Skip to main content

tv   Presidential Debates 1988 Presidential Debate - George H.W. Bush Michael...  CSPAN  October 28, 2020 8:01pm-9:32pm EDT

8:01 pm
eastern and enjoy american history tv this weekend every weekend on c-span 3. >> you're watching american history tv every weekend on c-span three explore our nations past, c-span 3 created by americas cable television companies as a public service. and brought to you today, by your television provider. >> coming up next on american tv, second debate of 1988 between vice president george bush and massachusetts governor michael dukakis. the candidates took questions on taxes, the budget deficit, defense spending, nuclear weapons, and each candidate's choice of running mate. >> good evening, on behalf of the commission on prison issue of debates, i am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate.
8:02 pm
i am bernard shaw of cnn. cable news network. my colleagues are ann compton, of abc news. margaret warner of newsweek magazine. and andrew mitchell, of nbc news. the candidates are vice president george bush, republican nominee and governor michael dukakis. >> for the next 90 minutes we
8:03 pm
will be questioning the candidates by representatives of the two campaigns, however there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleague 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 governor jackie's. you have two minutes to respond. governor if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, which you favored and irrevocably death penalty for the killer. >> no i don't, bernard. and i think you know that i post death penalty, all of my life. i don't see any evidence, and i think there are better and more effective ways to deal with crime. we have 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, while we have the lowest murder rate in any state
8:04 pm
of america. but we have work to do in this nation. we have work to do to find a real war and not a phony war against drugs, and that is something i want to lead, something we have not had for many years even though the vice president has been the least, allegedly, and charge of that war. we have much to do to step up that war doubled the number of enforcement agent, to fight both here and abroad to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. i want to call a hemispheric summit, as soon as possible, to fight that war. but we also have to work with drug prevention into education here at home. and that is one of the things that i hope i can lead personally, as president of the united states. we've had great success and i am state we reached out to young people in their families, and we have been able to help them by having a drug education prevention in early grades. so we can fight this one we can win this war. and we can do so in a way that marshmallows our forces, that provides real support for our state and local law enforcement
8:05 pm
officers, that have not been getting that kind of support. due to the way in which will bring down violence in this nation. we'll help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drug that spring into the country. will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure decent neighborhoods. >> mister vice president, your one middle rebuttal. >> what a lot of what this campaign is about it seems to me, bernie is to 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, i say particularly those that resolve in the death of a police officer, 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 deal, and
8:06 pm
finally called for that related to these narcotics drug king pins. and so we just have an honest difference in opinion. i supporter and he does it -- doesn't. >> how do you vice president bush. and i quote to you this from article three, the 20th amendment of the constitution. quote if it, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of a president, the president he liked shall have died,, the vice president elect shall become president. meaning if you are elected and die before inauguration day, automatically automatically, dan quayle would become the president of the united states. what have you to say about this
8:07 pm
possibility? >> i have confidence in him and i've made its election. and i have never seen such a pounding and 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] >> you know someone jumped on down quayle when he said he's had roughly the same amount of experience, he had two terms in the congress, two terms in the senate, serving his second term. he founded the author job training partner, that sends american work men and women that were thrown out of work not on their own, that they're gonna have jobs in a new competitive age and we need that kind of thing. he, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense. he helped amend the imf
8:08 pm
training, so we have a good sound treaty when these people are here we're talking about a free, if we listen to them we would've never had a treaty. so i have great confidence in him it's turning around you know. the american people have failed they don't like it when they're the -- when there's an unfair pounding including about people. they want to be judging 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 will tell you something, i am proud that people that 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 can do the job. >> governor dukakis you are one minute rebuttal. >> bernard this was the first presidential decision that these nominees would come to me.
