but the deal we’ll accept is they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward. And I’m glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we’re taking. You know, there have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you’d do the same things we did, but you’d say them louder and somehow that — that would make a difference.And it turns out that the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. It’s meticulous. We started from the day we got into office. And the reason is was so important — and this is a testament to how we’ve restored American credibility and strength around the world — is we had to make sure that all the countries participated, even countries like Russia and China. Because if it’s just us that are imposing sanctions — we’ve had sanctions in place a long time. It’s because we got everybody to agree that Iran is seeing so much pressure. And we’ve got to maintain that pressure.There is a deal to be had, and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established. They convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program. There are inspections that are very intrusive. But over time, what they can do is regain credibility. In the meantime, though, we’re not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that that takes place.And one last thing — just — just to make this point. The clock is ticking. We’re not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. And I’ve been very clear to them. You know, because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including Israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program.And that clock is ticking. And we’re going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon.SCHIEFFER: Governor?ROMNEY: I think from the very beginning, one of the challenges we’ve had with Iran is that they have looked at this administration, and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be.I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength. And I say that because from the very beginning, the president in his campaign four years ago, said he would meet with all the world’s worst actors in his first year, he’d sit down with Chavez and Kim Jong-il, with Castro and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.And I think they looked and thought, well, that’s an unusual honor to receive from the President of the United States. And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.Then when there were dissidents in the streets of Tehran, a Green Revolution, holding signs saying, is America with us, the president was silent. I think they noticed that as well.And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well.All of these things suggested, I think, to the Iranian mullahs that, hey, you know, we can keep on pushing along here, we can keep talks going on, we’re just going to keep on spinning centrifuges.Now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to the United States and to the world. That’s unacceptable for us, and it’s essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning, to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable.And an Iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. They must not develop nuclear capability. And the way to make sure they understand that is by having, from the very beginning, the tightest sanctions possible. They need to be tightened. Our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. We need to indict Ahmadinejad. We need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can, because if we do that, we won’t have to take the military action.OBAMA: Bob, let me just respond.Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact checker and every reporter who’s looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true.And when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as I said before, we’ve put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.So I’ll let the American people decide, judge, who’s going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions.And with respect to our attitude about the Iranian revolution, I was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for.And — and so the strength that we have shown in Iran is shown by the fact that we’ve been able to mobilize the world.When I came into office, the world was divided. Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point, economically, strategically, militarily, then since — then in many years. And we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. That’s in America’s national interest and that will be the case so long as I’m president.ROMNEY: We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. And — and — we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer. That’s number one.Number two, Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations.And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.OBAMA: Bob, let me — let me respond.If we’re going to talk about trips that we’ve taken — when I was a candidate for office, first trip I took was to visit our troops. And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors. I didn’t attend fundraisers. I went to Yad Beshef (ph), the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.And then I went down to the border towns of Storok (ph), which had experienced missiles raining dowm from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me there where missiles had come down near their children’s bedrooms. And I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids. Which is why as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.OBAMA: So that’s how I’ve used my travels, when I travel to Israel and when I travel to the region. And the — the central question at this point is going to be: Who is going to be credible to all parties involved? And they can look at my track record, whether it’s Iran sanctions, whether it’s dealing with counterterrorism, whether it’s supporting democracy, whether it’s supporting women’s rights, whether it’s supporting religious minorities.And they can say that the President of the United States and the United States of America has stood on the right side of history. And that kind of credibility is precisely why we’ve been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now.SCHIEFFER: What if — what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, “Our bombers are on the way. We’re going to bomb Iran.”What do you —ROMNEY: Bob, let’s not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of —(CROSSTALK)SCHIEFFER: So you’d say it just wouldn’t happen?That’s —SCHIEFFER: OK. Let’s see what —ROMNEY: But let me — let me come back — we can come back. Let’s come back to what the president was speaking about, which is what’s happening in the world and the president’s statement that things are going so well.Look, I look at what’s happening around the world, and i see Iran four years closer to a bomb. I see the Middle East with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. I see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they’re rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very strong.I see Syria with 30,000 civilians dead, Assad still in power. I see our trade deficit with China, larger than it’s — growing larger every year, as a matter of fact.I look around the world and I don’t feel that you see North Korea, continuing to export their nuclear technology, Russia said they’re not going to follow Nunn-Lugar any more. They’re back away from a nuclear proliferation treaty that we had with them.ROMNEY: I look around the world, I don’t see our influence growing around the world. I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home; in part because of our withdrawal from our commitment to our military in the way I think it ought to be; in part because of the — the — the turmoil with Israel.I mean, the president received a letter from 38 Democrat senators saying the tensions with Israel were a real problem. They asked him, please repair the tension — Democrat senators — please repair the tension…SCHIEFFER: All right.ROMNEY: … the damage in his — in his own party.OBAMA: Governor, the problem is, is that on a whole range of issues, whether it’s the Middle East, whether it’s Afghanistan, whether it’s Iraq, whether it’s now Iran, you’ve been all over the map.I mean, I’m — I’m pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end their nuclear program. But just a few years ago you said that’s something you’d never do.In the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in Afghanistan, now you’re for it, although it depends. In the same way that you say you would have ended the war in Iraq, but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. The same way that you said that it was mission creep to go after Gadhafi.When it comes to going after Osama bin Laden, you said, well, any president would make that call. But when you were a candidate in 2008, as I was, and I said if I got bin Laden in our sights I would take that shot, you said we shouldn’t move heaven and earth to get one man.OBAMA: And you said we should ask Pakistan for permission. And if we had asked Pakistan permission, we would not have gotten him. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him.You know, after we killed bin Laden I was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young women who was four years old when 9/11 happened. And the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers, saying “Peyton (ph), I love you and I will always watch over you.” And for the next decade, she was haunted by that conversation. And she said to me, “You know, by finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to me.”And when we do things like that — when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world and it tells Peyton (ph) that we did not forget her father. And I make that point because that’s the kind of clarity of leadership, and those decisions are not always popular. Those decisions generally — generally are not poll-tested. And even some in my own party, including my current vice president, had the same critique as you did.But what the American people understand is that I look at what we need to get done to keep the American people safe and to move our interests forward, and I make those decisions.SCHIEFFER: All right, let’s go. And that leads us — this takes us right to the next segment, Governor, America’s longest war, Afghanistan and Pakistan…ROMNEY: Bob…SCHIEFFER: Governor, you get to go first.ROMNEY: You can’t — but you can’t have the president just lay out a whole series of items without giving me a chance to respond.SCHIEFFER: With respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program…ROMNEY: Well, that’s probably true.SCHIEFFER: We’ll give you — we’ll catch up.The United States is scheduled to turn over responsibility for security in Afghanistan to the Afghan government in 2014. At that point, we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of Americans, if I understand our policy, in Afghanistan for training purposes. It seems to me the key question here is: What do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the Afghans are unable to handle their security? Do we still leave?And I believe, Governor Romney, you go first?ROMNEY: Well, we’re going to be finished by 2014, and when I’m president, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals there are on track to do so.We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful and the training program is proceeding apace. There are now a large number of Afghan Security Forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014.So our troops will come home at that point.I can tell you at the same time, that we will make sure that we look at what’s happening in Pakistan, and recognize that what’s happening in Pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in Afghanistan. And I say that because I know a lot of people that feel like we should just brush our hands and walk away.And I don’t mean you, Mr. President, but some people in the — in our nation feel that Pakistan is being nice to us, and that we should walk away fro mthem. But Pakistan is important to the region, to the world and to us, because Pakistan has 100 nuclear warheads and they’re rushing to build a lot more. They’ll have more than Great Britain sometime in the — in the relatively near future.They also have the Haqqani Network and the Taliban existent within their country. And so a Pakistan that falls apart, becomes a failed state, would be of extraordinary danger to Afghanistan and to us.And so we’re going to have to remain helpful in encouraging Pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild the relationship with us. And that means that our aid that we provide to Pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met.ROMNEY: So for me, I look at this as both a need to help move Pakistan in the right direction, and also to get Afghanistan to be ready, and they will be ready by the end of 2014.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?OBAMA: When I came into office, we were still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on Afghanistan, and we did deliver a surge of troops. That was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in Iraq.And we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place.Part of what had happened is we’d forgotten why we had gone. We went because there were people who were responsible for 3,000 American deaths. And so we decimated Al Qaida’s core leadership in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.We then started to build up Afghan forces. And we’re now in a position where we can transition out, because there’s no reason why Americans should die when Afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country.Now, that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. We’ve been there a long time, and we’ve got to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving Afghans the capabilities that they need.But what I think the American people recognize is after a decade of war it’s time to do some nation building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources, to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools, making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place.OBAMA: You know, I was having lunch with some — a veteran in Minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances. When he came home and he wanted to become a nurse, he had to start from scratch. And what we’ve said is let’s change those certifications. The first lady has done great work with an organization called Joining Forces putting our veterans back to work. And as a consequence, veterans’ unemployment is actually now lower than general population. It was higher when I came into office.So those are the kinds of things that we can now do because we’re making that transition in Afghanistan.SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me go to Governor Romney because you talked about Pakistan and what needs to be done there.General Allen, our commander in Afghanistan, says that Americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by Pakistan. We know that Pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch Obama (sic) bin Laden. It still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet we continue to give Pakistan billions of dollars.Is it time for us to divorce Pakistan?ROMNEY: No, it’s not time to divorce a nation on Earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, as I indicated before, the Taliban, Haqqani Network.It’s a nation that’s not like — like others and it does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. You have the ISI, their intelligence organization, is probably the most powerful of the — of three branches there. Then you have the military and then you have the civilian government.This is a nation, which, if it falls apart, if it — if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there and you’ve got — you’ve got terrorists there who could grab their — their hands onto those nuclear weapons.ROMNEY: This is — this is an important part of the world for us. Pakistan is — is technically an ally, and they’re not acting very much like an ally right now. But we have some work to do. And I — I don’t blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We — we had to go into Pakistan. We had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do. And — and that upset them, but obviously there was a great deal of anger even before that. But we’re going to have to work with the — with the people in Pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they’re on. And it’s important for them. It’s important for the nuclear weapons.It’s important for the success of Afghanistan. Because inside Pakistan, you have a — a large group of Pashtun that are — that are Taliban. They’re going to come rushing back in to Afghanistan when we go. And that’s one of the reasons the Afghan Security Forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that. But it’s important for us to recognize that we can’t just walk away from Pakistan. But we do need to make sure that as we — as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on — on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society.SCHIEFFER: Let — let me ask you, Governor because we know President Obama’s position on this, what is — what is your position on the use of drones?ROMNEY: Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. But let me also note that as I said earlier, we’re going to have to do more than just going after leaders and — and killing bad guys, important as that is.ROMNEY: We’re also going to have to have a farm more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism. We haven’t done that yet. We talk a lot about these things, but you look at the — the record, you look at the record. You look at the record of the last four years and say is Iran closer to a bomb? Yes. Is the Middle East in tumult? Yes. Is — is al-Qaida on the run, on its heels? No. Is — are Israel and the Palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement?No, they haven’t had talks in two years. We have not seen the progress we need to have, and I’m convinced that with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism, we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the world demands.OBAMA: Well, keep in mind our strategy wasn’t just going after bin Laden. We created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism in Somalia, in Yemen, in Pakistan.And what we’ve also done is engaged these governments in the kind of reforms that are actually going to make a difference in people’s lives day to day, to make sure that their governments aren’t corrupt, to make sure that they’re treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown and to make sure that they’ve got a free market system that works.So across the board, we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries. And we have stood on the side of democracy.One thing I think Americans should be proud of, when Tunisians began to protest, this nation — me, my administration — stood with them earlier than just about any country.In Egypt we stood on the side of democracy.In Libya we stood on the side of the people.And as a consequence, there’s no doubt that attitudes about Americans have changed. But there are always going to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the United States. And we want to shrink those groups and those networks and we can do that.OBAMA: But we’re always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activities. The truth, though, is that Al Qaeda is much weaker than it was when I came into office. And they don’t have the same capacities to attack the U.S. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago.SCHIEFFER: Let’s — let’s go to the next segment, because it’s a very important one. It is the rise of China and future challenges for America. I want to just begin this by asking both of you, and Mr. President, you — you go first this time.What do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country?OBAMA: Well, I think it will continue to be terrorist networks. We have to remain vigilant, as I just said. But with respect to China, China is both an adversary, but also a potential partner in the international community if it’s following the rules. So my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that China plays by the same rules as everybody else.I know Americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas; businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade. And that’s the reason why I set up a trade task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. That’s the reason why we have brought more cases against China for violating trade rules than the other — the previous administration had done in two terms. And we’ve won just about every case that we’ve filed, that has been decided.OBAMA: In fact, just recently steelworkers in Ohio and throughout the Midwest — Pennsylvania — are in a position now to sell steel to China because we won that case. We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires — or — or cheap Chinese tires. And we put a stop to it and as a consequence saved jobs throughout America. I have to say that Governor Romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case; said this wouldn’t be good for American workers and that it would be protectionist.But I tell you, those workers don’t feel that way. They feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously.Over the long term, in order for us to compete with China, we’ve also got to make sure, though, that we’re taking — taking care of business here at home. If we don’t have the best education system in the world, if we don’t continue to put money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesses here in the United States, that’s how we lose the competition. And, unfortunately, Governor Romney’s budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments.SCHIEFFER: All right.Governor?ROMNEY: Well, first of all, it’s not government that makes business successful. It’s not government investments that makes businesses grow and hire people.Let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear Iran.Let’s talk about China. China has an interest that’s very much like ours in one respect, and that is they want a stable world. They don’t want war. They don’t want to see protectionism. They don’t want to see the world break out into — into various forms of chaos, because they have to — they have to manufacture goods and put people to work and they have about 20,000 — 20 million, rather, people coming out of the farms every year coming into the cities, needing jobs.So they want the economy to work and the world to be free and open. And so we can be a partner with China. We don’t have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. We can work with them, we can collaborate with them, if they’re willing to be responsible.Now, they look at us and say, Is it a good idea to be with America? How strong are we going to be? How strong is our economy? They look at the fact that we owe ’em a trillion dollars and owe other people $16 trillion in total, including that.ROMNEY: They look at our — our decision to — to cut back on our military capabilities. A trillion dollars. The secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. It’s not my term, it’s the president’s own secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. It’s not my term, it’s the president’s own Secretary of Defense, called them devastating.They look at America’s commitments around the world and they see what’s happening, and they say, well, OK. Is America going to be strong? And the answer is, yes, if I’m president, America will be very strong.We’ll also make sure that we have trade relations with China that work for us. I’ve watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because China has not played by the same rules, in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency. It holds down the prices of their goods. It means our goods aren’t as competitive and we lose jobs. That’s got to end.They’re making some progress; they need to make more. That’s why on day one, i will label them a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods.They have to understand we want to trade with them. We want a world that’s stable. We like free enterprise, but you got to play by the rules.SCHIEFFER: Well, Governor, let me just ask you. If you declare them a currency manipulator on day one, some people are — say you’re just going to start a trade war with China on day one. Is that — isn’t there a risk that that could happen?ROMNEY: Well, they sell us about this much stuff every year, and we sell them about this much stuff every year. So it’s pretty clear who doesn’t want a trade war. And there’s one going on right now, which we don’t know about it. It’s a silent one. And they’re winning.We have enormous trade imbalance with China, and it’s worse this year than last year, and it’s worse last year than the year before. And so we have to understand that we can’t just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out. We have to say to our friend in China, look, you guys are playing aggressively. We understand it. But this can’t keep on going. You can’t keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even to the United States.I was with one company that makes valves and — and process industries and they said, look, we were — we were having some valves coming in that — that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty and we looked them and — and they had our serial number on them. And then we noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. They were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a U.S. company, the same packaging, these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the U.S. competitor. This can’t go on.I want a great relationship with China. China can be our partner, but — but that doesn’t mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis.OBAMA: Well, Governor Romney’s right, you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas.And, you know, that’s — you’re right. I mean that’s how our free market works. But I’ve made a different bet on American workers.If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.If we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so that companies that earn profits overseas don’t pay U.S. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes. Now that’s estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won’t be here, they’ll be in places like China.And if we’re not making investments in education and basic research, which is not something that the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done, then we will lose the (inaudible) in things like clean energy technology.Now with respect to what we’ve done with China already, U.S. exports have doubled since I came into office, to China and actually currencies are at their most advantageous point for U.S. exporters since 1993.We absolutely have to make more progress and that’s why we’re going to keep on pressing.And when it comes to our military and Chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the Asia-Pacific region after having ended the war in Iraq and transitioning out of Afghanistan, is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future.And we believe China can be a partner, but we’re also sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power; that we are going to have a presence there. We are working with countries in the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through; that commerce continues. And we’re organizing trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards.That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in the region. That’s the kind of leadership that we’ll continue to show.ROMNEY: I just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me as not talking about an agenda for — for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. But the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow I would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth.I’m a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry. My plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they’d — they’d built up.And fortunately…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor Romney, that’s not what you said…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor Romney, you did not…ROMNEY: You can take a look at the op-ed…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: You did not say that you would provide government help.ROMNEY: I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Let’s check the record.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: That’s the height of silliness…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Let — let — let’s…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: I have never said I would liquidate…(CROSSTALK)OBAM: …at the record.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …I would liquidate the industry.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …and — and that’s why I have the kind of commitment to ensure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can — can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars. This is not research, Mr President, these are the government investing in companies. Investing in Solyndra. This is a company, this isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: Governor?ROMNEY: That’s the wrong way to go.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: The fact of the matter is…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: I’m still speaking. So I want to make sure that we make — we make America more competitive.OBAMA: Yeah.ROMNEY: And that we do those things that make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow. But you’re investing in companies doesn’t do that. In fact it makes it less likely for them to come here…OBAMA: Governor?ROMNEY: …because the private sector’s not going to invest in a…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: I’m — I’m — I’m happy.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …company…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …to respond to you…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …if — if you’re…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …you’ve had the floor for a while.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …get someone else’s. OBAMA: The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide, government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true. They would have gone through a…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: You’re wrong…(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: …they would have gone through a…(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: …you’re wrong.(CROSSTALK)OBAMA: No, I am not wrong. I am not wrong.(CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: People can look it up, you’re right.OBAMA: People will look it up.ROMNEY: Good.OBAMA: But more importantly it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we’re going to have to make some smart choices right now.Cutting our education budget, that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China.Cutting our investments in research and technology, that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China.Bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is not asking for, before we even get to the debt that we currently have, that is not going to make us more competitive.Those are the kinds of choices that the American people face right now. Having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the United States, that will not make us more competitive.And the one thing that I’m absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing American workers and American businesses, we’ve now begun to make some real progress. What we can’t do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. That’s why we have to move forward and not go back.ROMNEY: I couldn’t agree more about going forward, but I certainly don’t want to go back to the policies of the last four years. The policies of the last four years have seen incomes in America decline every year for middle income families, now down $4,300 during your term. Twenty-three million Americans still struggling to find a good job.When you came to office 32 million people on food stamps. Today, 47 million people on food stamps.When you came to office, just over $10 trillion in debt, now $16 trillion in debt. It hasn’t worked.You said by now we’d be at 5.4 percent unemployment. We’re 9 million jobs short of that. I’ve met some of those people. I’ve met them in Appleton, Wisconsin. I met a young woman in — in Philadelphia who’s coming out of — out of college, can’t find work.I’ve been — Ann was with someone just the other day that was just weeping about not being able to get work. It’s just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours, that the last four years have been so hard.And that’s why it’s so critical, that we make America once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy. And that’s not going to happen by just hiring teachers.Look, I love to — I love teachers, and I’m happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers do that. By the way, I don’t like to have the federal government start pushing its weight deeper and deeper into our schools. Let the states and localities do that. I was a governor. The federal government didn’t hire our teachers.UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor?ROMNEY: But I love teachers. But I want to get our private sector growing and I know how to do it.SCHIEFFER: I think we all love teachers.(LAUGHTER)SCHIEFFER: Gentlemen, thank you so much for a very vigorous debate. We have come to the end. It is time for closing statements,I believe you’re first, Mr. President.OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Bob, Governor Romney, and to Lynn University. You’ve now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many TV commercials. And now you’ve got a choice. Over the last four years we’ve made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.And Governor Romney wants to take us back to those policies, a foreign policy that’s wrong and reckless, economic policies that won’t create jobs, won’t reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top don’t have to play by the same rules that you do.And I’ve got a different vision for America. I want to build on our strengths. And I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that we’re bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores by rewarding companies and small businesses that are investing here, not overseas.I want to make sure we’ve got the best education system in the world. And we’re retaining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow.I want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas but also the energy sources of the future.Yes, I want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we don’t need but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy.As Commander in Chief, I will maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith with our troops and go after those who would do us harm. but after a decade of war, I think we all recognize we’ve got to do some nation building here at home, rebuilding our roads, our bridges and especially caring for our Veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom.And we’ve been through tough times but we always bounce back because of our character, because we pull together and if I have the privilege of being your president for another four years, I promise you I will always listen to your voices. I will fight for your families and I will work every single day to make sure that America continues to be the greatest nation on earth.Thank you.SCHIEFFER: Governor?ROMNEY: Thank you.Bob, Mr. President, folks at Lynn University, good to be with you. I’m optimistic about the future. I’m excited about our prospects as a nation. I want to see peace. I want to see growing peace in this country. It’s our objective.We have an opportunity to have real leadership. America’s going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principles of peace to make a world a safer place and make people in this country more confident that their future is secure. I also want to make sure that we get this economy going. And there are two very different paths the country can take. One is a path represented by the president, which at the end of four years would mean we’d have $20 trillion in debt heading towards Greece. I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget.The president’s path will mean continuing declining in take-home pay. I want to make sure our take-home pay turns around and starts to grow.The president’s path will mean continuing declining in take-home pay. I want to make sure take-home pay turns around and starts to grow. The president’s path means 20 million people out of work struggling for a good job. I’ll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs.I’m going to make sure that we get people off of food stamps, not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs.America’s going to come back, and for that to happen, we’re going to have to have a president who can work across the aisle. I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. We’ve got to do that in Washington. Washington is broken. I know what it takes to get this country back, and will work with good Democrats and good Republicans to do that.This nation is the hope of the earth. We’ve been blessed by having a nation that’s free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation. They’ve held a torch for the world to see — the torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. Now, it’s our turn to take that torch. I’m convinced we’ll do it.We need strong leadership. I’d like to be that leader with your support. I’ll work with you. I’ll lead you in an open and honest way, and I ask for your vote. I’d like to be the next president of the United States to support and help this great nation and to make sure that we all together remain America as the hope of the earth.Thank you so much.SCHIEFFER: Gentlemen, thank you both so much. That brings an end to this year’s debates and we want to thank Lynn University and its students for having us. As I always do at the end of these debates, I leave you with the words of my mom, who said: “Go vote; it’ll make you feel big and strong.”Good night.",
    "id": "832d82a8-3bd6-4cb6-99ad-68da0c21ce3e"
  },
  {
    "year": 2008,
    "date": "October 2, 2008",
    "title": "The Biden-Palin Vice Presidential Debate",
    "content": "October 2, 2008 Debate TranscriptOctober 2, 2008The Biden-Palin Vice Presidential DebateGOV. PALIN AND SEN. BIDEN PARTICIPATE IN A VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURISPEAKERS:SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. (DE)DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEGOV. SARAH PALIN, (AK)REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEGWEN IFILL, MODERATOR[*] IFILL: Good evening from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. I’m Gwen Ifill of “The NewsHour” and “Washington Week” on PBS. Welcome to the first and the only 2008 vice presidential debate between the Republican nominee, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, and the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden of Delaware.The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the two remaining presidential debates. Tonight’s discussion will cover a wide range of topics, including domestic and foreign policy matters.It will be divided roughly into five-minute segments. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to a direct question and then an additional two minutes for rebuttal and follow-up. The order has been determined by a coin toss.The specific subjects and questions were chosen by me and have not been shared or cleared with anyone on the campaigns or on the commission. The audience here in the hall has promised to remain very polite, no cheers, applause, no untoward outbursts, except right at this minute now, as we welcome Governor Palin and Senator Biden.(APPLAUSE)PALIN: Nice to meet you.BIDEN: It’s a pleasure.PALIN: Hey, can I call you Joe?BIDEN: (OFF-MIKE)PALIN: Thank you.Thank you, Gwen. Thank you. Thank you.IFILL: Welcome to you both.As we have determined by a coin toss, the first question will go to Senator Biden, with a 90-second follow-up from Governor Palin.The House of Representatives this week passed a bill, a big bailout bill — or didn’t pass it, I should say. The Senate decided to pass it, and the House is wrestling with it still tonight.As America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill, Senator Biden, was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?BIDEN: Let me begin by thanking you, Gwen, for hosting this.And, Governor, it’s a pleasure to meet you, and it’s a pleasure to be with you.I think it’s neither the best or worst of Washington, but it’s evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we’ve ever had. As a consequence, you’ve seen what’s happened on Wall Street.If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don’t think you needed any more evidence than what you see now.So the Congress has been put — Democrats and Republicans have been put in a very difficult spot. But Barack Obama laid out four basic criteria for any kind of rescue plan here.He, first of all, said there has to be oversight. We’re not going to write any check to anybody unless there’s oversight for the — of the secretary of Treasury.He secondly said you have to focus on homeowners and folks on Main Street.Thirdly, he said that you have to treat the taxpayers like investors in this case.And, lastly, what you have to do is make sure that CEOs don’t benefit from this, because this could end up, in the long run, people making money off of this rescue plan.And so, as a consequence of that, it brings us back to maybe the fundamental disagreement between Governor Palin and me and Senator McCain and Barack Obama, and that is that the — we’re going to fundamentally change the focus of the economic policy.We’re going to focus on the middle class, because it’s — when the middle class is growing, the economy grows and everybody does well, not just focus on the wealthy and corporate America.IFILL: Thank you, Senator.Governor Palin?PALIN: Thank you, Gwen. And I thank the commission, also. I appreciate this privilege of being able to be here and speak with Americans.You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America’s economy, is go to a kid’s soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, “How are you feeling about the economy?”And I’ll bet you, you’re going to hear some fear in that parent’s voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments?Fear about, how are we going to afford to send our kids to college? A fear, as small-business owners, perhaps, how we’re going to borrow any money to increase inventory or hire more people.The barometer there, I think, is going to be resounding that our economy is hurting and the federal government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve, and we need reform to that end.Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn’t want to listen to him and wouldn’t go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain’s bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.IFILL: You both would like to be vice president.Senator Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight?BIDEN: Well, that’s what I’ve done my whole career, Gwen, on very, very controversial issues, from dealing with violence against women, to putting 100,000 police officers on the street, to trying to get something done about the genocide in — that was going on in Bosnia.And I — I have been able to reach across the aisle. I think it’s fair to say that I have almost as many friends on the Republican side of the aisle as I do the Democratic side of the aisle.But am I able to respond to — are we able to stay on the — on the topic?IFILL: You may, if you like.BIDEN: Yes, well, you know, until two weeks ago — it was two Mondays ago John McCain said at 9 o’clock in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Two weeks before that, he said George — we’ve made great economic progress under George Bush’s policies.Nine o’clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o’clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis.That doesn’t make John McCain a bad guy, but it does point out he’s out of touch. Those folks on the sidelines knew that two months ago.IFILL: Governor Palin, you may respond.PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce. That’s a positive. That’s encouragement. And that’s what John McCain meant.Now, what I’ve done as a governor and as a mayor is (inaudible) I’ve had that track record of reform. And I’ve joined this team that is a team of mavericks with John McCain, also, with his track record of reform, where we’re known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done.Now, Barack Obama, of course, he’s pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America.We’re tired of the old politics as usual. And that’s why, with all due respect, I do respect your years in the U.S. Senate, but I think Americans are craving something new and different and that new energy and that new commitment that’s going to come with reform.I think that’s why we need to send the maverick from the Senate and put him in the White House, and I’m happy to join him there.IFILL: Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I’m going to come back to that…(LAUGHTER)… throughout the evening to try to see if we can look forward, as well.Now, let’s talk about — the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown.Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Governor Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn’t have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?PALIN: Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that.Again, John McCain and I, that commitment that we have made, and we’re going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption.PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let’s commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let’s do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don’t live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we’re taking personal responsibility through all of this. It’s not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem. John McCain while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do was literally giving an interview to “The Wall Street Journal” saying that I’m always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he’s a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate.So what you had is you had overwhelming “deregulation.” You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation. As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.So deregulation was the promise. And guess what? Those people who say don’t go into debt, they can barely pay to fill up their gas tank. I was recently at my local gas station and asked a guy named Joey Danco (ph). I said Joey, how much did it cost to fill your tank? You know what his answer was? He said I don’t know, Joe. I never have enough money to do it. The middle class needs relief, tax relief. They need it now. They need help now. The focus will change with Barack Obama.IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Senator McCain’s comments about health care?PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Senator Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people’s side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.Now, that’s not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that’s what it takes to reign in the government growth that we’ve seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That’s a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she’s referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It’s a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That’s why we got into so much trouble.IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?PALIN: I’m still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax. We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain’s adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.IFILL: OK, our time is up here. We’ve got to move to the next question. Senator Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let’s talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Governor Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn’t taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Senator Biden.BIDEN: Well Gwen, where I come from, it’s called fairness, just simple fairness. The middle class is struggling. The middle class under John McCain’s tax proposal, 100 million families, middle class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break.Now, that seems to me to be simple fairness. The economic engine of America is middle class. It’s the people listening to this broadcast. When you do well, America does well. Even the wealthy do well. This is not punitive. John wants to add $300 million, billion in new tax cuts per year for corporate America and the very wealthy while giving virtually nothing to the middle class. We have a different value set. The middle class is the economic engine. It’s fair. They deserve the tax breaks, not the super wealthy who are doing pretty well. They don’t need any more tax breaks. And by the way, they’ll pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you. But when you talk about Barack’s plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you’re forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they’re going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you’re not always the solution. In fact, too often you’re the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he’s proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.IFILL: Governor, are you interested in defending Senator McCain’s health care plan?PALIN: I am because he’s got a good health care plan that is detailed. And I want to give you a couple details on that. He’s proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That’s a smart thing to do. That’s budget neutral. That doesn’t cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama’s plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you’re pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don’t think that it’s going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds. But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax that’s budget neutral. That’s going to help. And he also wants to erase those artificial lines between states so that through competition, we can cross state lines and if there’s a better plan offered somewhere else, we would be able to purchase that. So affordability and accessibility will be the keys there with that $5,000 tax credit also being offered.IFILL: Thank you, governor. Senator?BIDEN: Gwen, I don’t know where to start. We don’t call a redistribution in my neighborhood Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington, the places I grew up, to give the fair to say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year as John calls for and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to get their kids to college, we don’t call that redistribution. We call that fairness number one. Number two fact, 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses.BIDEN: Now, with regard to the — to the health care plan, you know, it’s with one hand you giveth, the other you take it. You know how Barack Obama — excuse me, do you know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit you’re going to get, a family will get?He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer. That’s how he raises $3.6 trillion, on your — taxing your health care benefit to give you a $5,000 plan, which his Web site points out will go straight to the insurance company.And then you’re going to have to replace a $12,000 — that’s the average cost of the plan you get through your employer — it costs $12,000. You’re going to have to pay — replace a $12,000 plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped. Twenty million of you will be dropped.So you’re going to have to place — replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company. I call that the “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”IFILL: Thank you, Senator.Now…(LAUGHTER)… I want to get — try to get you both to answer a question that neither of your principals quite answered when my colleague, Jim Lehrer, asked it last week, starting with you, Senator Biden.What promises — given the events of the week, the bailout plan, all of this, what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you’re not going to be able to keep?BIDEN: Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We’ll probably have to slow that down.We also are going to make sure that we do not go forward with the tax cut proposals of the administration — of John McCain, the existing one for people making over $250,000, which is $130 billion this year alone.We’re not going to support the $300 billion tax cut that they have for corporate America and the very wealthy. We’re not going to support another $4 billion tax cut for ExxonMobil.And what we’re not going to also hold up on, Gwen, is we cannot afford to hold up on providing for incentives for new jobs by an energy policy, creating new jobs.We cannot slow up on education, because that’s the engine that is going to give us the economic growth and competitiveness that we need.And we are not going to slow up on the whole idea of providing for affordable health care for Americans, none of which, when we get to talk about health care, is as my — as the governor characterized — characterized.The bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminate those wasteful spending that exist in the budget right now, a number of things I don’t have time, because the light is blinking, that I won’t be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion tax dodge that, in fact, allows people to take their post office box off- shore, avoid taxes.I call that unpatriotic. I call that unpatriotic.IFILL: Governor?BIDEN: That’s what I’m talking about.