8:09 pm
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 diverse national security decision, that we had to make. when the president talks about national security three times since world war ii the vice president has said that suddenly he's become the president commander-in-chief. i picked this man, because i thought he was the best qualified person for the job. mr. bush, -- mr. bush big 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] >> ann compton for the vice president. >> thank you, bernie. mister vice president yes we read your lips no no taxes. despite that same pledge from president reagan, after income tax rates were cut, each of the
8:10 pm
last five years some federal taxes have gone up, on social security, cigarettes, like are, even long distance telephone calls. now that money straight out of people wallets. isn't the phrase no new taxes misleading the voters? >> no because that's a pledge to that. and yes, some taxes have gone up. in the main point is taxes had been cut and yet income is up to the federal government by 25%, in the last three years. and so, what i want to do is keep this expansion going. i don't want to kill -- kill it off by a tax increase. more americans at work today than any time in the history of this country. and a greater percentage of the workforce. in the way you kill expansions, is to raise taxes. and i don't want to do that. and i won't do that. and when i have proposed it's something much better. and it's gonna take discipline of the executive branch it's
8:11 pm
gonna take discipline of the congressional branch and that is what i call a flexible freeze. it allows growth, about 4% of the rate of inflation. but it does not permit that congress just add on spending. i hear this talk about a blank check, the american people are pretty smart. they know who writes out the check, 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 pledge to do that. and those pessimists who say you can't be done, i'm sorry, i just have a fundamental disagreement with them. >> governor dukakis you are one minute response. >> the vice president make that pledge and broke it three times, in the past year, already. so what is it worth?
8:12 pm
and what i'm concerned about, is that if we continue with the policies that mr. bush is talking about here this evening sunscreen with the other day as an economic swerving. [laughs] he wants to spend billions on every weapon system around. he says you're not gonna raise taxes, so we have broken that pledge, heatedly. he says he wants to get the wealthiest 1% of the people in this country of five year 40 billion dollar tax break. and we're gonna pay for it. and he's been proposing all kind of new spending, costing billions. now if we continue with these policies, a trillion and a half dollars worth of new dead has already been added on the back of the american taxpayer -- players, and it will increase even more. if we have this for another four years that i'm worried about the next generation, however gonna turn the situation around. we need a chief executive to give the lead, who will lead, bring down the deficit, will make tough choices. who will go out and do the job that we expect him to do, with
8:13 pm
the congress of the united states. >> and, governor dukakis. >> governor let me follow up with that, you've said many times that you budget budgets in a row in massachusetts. are you promising the american people, here tonight, that within a four year presidential term, you will balance to federal budget? >> no i'm not sure i can promise that. i don't think either one of us can. there's no way of anticipating what may happen. i will say this we will see it 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, and it will require us to go down and collect billions, and billions of dollars in taxes, that have been paid in this country. and that's grossly unfair, the average american that is paying his taxes, and paying them on time. and he doesn't have any
8:14 pm
alternative it's taken out of his paycheck. as mr. bush says, we're gonna put the iris in every taxpayer. that's not what we're gonna do, out for the taxpayer bill of rights. i think it's unconscionable -- on we should be talking about thinking of imposing the attacks, when there's 100 billion dollars in taxes that aren't being paid. now, i think if we work together and if you have a president that will work with congress on the american people, and you bring that deficit down, steadily, 2025, billion dollars a year, build economic growth. really good strong feature for america. invest in those things, which we must invest in. economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunities for young people. decent health care in affordable housing, and the clean and safe environment we can do all of those things. and at the same time, build a future, in which we're standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. senator benson said as you recall, and the late senator quayle that if you give any of us 200 billion dollars worth of checks a year weekend create an
8:15 pm
illusion of prosperity. but sooner or later, that credit card mentality isn't gonna 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 this country can move, grow, invest, and build the best america for its people, and for the kids and grandkids. [applause] >> mister vice president you can answer. -- >> he is required by law, he's raised taxes several times. i wish he will join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the american people for the balance budget amendment for the federal government, and for the [inaudible] line i veto from the president. because i think it would be extraordinarily helpful. and i won't be one of the things start he's had to do, cut 29 million dollars out of his state pension fund. that's the equivalent to the federal level of taking out the social security trust fund.