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: Well, the nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn’t tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group, including his plans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan, even better.I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is — this is an important one that Barack Obama, he voted for in ’05.Senator Biden, you would remember that, in that energy plan that Obama voted for, that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks. Your running mate voted for that.You know what I had to do in the state of Alaska? I had to take on those oil companies and tell them, “No,” you know, any of the greed there that has been kind of instrumental, I guess, in their mode of operation, that wasn’t going to happen in my state.And that’s why Tillerson at Exxon and Mulva at ConocoPhillips, bless their hearts, they’re doing what they need to do, as corporate CEOs, but they’re not my biggest fans, because what I had to do up there in Alaska was to break up a monopoly up there and say, you know, the people are going to come first and we’re going to make sure that we have value given to the people of Alaska with those resources.And those huge tax breaks aren’t coming to the big multinational corporations anymore, not when it adversely affects the people who live in a state and, in this case, in a country who should be benefiting at the same time. So it was Barack Obama who voted for that energy plan that gave those tax breaks to the oil companies that I then had to turn around, as a governor of an energy-producing state, and kind of undo in my own area of expertise, and that’s energy.IFILL: So, Governor, as vice president, there’s nothing that you have promised as a candidate that you would — that you wouldn’t take off the table because of this financial crisis we’re in?PALIN: There is not. And how long have I been at this, like five weeks? So there hasn’t been a whole lot that I’ve promised, except to do what is right for the American people, put government back on the side of the American people, stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street.And the rescue plan has got to include that massive oversight that Americans are expecting and deserving. And I don’t believe that John McCain has made any promise that he would not be able to keep, either.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Again, let me — let’s talk about those tax breaks. Barack Obama — Obama voted for an energy bill because, for the first time, it had real support for alternative energy.When there were separate votes on eliminating the tax breaks for the oil companies, Barack Obama voted to eliminate them. John did not.And let me just ask a rhetorical question: If John really wanted to eliminate them, why is he adding to his budget an additional $4 billion in tax cuts for ExxonMobils of the world that, in fact, already have made $600 billion since 2001?And, look, I agree with the governor. She imposed a windfall profits tax up there in Alaska. That’s what Barack Obama and I want to do.We want to be able to do for all of you Americans, give you back $1,000 bucks, like she’s been able to give back money to her folks back there.But John McCain will not support a windfall profits tax. They’ve made $600 billion since 2001, and John McCain wants to give them, all by itself — separate, no additional bill, all by itself — another $4 billion tax cut.If that is not proof of what I say, I’m not sure what can be. So I hope the governor is able to convince John McCain to support our windfall profits tax, which she supported in Alaska, and I give her credit for it.IFILL: Next question, Governor Palin, still on the economy. Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?PALIN: Yes, I would have. But here, again, there have — there have been so many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even these past weeks that there has been more and more revelation made aware now to Americans about the corruption and the greed on Wall Street.We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.And the colleagues in the Senate weren’t going to go there with him. So we have John McCain to thank for at least warning people. And we also have John McCain to thank for bringing in a bipartisan effort people to the table so that we can start putting politics aside, even putting a campaign aside, and just do what’s right to fix this economic problem that we are in.It is a crisis. It’s a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that’s affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don’t seize up. That’s where the Main Streeters like me, that’s where we would really feel the effects.IFILL: Senator Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill. Senator Obama voted against it. Some people have said that mortgage- holders really paid the price.BIDEN: Well, mortgage-holders didn’t pay the price. Only 10 percent of the people who are — have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 — it gets complicated.But the point of this — Barack Obama saw the glass as half- empty. I saw it as half-full. We disagreed on that, and 85 senators voted one way, and 15 voted the other way.But here’s the deal. Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, “You’d better get on the stick here. You’d better look at it.”John McCain said as early as last December, quote — I’m paraphrasing — “I’m surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis,” number one.Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now — and Barack Obama and I support it — we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you’re paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it — I’m not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don’t support that. There are ways to help people now. And there — ways that we’re offering are not being supported by — by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Governor Palin.IFILL: Governor Palin, is that so?PALIN: That is not so, but because that’s just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket’s energy ticket, also.I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan again that was voted for in ’05.When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent.It’s a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don’t allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we’re relying on foreign countries to produce for us.PALIN: We’re circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America — they certainly don’t have our best interests at heart — instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.Energy independence is the key to this nation’s future, to our economic future, and to our national security. So when we talk about energy plans, it’s not just about who got a tax break and who didn’t. And we’re not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it’s about a heck of a lot more than that.Energy independence is the key to America’s future.IFILL: Governor, I’m happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let’s talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation’s only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it’s real.I’m not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We’ve got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an “all of the above” approach to deal with climate change impacts.We’ve got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don’t care as much about the climate as we do, we’re allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it’s all the more reason that we have an “all of the above” approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it’s clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden — Governor Palin and Joe Biden.If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That’s the cause. That’s why the polar icecap is melting.Now, let’s look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe — Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It’s polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.In the meantime, we’re all going to be in real trouble.IFILL: Let me clear something up, Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don’t believe you’ve always supported.BIDEN: I have always supported it. That’s a fact.IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is “drill, baby, drill.” And that’s what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we’re building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America’s largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you’ve said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we’re in. You even called drilling — safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.There — with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that “all of the above” approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn’t anything — such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?PALIN: I do. I do.IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one…IFILL: Clean coal.BIDEN: Oh, I’m sorry.IFILL: On clean coal.BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won’t be as dirty, it will be clean.But here’s the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John — and the governor says John is for everything.Well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he’s for everything as long as it’s not helped forward by the government. Maybe he’s for everything if the free market takes care of it. I don’t know. But he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.IFILL: Is that what your said?PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.(LAUGHTER)IFILL: You both have sons who are in Iraq or on their way to Iraq. You, Governor Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, Governor?PALIN: I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work, I am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented under a great American hero, General Petraeus, and pushed hard by another great American, Senator John McCain.I know that the other ticket opposed this surge, in fact, even opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so.PALIN: And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives. And Barack Obama at first said he would not do that. He turned around under political pressure and he voted against funding the troops. We do have a plan for withdrawal. We don’t need early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there or we’re going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan either. We have got to win in Iraq.And with the surge that has worked we’re now down to presurge numbers in Iraq. That’s where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us and we need to grow our military. We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we’re getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Gwen, with all due respect, I didn’t hear a plan. Barack Obama has offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain, number one. Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not — quote — “funding the troops,” John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I’m not going to fund the troops if in fact there’s a timeline. Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing: You’ve got to have a time line to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis.We’re spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it’s time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility and gradually over six months — 16 months, withdrawal. John McCain — this is a fundamental difference between us, we will end this war. For John McCain, there’s no end in sight to end this war, fundamental difference. We will end this war.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that’s for sure. And it’s not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can’t admit the surge works.We’ll know when we’re finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that’s within sight.Now, you said regarding Senator McCain’s military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things. In fact, you said in fact that you wanted to run, you’d be honored to run with him on the ticket, and that’s an indication I think of some of the support that you had at least until you became the VP pick here.You also said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. And I know again that you opposed the move that he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that. I don’t know how you can defend that position now, but I know that you know especially with your son in the National Guard and I have great respect for your family also and the honor that you show our military. Barack Obama though, another story there. Anyone I think who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to is another story.IFILL: Senator Biden?BIDEN: John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again: John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor’s son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters.He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war, and he didn’t like that. But let’s get straight who has been right and wrong. John McCain and Dick Cheney said when I was saying we would not be greeted as liberators, we would not – this war would take a decade, not a day, not a week, not six months, we would not be out of there quickly. John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shias got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years. John McCain said there would be enough oil to pay for this. John McCain has been dead wrong. I love him. As my mother would say, god love him, but he’s been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating to the conduct of the war. Barack Obama has been right. There are the facts.IFILL: Let’s move to Iran and Pakistan. I’m curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. Which is the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.BIDEN: Well, they’re both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than – they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed. So they’re both very dangerous. They both would be game changers. But look, here’s what the fundamental problem I have with John’s policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s where they live. That’s where they are. That’s where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan. A stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being.There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we’re actually able to take on terrorism. And by the way, that’s where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actionable intelligence.IFILL: Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who termed that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was General Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it’s probably the only thing that they’re ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don’t have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and that leader of al Qaeda.An armed, nuclear armed especially, Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we’re dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel is, he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.An issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous, because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.IFILL: Governor and senator, I want you both to respond to this. Secretaries of State Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?PALIN: No, and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me also his passion for diplomacy. And that’s what John McCain and I would engage in also. But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women’s rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.No, diplomacy is very important. First and foremost, that is what we would engage in. But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It’s lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up also before any kind of presidential summit would take place.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Can I clarify this? That’s just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.BIDEN: The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn’t realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one.Number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down.Now, John and Governor Palin now say they’re all for — they have a passion, I think the phrase was, a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, “Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.” Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans.And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn’t sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don’t have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?And look what President Bush did. After five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement.Our allies are on that same page. And if we don’t go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?The last point I’ll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn’t even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.IFILL: Governor, you mentioned Israel and your support for Israel.PALIN: Yes.IFILL: What has this administration done right or wrong — this is the great, lingering, unresolved issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — what have they done? And is a two-state solution the solution?PALIN: A two-state solution is the solution. And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done, and that will be top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration.Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see.We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.They succeeded with Jordan. They succeeded with Egypt. I’m sure that we’re going to see more success there, also.It’s got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though. And I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.But you asked a question about whether or not this administration’s policy had made sense or something to that effect. It has been an abject failure, this administration’s policy.In fairness to Secretary Rice, she’s trying to turn it around now in the seventh or eighth year.Here’s what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, “Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.” What happened? Hamas won.When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure.And speaking of freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran. It’s closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation, and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has. IFILL: Has this administration’s policy been an abject failure, as the senator says, Governor?PALIN: No, I do not believe that it has been. But I’m so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush administration, there’s a time, too, when Americans are going to say, “Enough is enough with your ticket,” on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game.There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration.But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that’s where you’re going.Positive change is coming, though. Reform of government is coming. We’ll learn from the past mistakes in this administration and other administrations.And we’re going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.That’s what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.But I know, Senator Biden, you have respected for them that, and I respect you for acknowledging that. But change is coming.IFILL: Just looking backwards, Senator?BIDEN: Look, past is prologue, Gwen. The issue is, how different is John McCain’s policy going to be than George Bush’s? I haven’t heard anything yet.I haven’t heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush’s.It may be. But so far, it is the same as George Bush’s. And you know where that policy has taken us.We will make significant change so, once again, we’re the most respected nation in the world. That’s what we’re going to do.IFILL: Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?PALIN: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that’s a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.But for those countries — North Korea, also, under Kim Jong-il — we have got to make sure that we’re putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong-il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick, also, though?IFILL: Certainly.PALIN: OK, I’d like to just really quickly mention there, too, that when you look back and you say that the Bush administration’s policy on Afghanistan perhaps would be the same as McCain, and that’s not accurate.The surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan, also. And that, perhaps, would be a difference with the Bush administration.Now, Barack Obama had said that all we’re doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.That’s not what we’re doing there. We’re fighting terrorists, and we’re securing democracy, and we’re building schools for children there so that there is opportunity in that country, also. There will be a big difference there, and we will win in — in Afghanistan, also.IFILL: Senator, you may talk about nuclear use, if you’d like, and also about Afghanistan.BIDEN: I’ll talk about both. With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge — the surge principles used in Iraq will not — well, let me say this again now — our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.Look, we have spent more money — we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.Let me say that again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years, seven years or six-and-a-half years in Afghanistan. Now, that’s number one.Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported.John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections.John McCain has not been — has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with — and let me put it another way. My time is almost up.Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, new senator, reached across the aisle to my colleague, Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, “We’ve got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real. Every major — I shouldn’t say every — on the two at least that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arms control regime in the world.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn’t say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this have not said anything different but that.IFILL: Senator.PALIN: Well, our commanding general did say that. The fact of the matter is that again, I’ll just put in perspective, while Barack and I and Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar have been calling for more money to help in Afghanistan, more troops in Afghanistan, John McCain was saying two years ago quote, “The reason we don’t read about Afghanistan anymore in the paper, it’s succeeded.Barack Obama was saying we need more troops there. Again, we spend in three weeks on combat missions in Iraq, more than we spent in the entire time we have been in Afghanistan. That will change in a Barack Obama administration.IFILL: Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?BIDEN: I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia. I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked. Look what we did in Bosnia. We took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, being told by everyone, I was told by everyone that this would mean that they had been killing each other for a thousand years, it would never work.There’s a relatively stable government there now as in Kosovo. With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to — I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need, we’d be there for a decade and it’d cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said, no, it was going to be OK.I don’t have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It’s within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we’re willing to take a hard stand. We can, I’ve been in those camps in Chad. I’ve seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide.IFILL: Thank you, senator. Governor.PALIN: Oh, yeah, it’s so obvious I’m a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You’re one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.And you had supported John McCain’s military strategies pretty adamantly until this race and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops that attempt all through the primary.And I watched those debates, so I remember what those were all about.But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.America is in a position to help. What I’ve done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that’s pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.IFILL: Is there a line that should be drawn about when we decide to go in?BIDEN: Absolutely. There is a line that should be drawn.IFILL: What is it? BIDEN: The line that should be drawn is whether we A, first of all have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack’s view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all.The truth of the matter is, though, let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy. I never supported John McCain’s strategy on the war. John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said, go back and look at Barack Obama’s statements and mine. Go look at joebiden.com, contemporaneously, held hearings in the summer before we went to war, saying if we went to war, we would not be greeted as liberator, we would have a fight between Sunnis and Shias, we would be tied down for a decade and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.John McCain was saying the exact opposite. John McCain was lock- step with Dick Cheney at that point how this was going to be easy. So John McCain’s strategy in this war, not just whether or not to go, the actual conduct of the war has been absolutely wrong from the outset.IFILL: Governor.PALIN: I beg to disagree with you, again, here on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain’s strategies. Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the debates.I think tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do the who said what at what time and we’ll have proof of some of this, but, again, John McCain who knows how to win a war. Who’s been there and he’s faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He’ll know how to win a war.IFILL: Thank you, governor.Probably the biggest cliche about the vice-presidency is that it’s a heartbeat away, everybody’s waiting to see what would happen if the worst happened. How would — you disagree on some things from your principles, you disagree on drilling in Alaska, the National Wildlife Refuge, you disagree on the surveillance law, at least you have in the past. How would a Biden administration be different from an Obama administration if that were to happen.BIDEN: God forbid that would ever happen, it would be a national tragedy of historic proportions if it were to happen.But if it did, I would carry out Barack Obama’s policy, his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break, making sure they have access to affordable health insurance, making sure they get serious tax breaks, making sure we can help their children get to college, making sure there is an energy policy that leads us in the direction of not only toward independence and clean environment but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs, a foreign policy that ends this war in Iraq, a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the American public gave the president after 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin Laden and to eliminate al Qaeda. A policy that would in fact engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating.And a policy that would reject the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation and, ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest ticket item that we have in this election.This is the most important election you will ever, ever have voted in, any of you, since 1932. And there’s such stark differences, I would follow through on Barack’s policies because in essence, I agree with every major initiative he is suggesting.IFILL: Governor.PALIN: And heaven forbid, yes, that would ever happen, no matter how this ends up, that that would ever happen with either party.As for disagreeing with John McCain and how our administration would work, what do you expect? A team of mavericks, of course we’re not going to agree on 100 percent of everything. As we discuss ANWR there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one. I will keep pushing him on ANWR. I have so appreciated he has never asked me to check my opinions at the door and he wants a deliberative debate and healthy debate so we can make good policy.What I would do also, if that were to ever happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington.I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, DC.PALIN: So that people there can understand how the average working class family is viewing bureaucracy in the federal government and Congress, and the inaction of Congress.Just everyday, working-class Americans saying, you know, government, just get out of my way. If you’re going to do any harm and mandate more things on me and take more of my money and income tax and business taxes, you’re going to have a choice in just a few weeks here on either supporting a ticket that wants to create jobs and bolster our economy and win the war or you’re going to be supporting a ticket that wants to increase taxes, which ultimately kills jobs, and is going to hurt our economy.BIDEN: Can I respond? Look, all you’ve got to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years. And then ask them whether there’s a single major initiative that John McCain differs with the president on. On taxes, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care.Look, the people in my neighborhood, they get it. They get it. They know they’ve been getting the short end of the stick. So walk with me in my neighborhood, go back to my old neighborhood in Claymont, an old steel town or go up to Scranton with me. These people know the middle class has gotten the short end. The wealthy have done very well. Corporate America has been rewarded. It’s time we change it. Barack Obama will change it.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I’m glad that you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he’s a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.Education in America has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax, and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It’s not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it’s near and dear to my heart. I’m very, very concerned about where we’re going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.IFILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We’re going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does.BIDEN: They didn’t get yours or mine? Which one didn’t they get?PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda, and that is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That’s near and dear to my heart also. And in those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that’s where I want you, I want you to lead. And I said, I can’t wait to get and there go to work with you.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: Gwen, I hope we’ll get back to education because I don’t know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind was the money was left behind, we didn’t fund it. But we can get back to that I assume.With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I’m sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. And let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he’ll be making, I’ll be sitting in the room to give him my best advice. He’s president, not me, I’ll give my best advice.And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn’t be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. So I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago that the Constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the Office of the Vice President. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.IFILL: Vice President Cheney’s interpretation of the vice presidency?BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.IFILL: Let’s talk conventional wisdom for a moment. The conventional wisdom, Governor Palin, with you, is that your Achilles heel is that you lack experience. Your conventional wisdom against you is that your Achilles heel is that you lack discipline, Senator Biden. What id it really for you, Governor Palin? What is it really for you, Senator Biden? Start with you, governor.PALIN: My experience as an executive will be put to good use as a mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as governor of a huge state, a huge energy-producing state that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation energy independence and that’s extremely important.But it wasn’t just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, being one who is very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out, how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We’ve been there also so that connection was important.But even more important is that worldview that I share with John McCain. That worldview that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal, and that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.John McCain and I share that, and you combine all that with being a team with the only track record of making a really, a difference in where we’ve been and reforming, and that’s a good team, it’s a good ticket.IFILL: Senator?BIDEN: You’re very kind suggesting my only Achilles heel is my lack of discipline.BIDEN: Others talk about my excessive passion. I’m not going to change. I have 35 years in public office. People can judge who I am. I haven’t changed in that time.And, by the way, a record of change — I will place my record and Barack’s record against John McCain’s or anyone else in terms of fundamental accomplishments. Wrote the crime bill, put 100,000 cops on the street, wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which John McCain voted against both of them, was the catalyst to change the circumstance in Bosnia, led by President Clinton, obviously.Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to make it.I understand what it’s like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, “I’ve got to leave, champ, because there’s no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we’ll bring you down.”I understand what it’s like. I’m much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have. So I — I am much better off now.But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it’s like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They’re looking for help. They’re looking for help. They’re not looking for more of the same.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: People aren’t looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years.He’s taken shots left and right from the other party and from within his own party, because he’s had to take on his own party when the time was right, when he recognized it was time to put partisanship aside and just do what was right for the American people. That’s what I’ve done as governor, also, take on my own party, when I had to, and work with both sides of the aisle, in my cabinet, appointing those who would serve regardless of party, Democrats, independents, Republicans, whatever it took to get the job done.Also, John McCain’s maverick position that he’s in, that’s really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. Look at Lieberman, and Giuliani, and Romney, and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of — of policy and of partisanship, all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to leave — lead in these next four years, because these are tumultuous times.We have got to win the wars. We have got to get our economy back on track. We have got to not allow the greed and corruption on Wall Street anymore.And we have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington, D.C., no matter who’s been in charge. When the Republicans were in charge, I didn’t see a lot of progress there, either. When the Democrats, either, though, this last go- around for the last two years.Change is coming. And John McCain is the leader of that reform.IFILL: Senator…BIDEN: I’ll be very brief. Can I respond to that?Look, the maverick — let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He’s been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives.He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he’s got there.He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against — he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.Can we send — can we get Mom’s MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can’t — we can’t make it. How are we going to heat the — heat the house this winter?He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Senator Biden. Can you think of a single issue — and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year — can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student.And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.But I did change on that, and — and I’m glad I did.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: There have been times where, as mayor and governor, we have passed budgets that I did not veto and that I think could be considered as something that I quasi-caved in, if you will, but knowing that it was the right thing to do in order to progress the agenda for that year and to work with the legislative body, that body that actually holds the purse strings.So there were times when I wanted to zero-base budget, and to cut taxes even more, and I didn’t have enough support in order to accomplish that.But on the major principle things, no, there hasn’t been something that I’ve had to compromise on, because we’ve always seemed to find a way to work together. Up there in Alaska, what we have done is, with bipartisan efforts, is work together and, again, not caring who gets the credit for what, as we accomplish things up there.And that’s been just a part of the operation that I wanted to participate in. And that’s what we’re going to do in Washington, D.C., also, bring in both sides together. John McCain is known for doing that, also, in order to get the work done for the American people.IFILL: Let’s come full circle. You both want to bring both sides together. You both talk about bipartisanship. Once again, we saw what happened this week in Washington. How do you change the tone, as vice president, as number-two?BIDEN: Well, again, I believe John McCain, were he here — and this is a dangerous thing to say in the middle of an election — but he would acknowledge what I’m about to say.I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party’s mind, as well as Republicans’, because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day — he — I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, “What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?” I said, “I’d feel like a jerk.”He said, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.”I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.I think that’s why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I’ve been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That’s the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people’s motives.IFILL: Governor?PALIN: You do what I did as governor, and you appoint people regardless of party affiliation, Democrats, independents, Republicans. You — you walk the walk; you don’t just talk the talk.And even in my own family, it’s a very diverse family. And we have folks of all political persuasion in there, also, so I’ve grown up just knowing that, you know, at the end of the day, as long as we’re all working together for the greater good, it’s going to be OK.But the policies and the proposals have got to speak for themselves, also. And, again, voters on November 4th are going to have that choice to either support a ticket that supports policies that create jobs.You do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses. And you build up infrastructure, and you rein in government spending, and you make our — our nation energy independent.Or you support a ticket that supports policies that will kill jobs by increasing taxes. And that’s what the track record shows, is a desire to increase taxes, increase spending, a trillion-dollar spending proposal that’s on the table. That’s going to hurt our country, and saying no to energy independence. Clear choices on November 4th.IFILL: Governor Palin, you get the chance to make the first closing statement.PALIN: Well, again, Gwen, I do want to thank you and the commission. This is such an honor for me.And I appreciate, too, Senator Biden, getting to meet you, finally, also, and getting to debate with you. And I would like more opportunity for this.I like being able to answer these tough questions without the filter, even, of the mainstream media kind of telling viewers what they’ve just heard. I’d rather be able to just speak to the American people like we just did.And it’s so important that the American people know of the choices that they have on November 4th.I want to assure you that John McCain and I, we’re going to fight for America. We’re going to fight for the middle-class, average, everyday American family like mine.I’ve been there. I know what the hurts are. I know what the challenges are. And, thank God, I know what the joys are, too, of living in America. We are so blessed. And I’ve always been proud to be an American. And so has John McCain.We have to fight for our freedoms, also, economic and our national security freedoms.It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.We will fight for it, and there is only one man in this race who has really ever fought for you, and that’s Senator John McCain.IFILL: Thank you, Governor. Senator Biden.BIDEN: Gwen, thank you for doing this, and the commission, and Governor, it really was a pleasure getting to meet you.Look, folks, this is the most important election you’ve ever voted in your entire life. No one can deny that the last eight years, we’ve been dug into a very deep hole here at home with regard to our economy, and abroad in terms of our credibility. And there’s a need for fundamental change in our economic philosophy, as well as our foreign policy.And Barack Obama and I don’t measure progress toward that change based on whether or not we cut more regulations and how well CEOs are doing, or giving another $4 billion in tax breaks to the Exxon Mobils of the world.We measure progress in America based on whether or not someone can pay their mortgage, whether or not they can send their kid to college, whether or not they’re able to, when they send their child, like we have abroad — or I’m about to, abroad — and John has as well, I might add — to fight, that they are the best equipped and they have everything they need. And when they come home, they’re guaranteed that they have the best health care and the best education possible.You know, in the neighborhood I grew up in, it was all about dignity and respect. A neighborhood like most of you grew up in. And in that neighborhood, it was filled with women and men, mothers and fathers who taught their children if they believed in themselves, if they were honest, if they worked hard, if they loved their country, they could accomplish anything. We believed it, and we did.That’s why Barack Obama and I are running, to re-establish that certitude in our neighborhoods.Ladies and gentlemen, my dad used to have an expression. He’d say, “champ, when you get knocked down, get up.”Well, it’s time for America to get up together. America’s ready, you’re ready, I’m ready, and Barack Obama is ready to be the next president of the United States of America.May God bless all of you, and most of all, for both of us, selfishly, may God protect our troops.IFILL: That ends tonight’s debate. We want to thank the folks here at Washington University in St. Louis, and the Commission on Presidential Debates.There are two more debates to come. Next Tuesday, October 7th, with Tom Brokaw at Belmont University in Nashville, and on October 15th at Hofstra University in New York, with Bob Schieffer.Thank you, Governor Palin and Senator Biden. Good night, everybody.END",
    "id": "04f1f0fe-79b6-4d48-a9cd-123b19422259"
  },
  {
    "year": 2008,
    "date": "September 26, 2008",
    "title": "The First McCain-Obama Presidential Debate",
    "content": "September 26, 2008 Debate TranscriptSeptember 26, 2008The First McCain-Obama Presidential DebateFIRST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATETHE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, OXFORD MISSISSIPPISPEAKERS:U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (AZ)REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEU. S. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (IL)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEJIM LEHREREXECUTIVE EDITOR AND ANCHOR, THE NEWSHOUR, PBS[*] LEHRER: Good evening from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2008 presidential debates between the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the three other presidential and vice presidential debates coming in October.Tonight’s will primarily be about foreign policy and national security, which, by definition, includes the global financial crisis. It will be divided roughly into nine-minute segments.Direct exchanges between the candidates and moderator follow-ups are permitted after each candidate has two minutes to answer the lead question in an order determined by a coin toss.The specific subjects and questions were chosen by me. They have not been shared or cleared with anyone.The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent, no cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind, except right now, as we welcome Senators Obama and McCain.(APPLAUSE)Let me begin with something General Eisenhower said in his 1952 presidential campaign. Quote, “We must achieve both security and solvency. In fact, the foundation of military strength is economic strength,” end quote.With that in mind, the first lead question.Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, for hosting us tonight. I can’t think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.And although we’ve heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.And you’re wondering, how’s it going to affect me? How’s it going to affect my job? How’s it going to affect my house? How’s it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I’ve put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.Number one, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.Number two, we’ve got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market — and when the market returns.Number three, we’ve got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.And, number four, we’ve got to make sure that we’re helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.It hasn’t worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That’s why I’m running for president, and that’s what I hope we’re going to be talking about tonight.LEHRER: Senator McCain, two minutes.MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody.And I do have a sad note tonight. Senator Kennedy is in the hospital. He’s a dear and beloved friend to all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the lion of the Senate.I also want to thank the University of Mississippi for hosting us tonight.And, Jim, I — I’ve been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges. But I’m feeling a little better tonight, and I’ll tell you why.Because as we’re here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we’re in.And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we’re not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We’re talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes, if we don’t fix the greatest fiscal crisis, probably in — certainly in our time, and I’ve been around a little while.But the point is — the point is, we have finally seen Republicans and Democrats sitting down and negotiating together and coming up with a package.This package has transparency in it. It has to have accountability and oversight. It has to have options for loans to failing businesses, rather than the government taking over those loans. We have to — it has to have a package with a number of other essential elements to it.And, yes, I went back to Washington, and I met with my Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they weren’t part of the negotiations, and I understand that. And it was the House Republicans that decided that they would be part of the solution to this problem.But I want to emphasize one point to all Americans tonight. This isn’t the beginning of the end of this crisis. This is the end of the beginning, if we come out with a package that will keep these institutions stable.And we’ve got a lot of work to do. And we’ve got to create jobs. And one of the areas, of course, is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.LEHRER: All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.But, I mean, are you — do you favor this plan, Senator Obama, and you, Senator McCain? Do you — are you in favor of this plan?OBAMA: We haven’t seen the language yet. And I do think that there’s constructive work being done out there. So, for the viewers who are watching, I am optimistic about the capacity of us to come together with a plan.The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it.So — so the question, I think, that we’ve got to ask ourselves is, yes, we’ve got to solve this problem short term. And we are going to have to intervene; there’s no doubt about that.But we’re also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?MCCAIN: I — I hope so. And I…LEHRER: As a United States senator…MCCAIN: Sure.LEHRER: … you’re going to vote for the plan?MCCAIN: Sure. But — but let me — let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.But there’s also the issue of responsibility. You’ve mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.Somehow we’ve lost that accountability. I’ve been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We’ve got to start also holding people accountable, and we’ve got to reward people who succeed.But somehow in Washington today — and I’m afraid on Wall Street — greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption — or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded.As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. I mean, we’ve had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what’s good for Wall Street, but not what’s good for Main Street.And there are folks out there who’ve been struggling before this crisis took place. And that’s why it’s so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the — a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.LEHRER: Say it directly to him.OBAMA: I do not think that they are.LEHRER: Say it directly to him.OBAMA: Well, the — John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And…MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn’t hear him?