8:16 pm
i'm not going to do that. i want to do that. and so, i'm still a little unclear whether he's for or against a tax increase. i have been all for the taxpayers bill of rights, all along. in this idea of unleashing a whole bunch of unconventional force army, are -- irs agents, and everybody's kitchens it is against the most offense matters. and now he get -- he wants to get an army of iris soldiers to go there. i'm against that, i opposed that. >> i'm going to say this and i'm going to say it wants to every burn -- person in this auditorium. what these candidates are about is about most serious to the american voters. they should be heard and you should be quiet. if you are not quiet i'm going to implore the candidates to do something about quieting at
8:17 pm
their own partisans. but we cannot get through this program with these outbursts. margaret warner for governor dukakis. >> good evening governor, mister vice president. governor you won the first debate on inside and yet you lost it on heart. [laughs] you'll get your turn. i >> don't have the vice president agrees with that. 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 the president has to be likable to be an effective leader? >> let me go back and to say that the vice president that i didn't read the pension for massachusetts. you're dead wrong on that, george. as a matter of fact, on the first comment on history in my state to fund that pension system. and i'm very proud of that. and you just have one information. we did not. i've been in politics for 25
8:18 pm
years margaret. i've won a lot of elections i've lost a few. and i've learned from those losses. i've won the democratic elimination on a 51 70 contest i think i'm a reasonably likable guy. i'm serious though i think i'm a little more lovable these days. when i used to be back in my youth and state legislation. but i'm also a serious guy. i think the presidency of the united states is overseers office. and i think we have to address these issues, very serious ways. so i hope and expect that i would 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. but i also think, it's important to be somebody who's willing to make those tough choices. now we just heard two or three times, the vice president, he's not gonna raise taxes. i repeat, within days after he made that pledge, you broke it. you said well, maybe as a last resort, we will hear. and you supported legislation this year that involved tax
8:19 pm
increases not once but twice. so that pledged isn't -- isn't realistic. and i think the vice president knows. it the people of this country know. the fact of the matter is, the next president of the united states is going to have to go to the white house, seriously, he's gonna have to work with the congress, seriously. you can turn to congress and blame them. in fact, we don't have a balanced budget, when we have billions and billions of dollars running. and i'm gonna be a president who is serious, i hope and expect will be liked by the american people, but more than that, do the kind of job that i'm elected to do. i'll do it with as much good humor as i can, but at the same time, i will do it in a way which will achieve the goals we want for ourselves in our people. i think we know what they. our but the good strong future, in a future in which -- >> governor, your time is up. >> one minute from, the vice president. >> i don't think it's a question about whether people like you are not, to make an effective leader. i think it's whether you share the broad dreams of the american people, whether you
8:20 pm
have confidence in the people, their ability to get things done. or whether you think it should all be turned over, as many of the liberals do want to washington d.c.. you see, i think it's a question of values, not likability, or love ability. it's a question of foreign affairs and experience. knowing more leaders, knowing how to build on a superb record of this administration, in arms control. because you know exactly how to begin. you have to learn from experience, to make a unilateral cut, and defense system, it's not the way that you enhance the piece. you have to understand that it's only in the united states, that can stand for freedom of democracy around the world. and we can turn it over to the united nations, our other multilateral organizations. it is though, trying to understand the heartbeat of our country. and i know these campaigns get knocked allied. but i think i would be a better president now for having traveled to these communities, and understand the family values, and the importance of
8:21 pm
neighborhood. >> margaret warner for the vice president. >> please. >> i'd like to follow up on that, mister 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, has done your family a long time, and he knew your father, the less -- late senator bush, and he said, and i quote, if his father were alive today i'm sure his father would see it as a shocking transformation. is senator hadfield right? >> what was he referring to? he >> was referring to performance in the campaign. 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 they had written off. and what i've had to do is to define, not just my position but to define his. and i hope i've done fairly. and the reason i've had to do that is, that he ran on the left in the democratic primary.
8:22 pm
rand firmly and ran with conviction, and ran on his record. and then, at that democratic convention, they made a determination and they said they are, ideology doesn't matter, just confidence. and in the process, the negatives began. it wasn't me that was there at that convention, thank god i was up with jimmy baker, camping out. and i didn't have to hear all the personal attacks on me, out of that democratic convention. it was a wonderful not to have to listen to it. and i'm not the one that comparing the president of the united states for writing like a dead fish head down. i didn't do that. but i have to find the issues, and i am not gonna let governor dukakis, go through this election, without explaining some of these very liberal positions. he's the one that said i am a liberal traditional -- trade progressive liberal democrat. here's the one that brought up the garner primary votes, the whole question of the aclu.