(LAUGHTER)LEHRER: I’m just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I’m going to try.OBAMA: The — and I just fundamentally disagree. And unless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there’s a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they’ve got a little financial crisis going on.They’re having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments. We haven’t been paying attention to them. And if you look at our tax policies, it’s a classic example.LEHRER: So, Senator McCain, do you agree with what Senator Obama just said? And, if you don’t, tell him what you disagree with.MCCAIN: No, I — look, we’ve got to fix the system. We’ve got fundamental problems in the system. And Main Street is paying a penalty for the excesses and greed in Washington, D.C., and in the Wall Street.So there’s no doubt that we have a long way to go. And, obviously, stricter interpretation and consolidation of the various regulatory agencies that weren’t doing their job, that has brought on this crisis.But I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker. And the American worker is the most productive, the most innovative. America is still the greatest producer, exporter and importer.But we’ve got to get through these times, but I have a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And I still believe, under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.LEHRER: All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject.And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It’s completely out of control. It’s gone — we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the — the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it’s a gateway. It’s a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending.You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don’t know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers’ money. And it has got to be brought under control.As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I’ve got a pen. This one’s kind of old. I’ve got a pen, and I’m going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.Now, Senator Obama, you wanted to know one of the differences. He has asked for $932 million of earmark pork-barrel spending, nearly a million dollars for every day that he’s been in the United States Senate.I suggest that people go up on the Web site of Citizens Against Government Waste, and they’ll look at those projects.That kind of thing is not the way to rein in runaway spending in Washington, D.C. That’s one of the fundamental differences that Senator Obama and I have.LEHRER: Senator Obama, two minutes.OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.And he’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn’t the case with me.But let’s be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget. Senator McCain is proposing — and this is a fundamental difference between us — $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important. And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.So my attitude is, we’ve got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I’ve called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.And that means that the ordinary American out there who’s collecting a paycheck every day, they’ve got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them.And over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the — the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to — wants to follow.LEHRER: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, again, I don’t mean to go back and forth, but he…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: No, that’s fine.MCCAIN: Senator Obama suspended those requests for pork-barrel projects after he was running for president of the United States. He didn’t happen to see that light during the first three years as a member of the United States Senate, $932 million in requests.Maybe to Senator Obama it’s not a lot of money. But the point is that — you see, I hear this all the time. “It’s only $18 billion.” Do you know that it’s tripled in the last five years? Do you know that it’s gone completely out of control to the point where it corrupts people? It corrupts people.That’s why we have, as I said, people under federal indictment and charges. It’s a system that’s got to be cleaned up.I have fought against it my career. I have fought against it. I was called the sheriff, by the — one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee. I didn’t win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate.Now, Senator Obama didn’t mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs.Now, that’s a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. I want to cut spending. I want to keep taxes low. The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is to raise people’s taxes.OBAMA: I — I don’t know where John is getting his figures. Let’s just be clear.What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we’re giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage.I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of it.But let’s go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we’re going to get the middle class back on track.OBAMA: And when you look at your tax policies that are directed primarily at those who are doing well, and you are neglecting people who are really struggling right now, I think that is a continuation of the last eight years, and we can’t afford another four.LEHRER: Respond directly to him about that, to Senator Obama about that, about the — he’s made it twice now, about your tax — your policies about tax cuts.MCCAIN: Well — well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax.Right now, in the United States of America, business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.But, again, I want to return. It’s a lot more than $18 billion in pork-barrel spending. I can tell you, it’s rife. It’s throughout.The United States Senate will take up a continuing resolution tomorrow or the next day, sometime next week, with 2,000 — 2,000 — look at them, my friends. Look at them. You’ll be appalled.And Senator Obama is a recent convert, after requesting $932 million worth of pork-barrel spending projects.So the point is, I want people to have tax cuts. I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. I want to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America.I know that the worst thing we could possibly do is to raise taxes on anybody, and a lot of people might be interested in Senator Obama’s definition of “rich.”LEHRER: Senator Obama, you have a question for Senator McCain on that?OBAMA: Well, let me just make a couple of points.LEHRER: All right.OBAMA: My definition — here’s what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime’s worth of tax increase.Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.It’s not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that’s a problem.Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn’t tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here’s the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you’re getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you’ve got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.It is not a good deal for the American people. But it’s an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we’re going to be.MCCAIN: Well, you know, let me just…LEHRER: We’ve got to go to another lead question.MCCAIN: I know we have to, but this is a classic example of walking the walk and talking the talk.We had an energy bill before the United States Senate. It was festooned with Christmas tree ornaments. It had all kinds of breaks for the oil companies, I mean, billions of dollars worth. I voted against it; Senator Obama voted for it.OBAMA: John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion.MCCAIN: You’ve got to look at our record. You’ve got to look at our records. That’s the important thing.Who fought against wasteful and earmark spending? Who has been the person who has tried to keep spending under control?Who’s the person who has believed that the best thing for America is — is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair? And I’ve fought to simplify it, and I have proposals to simplify it.Let’s give every American a choice: two tax brackets, generous dividends, and, two — and let Americans choose whether they want the — the existing tax code or they want a new tax code.And so, again, look at the record, particularly the energy bill. But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.OBAMA: That’s not true, John. That’s not true.MCCAIN: And that’s just a fact. Again, you can look it up.OBAMA: Look, it’s just not true. And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John — this is undeniable — oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.Now, look, we all would love to lower taxes on everybody. But here’s the problem: If we are giving them to oil companies, then that means that there are those who are not going to be getting them. And…MCCAIN: With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies.OBAMA: No, but, John, the fact of the matter is, is that I was opposed to those tax breaks, tried to strip them out. We’ve got an energy bill on the Senate floor right now that contains some good stuff, some stuff you want, including drilling off-shore, but you’re opposed to it because it would strip away those tax breaks that have gone to oil companies.LEHRER: All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about.And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?OBAMA: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don’t yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it’s hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.But there’s no doubt that we’re not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done.We have to have energy independence, so I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years’ time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we’re developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.We have to fix our health care system, which is putting an enormous burden on families. Just — a report just came out that the average deductible went up 30 percent on American families.They are getting crushed, and many of them are going bankrupt as a consequence of health care. I’m meeting folks all over the country. We have to do that now, because it will actually make our businesses and our families better off.The third thing we have to do is we’ve got to make sure that we’re competing in education. We’ve got to invest in science and technology. China had a space launch and a space walk. We’ve got to make sure that our children are keeping pace in math and in science.And one of the things I think we have to do is make sure that college is affordable for every young person in America.And I also think that we’re going to have to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling behind, our roads, our bridges, but also broadband lines that reach into rural communities.Also, making sure that we have a new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them.So there are some — some things that we’ve got to do structurally to make sure that we can compete in this global economy. We can’t shortchange those things. We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and we’ve got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.LEHRER: Are you — what priorities would you adjust, as president, Senator McCain, because of the — because of the financial bailout cost?MCCAIN: Look, we, no matter what, we’ve got to cut spending. We have — as I said, we’ve let government get completely out of control.Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.The point — the point is — the point is, we need to examine every agency of government.First of all, by the way, I’d eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.I think that we have to return — particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations — we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems that the costs are completely out of control.We tried to build a little ship called the Littoral Combat Ship that was supposed to cost $140 million, ended up costing $400 million, and we still haven’t done it.So we need to have fixed-cost contracts. We need very badly to understand that defense spending is very important and vital, particularly in the new challenges we face in the world, but we have to get a lot of the cost overruns under control.I know how to do that.MCCAIN: I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it and the people ended up in federal prison so I know how to do this because I’ve been involved these issues for many, many years. But I think that we have to examine every agency of government and find out those that are doing their job and keep them and find out those that aren’t and eliminate them and we’ll have to scrub every agency of government.LEHRER: But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you’re saying?OBAMA: No. As I said before, Jim, there are going to be things that end up having to be …LEHRER: Like what?OBAMA: … deferred and delayed. Well, look, I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil. That is a big project. That is a multi-year project.LEHRER: Not willing to give that up?OBAMA: Not willing to give up the need to do it but there may be individual components that we can’t do. But John is right we have to make cuts. We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn’t work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works.They did it on the Medicaid prescription drug bill and we have to change the culture. Tom — or John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that’s just me opposing George Bush’s wrong headed policies since I’ve been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I worked with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we’ll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John’s been railing about.LEHRER: What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.MCCAIN: How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.LEHRER: Spending freeze?MCCAIN: I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions of caring for our veterans national defense and several other vital issues.LEHRER: Would you go for that?OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy, I think, doesn’t make sense.Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we’re going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.MCCAIN: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don’t like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power.Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. You can’t get there from here and the fact is that we can create 700,000 jobs by building constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by the year 2030. Nuclear power is not only important as far as eliminating our dependence on foreign oil but it’s also responsibility as far as climate change is concerned. An issue I have been involved in for many, many years and I’m proud of the work of the work that I’ve done there along with Senator Clinton.LEHRER: Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?OBAMA: There’s no doubt it’s gonna affect our budgets. There is no doubt about it. Not only — Even if we get all $700 billion back, let’s assume the markets recover, we’re holding assets long enough that eventually taxpayers get it back and that happened during the Great Depression when Roosevelt purchased a whole bunch of homes, over time, home values went back up and in fact government made a profit. If we’re lucky and we do it right, that could potentially happen but in the short term there’s an outlay and we may not see that money for a while.And because of the economy’s slowing down, I think we can also expect less tax revenue so there’s no doubt that as president I’m going to have to make some tough decision.The only point I want to make is this, that in order to make those tough decisions we have to know what our values are and who we’re fighting for and what our priorities are and if we are spending $300 billion on tax cuts for people who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and we are leaving out health care which is crushing on people all across the country, then I think we have made a bad decision and I want to make sure we’re not shortchanging our long term priorities.MCCAIN: Well, I want to make sure we’re not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama’s health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government. Look. We have to obviously cut spending. I have fought to cut spending. Senator Obama has $800 billion in new spending programs. I would suggest he start by canceling some of those new spending program that he has.We can’t I think adjust spending around to take care of the very much needed programs, including taking care of our veterans but I also want to say again a healthy economy with low taxes would not raising anyone’s taxes is probably the best recipe for eventually having our economy recover.And spending restraint has got to be a vital part of that. And the reason, one of the major reasons why we’re in the difficulties we are in today is because spending got out of control. We owe China $500 billion. And spending, I know, can be brought under control because I have fought against excessive spending my entire career. And I got plans to reduce and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending and if there’s anybody here who thinks there aren’t agencies of government where spending can be cut and their budgets slashed they have not spent a lot of time in Washington.OBAMA: I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it’s been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you’re going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn’t happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.LEHRER: Quick response to Senator Obama.MCCAIN: It’s well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on – on Guantanamo Bay. On a — on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.LEHRER: All right. Let’s go another subject. Lead question, two minutes to you, senator McCain. Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?MCCAIN: I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Our initial military success, we went in to Baghdad and everybody celebrated. And then the war was very badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we’ve got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it. And finally, we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded.This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.MCCAIN: And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy.The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back.So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat.LEHRER: Two minutes, how you see the lessons of Iraq, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan.We hadn’t caught bin Laden. We hadn’t put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that’s not the case. We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.LEHRER: Do you agree with that, the lesson of Iraq?MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That’s the decision of the next president of the United States.Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly, incredibly Senator Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with General Petraeus.LEHRER: Well, let’s go at some of these things…MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that’s in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.LEHRER: What about that point?MCCAIN: I mean, it’s remarkable.LEHRER: All right. What about that point?OBAMA: Which point? He raised a whole bunch of them.LEHRER: I know, OK, let’s go to the latter point and we’ll back up. The point about your not having been…OBAMA: Look, I’m very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.But that’s Senate inside baseball. But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.And so John likes — John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Senator Obama…OBAMA: … of judgment, of whether or not — of whether or not — if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.LEHRER: I have got a lot on the plate here…MCCAIN: I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. But the important — I’d like to tell you, two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here.And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.OBAMA: That’s not true.MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral…OBAMA: That’s not true.MCCAIN: An election law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity.That’s what’s happening in Iraq, and it wasn’t a tactic.LEHRER: Let me see…OBAMA: Jim, Jim, this is a big…MCCAIN: It was a strategy. And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general. And Senator Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.OBAMA: Jim, there are a whole bunch of things we have got to answer. First of all, let’s talk about this troop funding issue because John always brings this up. Senator McCain cut — Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t believe in a timetable.I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable. We didn’t have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops.We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there.The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We’ve been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they’ve reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.But we can’t do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don’t have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.MCCAIN: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama’s plan is dangerous for America.OBAMA: That’s not the case.MCCAIN: That’s what …OBAMA: What he said was a precipitous…MCCAIN: That’s what Admiral Mullen said.OBAMA: … withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That’s not true.MCCAIN: And also General Petraeus said the same thing. Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have one thing in common that I know of, they both said that Iraq is the central battleground.Now General Petraeus has praised the successes, but he said those successes are fragile and if we set a specific date for withdrawal — and by the way, Senator Obama’s original plan, they would have been out last spring before the surge ever had a chance to succeed.And I’m — I’m — understand why Senator Obama was surprised and said that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.MCCAIN: It didn’t exceed beyond mine, because I know that that’s a strategy that has worked and can succeed. But if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and adopt Senator Obama’s plan, then we will have a wider war and it will make things more complicated throughout the region, including in Afghanistan.LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we’ll move to Afghanistan.(LAUGHTER)And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it’s a — it picks up on a point that’s already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I’ve been saying that for over a year now.And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it’s been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — Al Qaida and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don’t have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al Qaida before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that Al Qaida is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.So here’s what we have to do comprehensively, though. It’s not just more troops.We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I’ve said this to President Karzai.Number two, we’ve got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.Number three, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaida, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.I’ve been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It’s ruled by a handful of tribes.And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.And we’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it’s going to be tough. They’ve intermarried with Al Qaida and the Taliban. And it’s going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don’t want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.So we’ve got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I’m confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.So it’s not just the addition of troops that matters. It’s a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with them. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.Now, I think that’s the right strategy; I think that’s the right policy.And, John, I — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.Now, Senator McCain is also right that it’s difficult. This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.And we’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.And the problem, John, with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.”And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.MCCAIN: I — I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.But let me tell you, you know, this business about bombing Iran and all that, let me tell you my record.Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman, the one — the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon.And I saw that, and I saw the situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that, because I was afraid that they couldn’t make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.And then we had Somalia — then we had the first Gulf War. I supported — I supported that.I supported us going into Bosnia, when a number of my own party and colleagues was against that operation in Bosnia. That was the right thing to do, to stop genocide and to preserve what was necessary inside of Europe.I supported what we did in Kosovo. I supported it because ethnic cleansing and genocide was taking place there.And I have a record — and Somalia, I opposed that we should turn — turn the force in Somalia from a peacekeeping force into a peacemaking force, which they were not capable of.So I have a record. I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm’s way.And I’ll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, “Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son’s name on it.”He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, “I will — I will wear his bracelet with honor.”And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, “But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything — promise me one thing, that you’ll do everything in your power to make sure that my son’s death was not in vain.”That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don’t want defeat. I know what that’s like when an army is defeated.MCCAIN: A war that I was in, where we had an Army, that it wasn’t through any fault of their own, but they were defeated. And I know how hard it is for that — for an Army and a military to recover from that. And it did and we will win this one and we won’t come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail.OBAMA: Jim, let me just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant – from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck (ph), given to me in green bay. She asked me, can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through.No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.And the point that I originally made is that we took our eye off Afghanistan, we took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11, they are still sending out videotapes and Senator McCain, nobody is talking about defeat in Iraq, but I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision.And it is not true you have consistently been concerned about what happened in Afghanistan. At one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said well, we can “muddle through” Afghanistan. You don’t muddle through the central front on terror and you don’t muddle through going after bin Laden. You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.I think that is something we have to take seriously. And when I’m president, I will.LEHRER: New …MCCAIN: You might think that with that kind of concern that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan, particularly given his responsibilities as a subcommittee chairman. By the way, when I’m subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee. But the important thing is — the important thing is I visited Afghanistan and I traveled to Waziristan and I traveled to these places and I know what our security requirements are. I know what our needs are. So the point is that we will prevail in Afghanistan, but we need the new strategy and we need it to succeed.But the important thing is, if we suffer defeat in Iraq, which General Petraeus predicts we will, if we adopted Senator Obama’s set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region. Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand there is a connected between the two.LEHRER: I have some good news and bad news for the two of you. You all are even on time, which is remarkable, considering we’ve been going at it …OBAMA: A testimony to you, Jim.LEHRER: I don’t know about that. But the bad news is all my little five minute things have run over, so, anyhow, we’ll adjust as we get there. But the amount of time is even.New lead question. And it goes two minutes to you, Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat from Iran right now to the security of the United States?MCCAIN: My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and it is a threat to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.Now we cannot allow a second Holocaust. Let’s just make that very clear. What I have proposed for a long time, and I’ve had conversation with foreign leaders about forming a league of democracies, let’s be clear and let’s have some straight talk. The Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council.I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people – a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world’s economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues. So I am convinced that together, we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries, democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior.But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world.What I’d also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.So this is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to security in the world, and I believe we can act and we can act with our friends and allies and reduce that threat as quickly as possible, but have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons.LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion that by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts at isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene (ph), Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.OBAMA: So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.And I’m glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.”There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime. But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.Again, it may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.And when we haven’t done it, as in North Korea — let me just take one more example — in North Korea, we cut off talks. They’re a member of the axis of evil. We can’t deal with them.And you know what happened? They went — they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.When we re-engaged — because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this — then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.And — and I just — so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain’s own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he — you know, he wasn’t sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.MCCAIN: Of course.OBAMA: If we can’t meet with our friends, I don’t know how we’re going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.MCCAIN: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal yet.Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.OBAMA: Of course not.MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.We don’t know what the status of the dear leader’s health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they’ve entered into.And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify,” and certainly not sit down across the table from — without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it’s just dangerous.OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn’t worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he’s spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.OBAMA: No, let me tell…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.OBAMA: We will take a look.MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.LEHRER: We’re going to go to a new…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.OBAMA: I am not parsing words.MCCAIN: He’s parsing words, my friends.OBAMA: I’m using the same words that your advisers use.Please, go ahead.LEHRER: New lead question.Russia, goes to you, two minutes, Senator Obama. How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?OBAMA: Well, I think that, given what’s happened over the last several weeks and months, our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party — or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.And we also have to affirm all the fledgling democracies in that region, you know, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Poles, the Czechs, that we are, in fact, going to be supportive and in solidarity with them in their efforts. They are members of NATO.And to countries like Georgia and the Ukraine, I think we have to insist that they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements, and they should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in.Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?And we have to recognize that the way they’ve been behaving lately demands a sharp response from the international community and our allies.LEHRER: Two minutes on Russia, Senator McCain.MCCAIN: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama’s reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, “Both sides ought to show restraint.”Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.I don’t believe we’re going to go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen. But I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies. And that wasn’t just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy.There’s a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.It’s not accidental that the presidents of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine flew to Georgia, flew to Tbilisi, where I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Saakashvili.MCCAIN: And they showed solidarity with them, but, also, they are very concerned about the Russian threats to regain their status of the old Russian to regain their status of the old Russian empire.Now, I think the Russians ought to understand that we will support — we, the United States — will support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the natural process, inclusion into NATO.We also ought to make it very clear that the Russians are in violation of their cease-fire agreement. They have stationed additional troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.By the way, I went there once, and we went inside and drove in, and there was a huge poster. And this is — this is Georgian territory. And there was a huge poster of Vladimir Putin, and it said, “Vladimir Putin, our president.”It was very clear, the Russian intentions towards Georgia. They were just waiting to seize the opportunity.So, this is a very difficult situation. We want to work with the Russians. But we also have every right to expect the Russians to behave in a fashion and keeping with a — with a — with a country who respects international boundaries and the norms of international behavior.And watch Ukraine. This whole thing has got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol. And the breakdown of the political process in Ukraine between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko is a very serious problem.So watch Ukraine, and let’s make sure that we — that the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally.LEHRER: You see any — do you have a major difference with what he just said?OBAMA: No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree with this notion that somehow we did not forcefully object to Russians going into Georgia.I immediately said that this was illegal and objectionable. And, absolutely, I wanted a cessation of the violence, because it put an enormous strain on Georgia, and that’s why I was the first to say that we have to rebuild the Georgian economy and called for a billion dollars that has now gone in to help them rebuild.Because part of Russia’s intentions here was to weaken the economy to the point where President Saakashvili was so weakened that he might be replaced by somebody that Putin favored more.Two points I think are important to think about when it comes to Russia.Number one is we have to have foresight and anticipate some of these problems. So back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever.And what we needed to do was replace them with international peacekeepers and a special envoy to resolve the crisis before it boiled over.That wasn’t done. But had it been done, it’s possible we could have avoided the issue.The second point I want to make is — is the issue of energy. Russia is in part resurgent and Putin is feeling powerful because of petro-dollars, as Senator McCain mentioned.That means that we, as one of the biggest consumers of oil — 25 percent of the world’s oil — have to have an energy strategy not just to deal with Russia, but to deal with many of the rogue states we’ve talked about, Iran, Venezuela.And that means, yes, increasing domestic production and off-shore drilling, but we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil supplies and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. So we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem.What we’re going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology. And, you know, I’ve got a plan for us to make a significant investment over the next 10 years to do that.And I have to say, Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy, but Senator McCain mentioned earlier the importance of looking at a record.Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.And so we — we — we’ve got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence, because this is probably going to be just as vital for our economy and the pain that people are feeling at the pump — and, you know, winter’s coming and home heating oil — as it is our national security and the issue of climate change that’s so important.LEHRER: We’ve got time for one more lead question segment. We’re way out of…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Quick response and then…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: No one from Arizona is against solar. And Senator Obama says he’s for nuclear, but he’s against reprocessing and he’s against storing. So…OBAMA: That’s just not true, John. John, I’m sorry, but that’s not true.MCCAIN: … it’s hard to get there from here. And off-shore drilling is also something that is very important and it is a bridge.And we know that, if we drill off-shore and exploit a lot of these reserves, it will help, at temporarily, relieve our energy requirements. And it will have, I think, an important effect on the price of a barrel of oil.OBAMA: I just have to respond very quickly, just to correct — just to correct the record.MCCAIN: So I want to say that, with the Nunn-Lugar thing…LEHRER: Excuse me, Senator.OBAMA: John?MCCAIN: … I supported Nunn-Lugar back in the early 1990s when a lot of my colleagues didn’t. That was the key legislation at the time and put us on the road to eliminating this issue of nuclear waste and the nuclear fuel that has to be taken care of.OBAMA: I — I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I’ve said is that we have to store it safely.And, Senator McCain, he says — he talks about Arizona.LEHRER: All right.OBAMA: I’ve got to make this point, Jim.LEHRER: OK.OBAMA: He objects…MCCAIN: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time…OBAMA: He — he — he objects…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: One at a time, please.OBAMA: He objected…LEHRER: One at a time.MCCAIN: No one can be opposed to alternate energy.OBAMA: All right, fair enough. Let’s move on. You’ve got one more energy — you’ve got one more question.LEHRER: This is the last — last lead question. You have two minutes each. And the question is this, beginning with you, Senator McCain.What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?MCCAIN: I think it’s much less than it was the day after 9/11. I think it — that we have a safer nation, but we are a long way from safe.And I want to tell you that one of the things I’m most proud of, among others, because I have worked across the aisle. I have a long record on that, on a long series of reforms.But after 9/11, Senator Joe Lieberman and I decided that we needed a commission, and that was a commission to investigate 9/11, and find out what happened, and fix it.And we were — we were opposed by the administration, another area where I differed with this administration. And we were stymied until the families of 9/11 came, and they descended on Washington, and we got that legislation passed.And there were a series of recommendations, as I recall, more than 40. And I’m happy to say that we’ve gotten written into law most of those reforms recommended by that commission. I’m proud of that work, again, bipartisan, reaching across the aisle, working together, Democrat and Republican alike.So we have a long way to go in our intelligence services. We have to do a better job in human intelligence. And we’ve got to — to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don’t ever torture a prisoner ever again.We have to make sure that our technological and intelligence capabilities are better. We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.But I can tell you that I think America is safer today than it was on 9/11. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a long way to go.And I’d like to remind you, also, as a result of those recommendations, we’ve probably had the largest reorganization of government since we established the Defense Department. And I think that those men and women in those agencies are doing a great job.But we still have a long way to go before we can declare America safe, and that means doing a better job along our borders, as well.LEHRER: Two minutes, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think that we are safer in some ways. Obviously, we’ve poured billions of dollars into airport security. We have done some work in terms of securing potential targets, but we still have a long way to go.We’ve got to make sure that we’re hardening our chemical sites. We haven’t done enough in terms of transit; we haven’t done enough in terms of ports.And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies. It’s in a suitcase.This is why the issue of nuclear proliferation is so important. It is the — the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.And we — we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons, but I also believe that, when we are only spending a few hundred million dollars on nuclear proliferation, then we’re making a mistake.The other thing that we have to focus on, though, is Al Qaida. They are now operating in 60 countries. We can’t simply be focused on Iraq. We have to go to the root cause, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s going to be critical. We are going to need more cooperation with our allies.And one last point I want to make. It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism.And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America’s standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago.OBAMA: And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made — and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security — because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.LEHRER: Do you agree there’s much to be done in a new administration to restore…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: But in the case of missile defense, Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, “proven.” That wasn’t proven when Ronald Reagan said we would do SDI, which is missile defense. And it was major — a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War.We seem to come full circle again. Senator Obama still doesn’t quite understand — or doesn’t get it — that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages Al Qaida. They would establish a base in Iraq.The consequences of defeat, which would result from his plan of withdrawal and according to date certain, regardless of conditions, according to our military leaders, according to every expert, would lead to defeat — possible defeat, loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we’ve made of American blood and treasure, which grieves us all.All of that would be lost if we followed Senator Obama’s plan to have specific dates with withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground.And General Petraeus says we have had great success, but it’s very fragile. And we can’t do what Senator Obama wants to do.That is the central issue of our time. And I think Americans will judge very seriously as to whether that’s the right path or the wrong path and who should be the next president of the United States.LEHRER: You see the same connections that Senator McCain does?OBAMA: Oh, there’s no doubt. Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaida is resurgent.In the meantime, we’ve got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars’ worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like — in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are — the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we’ve been focused on Iraq.We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month.And that means we can’t provide health care to people who need it. We can’t invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term.There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority. So this is a national security issue.We haven’t adequately funded veterans’ care. I sit on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and we’ve got — I meet veterans all across the country who are trying to figure out, “How can I get disability payments? I’ve got post-traumatic stress disorder, and yet I can’t get treatment.”So we have put all chips in, right there, and nobody is talking about losing this war. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.That’s been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore.MCCAIN: I’ve been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we’ve faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment.And I — and I honestly don’t believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion — aggression in Georgia, to his — you know, we’ve seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is — shows to me that we — that — that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.As far as our other issues that he brought up are concerned, I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I’ll take care of them. And I’ve been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans.And I love them. And I’ll take care of them. And they know that I’ll take care of them. And that’s going to be my job.But, also, I have the ability, and the knowledge, and the background to make the right judgments, to keep this country safe and secure.Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don’t think I need any on-the-job training. I’m ready to go at it right now.OBAMA: Well, let me just make a closing point. You know, my father came from Kenya. That’s where I get my name.And in the ’60s, he wrote letter after letter to come to college here in the United States because the notion was that there was no other country on Earth where you could make it if you tried. The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world.I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same.And part of what we need to do, what the next president has to do — and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we’re going to keep America safe — is to — to send a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that — that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.And that is something that I’m going to be committed to as president of the United States.LEHRER: Few seconds. We’re almost finished.MCCAIN: Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home.I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.LEHRER: And that ends this debate tonight.On October 2nd, next Thursday, also at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time, the two vice presidential candidates will debate at Washington University in St. Louis. My PBS colleague, Gwen Ifill, will be the moderator.For now, from Oxford, Mississippi, thank you, senators, both. I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.(APPLAUSE)ENDTranscription by: CQ Transcriptions/MorningsideSeptember 26, 2008The First McCain-Obama Presidential DebateFIRST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES’ DEBATETHE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, OXFORD MISSISSIPPISPEAKERS:U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (AZ)REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEU. S. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (IL)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEJIM LEHREREXECUTIVE EDITOR AND ANCHOR, THE NEWSHOUR, PBS[*] LEHRER: Good evening from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2008 presidential debates between the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the three other presidential and vice presidential debates coming in October.Tonight’s will primarily be about foreign policy and national security, which, by definition, includes the global financial crisis. It will be divided roughly into nine-minute segments.Direct exchanges between the candidates and moderator follow-ups are permitted after each candidate has two minutes to answer the lead question in an order determined by a coin toss.The specific subjects and questions were chosen by me. They have not been shared or cleared with anyone.The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent, no cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind, except right now, as we welcome Senators Obama and McCain.(APPLAUSE)Let me begin with something General Eisenhower said in his 1952 presidential campaign. Quote, “We must achieve both security and solvency. In fact, the foundation of military strength is economic strength,” end quote.With that in mind, the first lead question.Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, for hosting us tonight. I can’t think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.And although we’ve heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.And you’re wondering, how’s it going to affect me? How’s it going to affect my job? How’s it going to affect my house? How’s it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I’ve put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.Number one, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.Number two, we’ve got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market — and when the market returns.Number three, we’ve got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.And, number four, we’ve got to make sure that we’re helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.It hasn’t worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That’s why I’m running for president, and that’s what I hope we’re going to be talking about tonight.LEHRER: Senator McCain, two minutes.MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody.And I do have a sad note tonight. Senator Kennedy is in the hospital. He’s a dear and beloved friend to all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the lion of the Senate.I also want to thank the University of Mississippi for hosting us tonight.And, Jim, I — I’ve been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges. But I’m feeling a little better tonight, and I’ll tell you why.Because as we’re here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we’re in.And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we’re not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We’re talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes, if we don’t fix the greatest fiscal crisis, probably in — certainly in our time, and I’ve been around a little while.But the point is — the point is, we have finally seen Republicans and Democrats sitting down and negotiating together and coming up with a package.This package has transparency in it. It has to have accountability and oversight. It has to have options for loans to failing businesses, rather than the government taking over those loans. We have to — it has to have a package with a number of other essential elements to it.And, yes, I went back to Washington, and I met with my Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they weren’t part of the negotiations, and I understand that. And it was the House Republicans that decided that they would be part of the solution to this problem.But I want to emphasize one point to all Americans tonight. This isn’t the beginning of the end of this crisis. This is the end of the beginning, if we come out with a package that will keep these institutions stable.And we’ve got a lot of work to do. And we’ve got to create jobs. And one of the areas, of course, is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.LEHRER: All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.But, I mean, are you — do you favor this plan, Senator Obama, and you, Senator McCain? Do you — are you in favor of this plan?OBAMA: We haven’t seen the language yet. And I do think that there’s constructive work being done out there. So, for the viewers who are watching, I am optimistic about the capacity of us to come together with a plan.The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it.So — so the question, I think, that we’ve got to ask ourselves is, yes, we’ve got to solve this problem short term. And we are going to have to intervene; there’s no doubt about that.But we’re also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?MCCAIN: I — I hope so. And I…LEHRER: As a United States senator…MCCAIN: Sure.LEHRER: … you’re going to vote for the plan?MCCAIN: Sure. But — but let me — let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.But there’s also the issue of responsibility. You’ve mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.Somehow we’ve lost that accountability. I’ve been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We’ve got to start also holding people accountable, and we’ve got to reward people who succeed.But somehow in Washington today — and I’m afraid on Wall Street — greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption — or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded.As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. I mean, we’ve had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what’s good for Wall Street, but not what’s good for Main Street.And there are folks out there who’ve been struggling before this crisis took place. And that’s why it’s so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the — a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.LEHRER: Say it directly to him.OBAMA: I do not think that they are.LEHRER: Say it directly to him.OBAMA: Well, the — John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And…MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn’t hear him?(LAUGHTER)LEHRER: I’m just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I’m going to try.OBAMA: The — and I just fundamentally disagree. And unless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there’s a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they’ve got a little financial crisis going on.They’re having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments. We haven’t been paying attention to them. And if you look at our tax policies, it’s a classic example.LEHRER: So, Senator McCain, do you agree with what Senator Obama just said? And, if you don’t, tell him what you disagree with.MCCAIN: No, I — look, we’ve got to fix the system. We’ve got fundamental problems in the system. And Main Street is paying a penalty for the excesses and greed in Washington, D.C., and in the Wall Street.So there’s no doubt that we have a long way to go. And, obviously, stricter interpretation and consolidation of the various regulatory agencies that weren’t doing their job, that has brought on this crisis.But I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker. And the American worker is the most productive, the most innovative. America is still the greatest producer, exporter and importer.But we’ve got to get through these times, but I have a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And I still believe, under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.LEHRER: All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject.And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It’s completely out of control. It’s gone — we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the — the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it’s a gateway. It’s a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending.You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don’t know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers’ money. And it has got to be brought under control.As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I’ve got a pen. This one’s kind of old. I’ve got a pen, and I’m going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.Now, Senator Obama, you wanted to know one of the differences. He has asked for $932 million of earmark pork-barrel spending, nearly a million dollars for every day that he’s been in the United States Senate.I suggest that people go up on the Web site of Citizens Against Government Waste, and they’ll look at those projects.That kind of thing is not the way to rein in runaway spending in Washington, D.C. That’s one of the fundamental differences that Senator Obama and I have.LEHRER: Senator Obama, two minutes.OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.And he’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn’t the case with me.But let’s be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget. Senator McCain is proposing — and this is a fundamental difference between us — $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important. And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.So my attitude is, we’ve got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I’ve called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.And that means that the ordinary American out there who’s collecting a paycheck every day, they’ve got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them.And over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the — the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to — wants to follow.LEHRER: Senator McCain?MCCAIN: Well, again, I don’t mean to go back and forth, but he…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: No, that’s fine.MCCAIN: Senator Obama suspended those requests for pork-barrel projects after he was running for president of the United States. He didn’t happen to see that light during the first three years as a member of the United States Senate, $932 million in requests.Maybe to Senator Obama it’s not a lot of money. But the point is that — you see, I hear this all the time. “It’s only $18 billion.” Do you know that it’s tripled in the last five years? Do you know that it’s gone completely out of control to the point where it corrupts people? It corrupts people.That’s why we have, as I said, people under federal indictment and charges. It’s a system that’s got to be cleaned up.I have fought against it my career. I have fought against it. I was called the sheriff, by the — one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee. I didn’t win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate.Now, Senator Obama didn’t mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs.Now, that’s a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. I want to cut spending. I want to keep taxes low. The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is to raise people’s taxes.OBAMA: I — I don’t know where John is getting his figures. Let’s just be clear.What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we’re giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage.I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of it.But let’s go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we’re going to get the middle class back on track.OBAMA: And when you look at your tax policies that are directed primarily at those who are doing well, and you are neglecting people who are really struggling right now, I think that is a continuation of the last eight years, and we can’t afford another four.LEHRER: Respond directly to him about that, to Senator Obama about that, about the — he’s made it twice now, about your tax — your policies about tax cuts.MCCAIN: Well — well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax.Right now, in the United States of America, business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.But, again, I want to return. It’s a lot more than $18 billion in pork-barrel spending. I can tell you, it’s rife. It’s throughout.The United States Senate will take up a continuing resolution tomorrow or the next day, sometime next week, with 2,000 — 2,000 — look at them, my friends. Look at them. You’ll be appalled.And Senator Obama is a recent convert, after requesting $932 million worth of pork-barrel spending projects.So the point is, I want people to have tax cuts. I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. I want to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America.I know that the worst thing we could possibly do is to raise taxes on anybody, and a lot of people might be interested in Senator Obama’s definition of “rich.”LEHRER: Senator Obama, you have a question for Senator McCain on that?OBAMA: Well, let me just make a couple of points.LEHRER: All right.OBAMA: My definition — here’s what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime’s worth of tax increase.Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.It’s not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that’s a problem.Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn’t tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here’s the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you’re getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you’ve got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.It is not a good deal for the American people. But it’s an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we’re going to be.MCCAIN: Well, you know, let me just…LEHRER: We’ve got to go to another lead question.MCCAIN: I know we have to, but this is a classic example of walking the walk and talking the talk.We had an energy bill before the United States Senate. It was festooned with Christmas tree ornaments. It had all kinds of breaks for the oil companies, I mean, billions of dollars worth. I voted against it; Senator Obama voted for it.OBAMA: John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion.MCCAIN: You’ve got to look at our record. You’ve got to look at our records. That’s the important thing.Who fought against wasteful and earmark spending? Who has been the person who has tried to keep spending under control?Who’s the person who has believed that the best thing for America is — is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair? And I’ve fought to simplify it, and I have proposals to simplify it.Let’s give every American a choice: two tax brackets, generous dividends, and, two — and let Americans choose whether they want the — the existing tax code or they want a new tax code.And so, again, look at the record, particularly the energy bill. But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.OBAMA: That’s not true, John. That’s not true.MCCAIN: And that’s just a fact. Again, you can look it up.OBAMA: Look, it’s just not true. And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John — this is undeniable — oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.Now, look, we all would love to lower taxes on everybody. But here’s the problem: If we are giving them to oil companies, then that means that there are those who are not going to be getting them. And…MCCAIN: With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies.OBAMA: No, but, John, the fact of the matter is, is that I was opposed to those tax breaks, tried to strip them out. We’ve got an energy bill on the Senate floor right now that contains some good stuff, some stuff you want, including drilling off-shore, but you’re opposed to it because it would strip away those tax breaks that have gone to oil companies.LEHRER: All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about.And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?OBAMA: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don’t yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it’s hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.But there’s no doubt that we’re not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done.We have to have energy independence, so I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years’ time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we’re developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.We have to fix our health care system, which is putting an enormous burden on families. Just — a report just came out that the average deductible went up 30 percent on American families.They are getting crushed, and many of them are going bankrupt as a consequence of health care. I’m meeting folks all over the country. We have to do that now, because it will actually make our businesses and our families better off.The third thing we have to do is we’ve got to make sure that we’re competing in education. We’ve got to invest in science and technology. China had a space launch and a space walk. We’ve got to make sure that our children are keeping pace in math and in science.And one of the things I think we have to do is make sure that college is affordable for every young person in America.And I also think that we’re going to have to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling behind, our roads, our bridges, but also broadband lines that reach into rural communities.Also, making sure that we have a new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them.So there are some — some things that we’ve got to do structurally to make sure that we can compete in this global economy. We can’t shortchange those things. We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and we’ve got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.LEHRER: Are you — what priorities would you adjust, as president, Senator McCain, because of the — because of the financial bailout cost?MCCAIN: Look, we, no matter what, we’ve got to cut spending. We have — as I said, we’ve let government get completely out of control.Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.The point — the point is — the point is, we need to examine every agency of government.First of all, by the way, I’d eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.I think that we have to return — particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations — we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems that the costs are completely out of control.We tried to build a little ship called the Littoral Combat Ship that was supposed to cost $140 million, ended up costing $400 million, and we still haven’t done it.So we need to have fixed-cost contracts. We need very badly to understand that defense spending is very important and vital, particularly in the new challenges we face in the world, but we have to get a lot of the cost overruns under control.I know how to do that.MCCAIN: I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it and the people ended up in federal prison so I know how to do this because I’ve been involved these issues for many, many years. But I think that we have to examine every agency of government and find out those that are doing their job and keep them and find out those that aren’t and eliminate them and we’ll have to scrub every agency of government.LEHRER: But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you’re saying?OBAMA: No. As I said before, Jim, there are going to be things that end up having to be …LEHRER: Like what?OBAMA: … deferred and delayed. Well, look, I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil. That is a big project. That is a multi-year project.LEHRER: Not willing to give that up?OBAMA: Not willing to give up the need to do it but there may be individual components that we can’t do. But John is right we have to make cuts. We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn’t work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works.They did it on the Medicaid prescription drug bill and we have to change the culture. Tom — or John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that’s just me opposing George Bush’s wrong headed policies since I’ve been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I worked with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we’ll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John’s been railing about.LEHRER: What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.MCCAIN: How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.LEHRER: Spending freeze?MCCAIN: I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions of caring for our veterans national defense and several other vital issues.LEHRER: Would you go for that?OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy, I think, doesn’t make sense.Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we’re going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.MCCAIN: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don’t like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power.Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. You can’t get there from here and the fact is that we can create 700,000 jobs by building constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by the year 2030. Nuclear power is not only important as far as eliminating our dependence on foreign oil but it’s also responsibility as far as climate change is concerned. An issue I have been involved in for many, many years and I’m proud of the work of the work that I’ve done there along with Senator Clinton.LEHRER: Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?OBAMA: There’s no doubt it’s gonna affect our budgets. There is no doubt about it. Not only — Even if we get all $700 billion back, let’s assume the markets recover, we’re holding assets long enough that eventually taxpayers get it back and that happened during the Great Depression when Roosevelt purchased a whole bunch of homes, over time, home values went back up and in fact government made a profit. If we’re lucky and we do it right, that could potentially happen but in the short term there’s an outlay and we may not see that money for a while.And because of the economy’s slowing down, I think we can also expect less tax revenue so there’s no doubt that as president I’m going to have to make some tough decision.The only point I want to make is this, that in order to make those tough decisions we have to know what our values are and who we’re fighting for and what our priorities are and if we are spending $300 billion on tax cuts for people who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and we are leaving out health care which is crushing on people all across the country, then I think we have made a bad decision and I want to make sure we’re not shortchanging our long term priorities.MCCAIN: Well, I want to make sure we’re not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama’s health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government. Look. We have to obviously cut spending. I have fought to cut spending. Senator Obama has $800 billion in new spending programs. I would suggest he start by canceling some of those new spending program that he has.We can’t I think adjust spending around to take care of the very much needed programs, including taking care of our veterans but I also want to say again a healthy economy with low taxes would not raising anyone’s taxes is probably the best recipe for eventually having our economy recover.And spending restraint has got to be a vital part of that. And the reason, one of the major reasons why we’re in the difficulties we are in today is because spending got out of control. We owe China $500 billion. And spending, I know, can be brought under control because I have fought against excessive spending my entire career. And I got plans to reduce and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending and if there’s anybody here who thinks there aren’t agencies of government where spending can be cut and their budgets slashed they have not spent a lot of time in Washington.OBAMA: I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it’s been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you’re going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn’t happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.LEHRER: Quick response to Senator Obama.MCCAIN: It’s well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on – on Guantanamo Bay. On a — on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.LEHRER: All right. Let’s go another subject. Lead question, two minutes to you, senator McCain. Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?MCCAIN: I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Our initial military success, we went in to Baghdad and everybody celebrated. And then the war was very badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we’ve got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it. And finally, we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded.This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.MCCAIN: And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy.The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back.So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat.LEHRER: Two minutes, how you see the lessons of Iraq, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan.We hadn’t caught bin Laden. We hadn’t put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that’s not the case. We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.LEHRER: Do you agree with that, the lesson of Iraq?MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That’s the decision of the next president of the United States.Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly, incredibly Senator Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with General Petraeus.LEHRER: Well, let’s go at some of these things…MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that’s in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.LEHRER: What about that point?MCCAIN: I mean, it’s remarkable.LEHRER: All right. What about that point?OBAMA: Which point? He raised a whole bunch of them.LEHRER: I know, OK, let’s go to the latter point and we’ll back up. The point about your not having been…OBAMA: Look, I’m very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.But that’s Senate inside baseball. But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.And so John likes — John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Senator Obama…OBAMA: … of judgment, of whether or not — of whether or not — if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.LEHRER: I have got a lot on the plate here…MCCAIN: I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. But the important — I’d like to tell you, two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here.And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.OBAMA: That’s not true.MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral…OBAMA: That’s not true.MCCAIN: An election law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity.That’s what’s happening in Iraq, and it wasn’t a tactic.LEHRER: Let me see…OBAMA: Jim, Jim, this is a big…MCCAIN: It was a strategy. And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general. And Senator Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.OBAMA: Jim, there are a whole bunch of things we have got to answer. First of all, let’s talk about this troop funding issue because John always brings this up. Senator McCain cut — Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t believe in a timetable.I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable. We didn’t have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops.We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there.The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We’ve been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they’ve reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.But we can’t do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don’t have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.MCCAIN: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama’s plan is dangerous for America.OBAMA: That’s not the case.MCCAIN: That’s what …OBAMA: What he said was a precipitous…MCCAIN: That’s what Admiral Mullen said.OBAMA: … withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That’s not true.MCCAIN: And also General Petraeus said the same thing. Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have one thing in common that I know of, they both said that Iraq is the central battleground.Now General Petraeus has praised the successes, but he said those successes are fragile and if we set a specific date for withdrawal — and by the way, Senator Obama’s original plan, they would have been out last spring before the surge ever had a chance to succeed.And I’m — I’m — understand why Senator Obama was surprised and said that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.MCCAIN: It didn’t exceed beyond mine, because I know that that’s a strategy that has worked and can succeed. But if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and adopt Senator Obama’s plan, then we will have a wider war and it will make things more complicated throughout the region, including in Afghanistan.LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we’ll move to Afghanistan.(LAUGHTER)And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it’s a — it picks up on a point that’s already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I’ve been saying that for over a year now.And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it’s been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — Al Qaida and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don’t have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al Qaida before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that Al Qaida is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.So here’s what we have to do comprehensively, though. It’s not just more troops.We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I’ve said this to President Karzai.Number two, we’ve got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.Number three, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaida, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.I’ve been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It’s ruled by a handful of tribes.And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.And we’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it’s going to be tough. They’ve intermarried with Al Qaida and the Taliban. And it’s going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don’t want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.So we’ve got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I’m confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.So it’s not just the addition of troops that matters. It’s a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with them. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.Now, I think that’s the right strategy; I think that’s the right policy.And, John, I — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.Now, Senator McCain is also right that it’s difficult. This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.And we’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.And the problem, John, with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.”And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.MCCAIN: I — I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.But let me tell you, you know, this business about bombing Iran and all that, let me tell you my record.Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman, the one — the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon.And I saw that, and I saw the situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that, because I was afraid that they couldn’t make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.And then we had Somalia — then we had the first Gulf War. I supported — I supported that.I supported us going into Bosnia, when a number of my own party and colleagues was against that operation in Bosnia. That was the right thing to do, to stop genocide and to preserve what was necessary inside of Europe.I supported what we did in Kosovo. I supported it because ethnic cleansing and genocide was taking place there.And I have a record — and Somalia, I opposed that we should turn — turn the force in Somalia from a peacekeeping force into a peacemaking force, which they were not capable of.So I have a record. I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm’s way.And I’ll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, “Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son’s name on it.”He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, “I will — I will wear his bracelet with honor.”And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, “But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything — promise me one thing, that you’ll do everything in your power to make sure that my son’s death was not in vain.”That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don’t want defeat. I know what that’s like when an army is defeated.MCCAIN: A war that I was in, where we had an Army, that it wasn’t through any fault of their own, but they were defeated. And I know how hard it is for that — for an Army and a military to recover from that. And it did and we will win this one and we won’t come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail.OBAMA: Jim, let me just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant – from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck (ph), given to me in green bay. She asked me, can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through.No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.And the point that I originally made is that we took our eye off Afghanistan, we took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11, they are still sending out videotapes and Senator McCain, nobody is talking about defeat in Iraq, but I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision.And it is not true you have consistently been concerned about what happened in Afghanistan. At one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said well, we can “muddle through” Afghanistan. You don’t muddle through the central front on terror and you don’t muddle through going after bin Laden. You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.I think that is something we have to take seriously. And when I’m president, I will.LEHRER: New …MCCAIN: You might think that with that kind of concern that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan, particularly given his responsibilities as a subcommittee chairman. By the way, when I’m subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee. But the important thing is — the important thing is I visited Afghanistan and I traveled to Waziristan and I traveled to these places and I know what our security requirements are. I know what our needs are. So the point is that we will prevail in Afghanistan, but we need the new strategy and we need it to succeed.But the important thing is, if we suffer defeat in Iraq, which General Petraeus predicts we will, if we adopted Senator Obama’s set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region. Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand there is a connected between the two.LEHRER: I have some good news and bad news for the two of you. You all are even on time, which is remarkable, considering we’ve been going at it …OBAMA: A testimony to you, Jim.LEHRER: I don’t know about that. But the bad news is all my little five minute things have run over, so, anyhow, we’ll adjust as we get there. But the amount of time is even.New lead question. And it goes two minutes to you, Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat from Iran right now to the security of the United States?MCCAIN: My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and it is a threat to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.Now we cannot allow a second Holocaust. Let’s just make that very clear. What I have proposed for a long time, and I’ve had conversation with foreign leaders about forming a league of democracies, let’s be clear and let’s have some straight talk. The Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council.I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people – a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world’s economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues. So I am convinced that together, we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries, democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior.But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world.What I’d also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.So this is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to security in the world, and I believe we can act and we can act with our friends and allies and reduce that threat as quickly as possible, but have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons.LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion that by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts at isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene (ph), Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.OBAMA: So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.And I’m glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.”There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime. But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.Again, it may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.And when we haven’t done it, as in North Korea — let me just take one more example — in North Korea, we cut off talks. They’re a member of the axis of evil. We can’t deal with them.And you know what happened? They went — they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.When we re-engaged — because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this — then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.And — and I just — so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain’s own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he — you know, he wasn’t sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.MCCAIN: Of course.OBAMA: If we can’t meet with our friends, I don’t know how we’re going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.MCCAIN: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal yet.Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.OBAMA: Of course not.MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.We don’t know what the status of the dear leader’s health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they’ve entered into.And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify,” and certainly not sit down across the table from — without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it’s just dangerous.OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn’t worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he’s spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.OBAMA: No, let me tell…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.OBAMA: We will take a look.MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.LEHRER: We’re going to go to a new…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.OBAMA: I am not parsing words.MCCAIN: He’s parsing words, my friends.OBAMA: I’m using the same words that your advisers use.Please, go ahead.LEHRER: New lead question.Russia, goes to you, two minutes, Senator Obama. How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?OBAMA: Well, I think that, given what’s happened over the last several weeks and months, our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party — or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.And we also have to affirm all the fledgling democracies in that region, you know, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Poles, the Czechs, that we are, in fact, going to be supportive and in solidarity with them in their efforts. They are members of NATO.And to countries like Georgia and the Ukraine, I think we have to insist that they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements, and they should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in.Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?And we have to recognize that the way they’ve been behaving lately demands a sharp response from the international community and our allies.LEHRER: Two minutes on Russia, Senator McCain.MCCAIN: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama’s reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, “Both sides ought to show restraint.”Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.I don’t believe we’re going to go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen. But I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies. And that wasn’t just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy.There’s a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.It’s not accidental that the presidents of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine flew to Georgia, flew to Tbilisi, where I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Saakashvili.MCCAIN: And they showed solidarity with them, but, also, they are very concerned about the Russian threats to regain their status of the old Russian to regain their status of the old Russian empire.Now, I think the Russians ought to understand that we will support — we, the United States — will support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the natural process, inclusion into NATO.We also ought to make it very clear that the Russians are in violation of their cease-fire agreement. They have stationed additional troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.By the way, I went there once, and we went inside and drove in, and there was a huge poster. And this is — this is Georgian territory. And there was a huge poster of Vladimir Putin, and it said, “Vladimir Putin, our president.”It was very clear, the Russian intentions towards Georgia. They were just waiting to seize the opportunity.So, this is a very difficult situation. We want to work with the Russians. But we also have every right to expect the Russians to behave in a fashion and keeping with a — with a — with a country who respects international boundaries and the norms of international behavior.And watch Ukraine. This whole thing has got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol. And the breakdown of the political process in Ukraine between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko is a very serious problem.So watch Ukraine, and let’s make sure that we — that the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally.LEHRER: You see any — do you have a major difference with what he just said?OBAMA: No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree with this notion that somehow we did not forcefully object to Russians going into Georgia.I immediately said that this was illegal and objectionable. And, absolutely, I wanted a cessation of the violence, because it put an enormous strain on Georgia, and that’s why I was the first to say that we have to rebuild the Georgian economy and called for a billion dollars that has now gone in to help them rebuild.Because part of Russia’s intentions here was to weaken the economy to the point where President Saakashvili was so weakened that he might be replaced by somebody that Putin favored more.Two points I think are important to think about when it comes to Russia.Number one is we have to have foresight and anticipate some of these problems. So back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever.And what we needed to do was replace them with international peacekeepers and a special envoy to resolve the crisis before it boiled over.That wasn’t done. But had it been done, it’s possible we could have avoided the issue.The second point I want to make is — is the issue of energy. Russia is in part resurgent and Putin is feeling powerful because of petro-dollars, as Senator McCain mentioned.That means that we, as one of the biggest consumers of oil — 25 percent of the world’s oil — have to have an energy strategy not just to deal with Russia, but to deal with many of the rogue states we’ve talked about, Iran, Venezuela.And that means, yes, increasing domestic production and off-shore drilling, but we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil supplies and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. So we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem.What we’re going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology. And, you know, I’ve got a plan for us to make a significant investment over the next 10 years to do that.And I have to say, Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy, but Senator McCain mentioned earlier the importance of looking at a record.Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.And so we — we — we’ve got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence, because this is probably going to be just as vital for our economy and the pain that people are feeling at the pump — and, you know, winter’s coming and home heating oil — as it is our national security and the issue of climate change that’s so important.LEHRER: We’ve got time for one more lead question segment. We’re way out of…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Quick response and then…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: No one from Arizona is against solar. And Senator Obama says he’s for nuclear, but he’s against reprocessing and he’s against storing. So…OBAMA: That’s just not true, John. John, I’m sorry, but that’s not true.MCCAIN: … it’s hard to get there from here. And off-shore drilling is also something that is very important and it is a bridge.And we know that, if we drill off-shore and exploit a lot of these reserves, it will help, at temporarily, relieve our energy requirements. And it will have, I think, an important effect on the price of a barrel of oil.OBAMA: I just have to respond very quickly, just to correct — just to correct the record.MCCAIN: So I want to say that, with the Nunn-Lugar thing…LEHRER: Excuse me, Senator.OBAMA: John?MCCAIN: … I supported Nunn-Lugar back in the early 1990s when a lot of my colleagues didn’t. That was the key legislation at the time and put us on the road to eliminating this issue of nuclear waste and the nuclear fuel that has to be taken care of.OBAMA: I — I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I’ve said is that we have to store it safely.And, Senator McCain, he says — he talks about Arizona.LEHRER: All right.OBAMA: I’ve got to make this point, Jim.LEHRER: OK.OBAMA: He objects…MCCAIN: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time…OBAMA: He — he — he objects…(CROSSTALK)LEHRER: One at a time, please.OBAMA: He objected…LEHRER: One at a time.MCCAIN: No one can be opposed to alternate energy.OBAMA: All right, fair enough. Let’s move on. You’ve got one more energy — you’ve got one more question.LEHRER: This is the last — last lead question. You have two minutes each. And the question is this, beginning with you, Senator McCain.What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?MCCAIN: I think it’s much less than it was the day after 9/11. I think it — that we have a safer nation, but we are a long way from safe.And I want to tell you that one of the things I’m most proud of, among others, because I have worked across the aisle. I have a long record on that, on a long series of reforms.But after 9/11, Senator Joe Lieberman and I decided that we needed a commission, and that was a commission to investigate 9/11, and find out what happened, and fix it.And we were — we were opposed by the administration, another area where I differed with this administration. And we were stymied until the families of 9/11 came, and they descended on Washington, and we got that legislation passed.And there were a series of recommendations, as I recall, more than 40. And I’m happy to say that we’ve gotten written into law most of those reforms recommended by that commission. I’m proud of that work, again, bipartisan, reaching across the aisle, working together, Democrat and Republican alike.So we have a long way to go in our intelligence services. We have to do a better job in human intelligence. And we’ve got to — to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don’t ever torture a prisoner ever again.We have to make sure that our technological and intelligence capabilities are better. We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.But I can tell you that I think America is safer today than it was on 9/11. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a long way to go.And I’d like to remind you, also, as a result of those recommendations, we’ve probably had the largest reorganization of government since we established the Defense Department. And I think that those men and women in those agencies are doing a great job.But we still have a long way to go before we can declare America safe, and that means doing a better job along our borders, as well.LEHRER: Two minutes, Senator Obama.OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think that we are safer in some ways. Obviously, we’ve poured billions of dollars into airport security. We have done some work in terms of securing potential targets, but we still have a long way to go.We’ve got to make sure that we’re hardening our chemical sites. We haven’t done enough in terms of transit; we haven’t done enough in terms of ports.And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies. It’s in a suitcase.This is why the issue of nuclear proliferation is so important. It is the — the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.And we — we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons, but I also believe that, when we are only spending a few hundred million dollars on nuclear proliferation, then we’re making a mistake.The other thing that we have to focus on, though, is Al Qaida. They are now operating in 60 countries. We can’t simply be focused on Iraq. We have to go to the root cause, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s going to be critical. We are going to need more cooperation with our allies.And one last point I want to make. It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism.And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America’s standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago.OBAMA: And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made — and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security — because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.LEHRER: Do you agree there’s much to be done in a new administration to restore…(CROSSTALK)MCCAIN: But in the case of missile defense, Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, “proven.” That wasn’t proven when Ronald Reagan said we would do SDI, which is missile defense. And it was major — a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War.We seem to come full circle again. Senator Obama still doesn’t quite understand — or doesn’t get it — that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages Al Qaida. They would establish a base in Iraq.The consequences of defeat, which would result from his plan of withdrawal and according to date certain, regardless of conditions, according to our military leaders, according to every expert, would lead to defeat — possible defeat, loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we’ve made of American blood and treasure, which grieves us all.All of that would be lost if we followed Senator Obama’s plan to have specific dates with withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground.And General Petraeus says we have had great success, but it’s very fragile. And we can’t do what Senator Obama wants to do.That is the central issue of our time. And I think Americans will judge very seriously as to whether that’s the right path or the wrong path and who should be the next president of the United States.LEHRER: You see the same connections that Senator McCain does?OBAMA: Oh, there’s no doubt. Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaida is resurgent.In the meantime, we’ve got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars’ worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like — in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are — the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we’ve been focused on Iraq.We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month.And that means we can’t provide health care to people who need it. We can’t invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term.There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority. So this is a national security issue.We haven’t adequately funded veterans’ care. I sit on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and we’ve got — I meet veterans all across the country who are trying to figure out, “How can I get disability payments? I’ve got post-traumatic stress disorder, and yet I can’t get treatment.”So we have put all chips in, right there, and nobody is talking about losing this war. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.That’s been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore.MCCAIN: I’ve been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we’ve faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment.And I — and I honestly don’t believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion — aggression in Georgia, to his — you know, we’ve seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is — shows to me that we — that — that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.As far as our other issues that he brought up are concerned, I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I’ll take care of them. And I’ve been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans.And I love them. And I’ll take care of them. And they know that I’ll take care of them. And that’s going to be my job.But, also, I have the ability, and the knowledge, and the background to make the right judgments, to keep this country safe and secure.Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don’t think I need any on-the-job training. I’m ready to go at it right now.OBAMA: Well, let me just make a closing point. You know, my father came from Kenya. That’s where I get my name.And in the ’60s, he wrote letter after letter to come to college here in the United States because the notion was that there was no other country on Earth where you could make it if you tried. The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world.I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same.And part of what we need to do, what the next president has to do — and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we’re going to keep America safe — is to — to send a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that — that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.And that is something that I’m going to be committed to as president of the United States.LEHRER: Few seconds. We’re almost finished.MCCAIN: Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home.I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.LEHRER: And that ends this debate tonight.On October 2nd, next Thursday, also at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time, the two vice presidential candidates will debate at Washington University in St. Louis. My PBS colleague, Gwen Ifill, will be the moderator.For now, from Oxford, Mississippi, thank you, senators, both. I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.(APPLAUSE)ENDTranscription by: CQ Transcriptions/MorningsideÂ",
    "id": "d67199a3-0c32-4761-bf58-bb391bca31e6"
  }
]