8:23 pm
and i have enormous difference with the aclu on their political agenda. not on they are 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 isn't willing to do it, if he says ideology doesn't matter, i don't agree with it. >> one minute, from governor dukakis. >> well migrate, and preventing in tonight and i'm not surprised at the labels i guess the vice president called me a liberal joined three times. and he's coming from the left. 1980 president reagan called you a liberal for voting federal gun control. and this is something republicans have used for a long time to try to break the roads like john kennedy. it's not labels, it's our vision of america. and we have to fundamentally different visions ahead of us. vice president thinks we have to stay with the status quo, and he doesn't think we have to move ahead. things are okay as they are i
8:24 pm
don't, i think this is a great country because we've always wanted to get better. make our country better. make our lives better. it's always been a nation which has been ambitious for them and, we move forward. and that's the kind of american that i want to provide. i don't think these laborers -- labels mean a thing, and i don't think tonight in the course of rest of this campaign began we have a good solid disagreements on issues nothing wrong with that. stop labeling each other and let's get to the heart of the matter which is a feature of this country. >> andrea mitchell for the vice president. >> mister 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
8:25 pm
moment. handing on -- officials tell us there is not enough money in the budget to handle military readiness, preparedness, as well as new weapon systems that have been proposed, as well as those already in the pipeline. you are asked at the first debate what new weapon systems you would cut. you mentioned three that had already been canceled. can you, tonight, share with us three new weapon systems that you would cut? >> if i knew of three new weapon systems that i thought were purely waist, 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 hammock, heavy truck that cost, what is it 850 million dollars? in the pentagon, they get and requested 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 understand of competitive strategies. it is new, and it is very very different, then what's
8:26 pm
happened. but it's not quite ready to be totally implemented. and it's very important. i think we can say, through the packer commission report, and i'm very proud that david pecker originated that report, he's 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 this serious stages of negotiation with the soviet union now, on the strategic arms control talks. and we are protecting a cup of options in terms of modernizing our strategic forces. my secretary of defense is gonna have to make a very difficult decision in which system to go forward with. but we are protecting, moving forward the negotiations, and you see i think it would be dumb negotiating policy with the soviets to cut out whatever the other of the two options right now. the soviets are modernizing. they continue to modernize and we can't simply say we've got
8:27 pm
enough nuclear weapons, let's freeze. we can't do that. we have to have modernization. especially if we achieved a 50% reduction in strategic weapons that our president is taking the leadership to obtain. and so, that's the way i would reply to it. and i believe we can. we have the strongest and best offense possible if we modernize, if we go forward with compare -- competitive strategies, and if we do follow through with the packer commission report. >> governor dukakis, one minute. >> well we just had another example of why vice president's mathematics just doesn't add up. i think you know, because you've covered these issues. there is no way that we can build all of the weapon system the vice president says he wants to build within the existing defense budget. everybody knows that, including the people from the pentagon. now, my defense secretary is gonna have a lot to do with these decisions but it's gonna be the president that's gonna hub ultimately to decide before that budget goes to the congress what weapon systems
8:28 pm
are gonna go in which are gonna stay. we are not gonna spend the billions and trillions that mr. bush wants to spend on -- . we're not gonna spend billions on, it's a weapon system we can't afford and it won't help our defense posture at all. we're not gonna spend hundreds of billions on the space plane from washington to tokyo. those are decisions the chief executive has to make. you certainly have a strong incredible defense, we're gonna go forward with the d five and missiles, 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. >> andrea has a question for you. >> governor continuing on that subject that you say you have to do something about conventional forces, you have supported submarine launched missile the defy you just referred to. yet, from forward, to carter, to reagan, there's been a bipartisan consensus in favor of modernizing the land based
8:29 pm
missiles. now you have rolled out these, more recently some of your aides have hinted at some flexibility that you might show about other new form of missile. can you tell us, tonight why have rejected the collective wisdom of people as diverse as henry kissinger, all court, people in both parties, and what type of land based missile would you consider? >> well, andrea, today we have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads. on land, air, and see. that's an incredibly powerful nuclear deterrent. i don't rule out modernization, there are discussions going on right now in congress, and in the pentagon, about a less expensive modernized land base leg of the trial. but there are limits to what you can span, to these nations ability to finance defense systems and weapons. one thing this presidency ignores, or want to dress is to fact that you can't divorce our military security for economic
8:30 pm
security. how can we build a strong american military that's to chattering on that amounts of deaths. and we if we go forward with the president sees the vice president is suggesting tonight and has, but deaths will grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger. so military security and economic security go hand in hand. and we will have a strong, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent. we're gonna have conventional forces and that are well maintained, well equipped, well trained, well supported. we have serious problems, and they will get worse, unless we have a president was going to make some of these decisions. and we also have important domestic priorities. and education, and housing, and health care. economic development, and job training. the environment. all of these things are gonna have to be addressed. that's why i say, again, to all of you out there, we have to deal with your household budgets, we know how difficult that is. and the next president has to do the same. i want the men and women of our
8:31 pm
armed forces to have the support they need to defend us, the support they need when they risk our lives, to keep us free, to keep this country free. but we cannot continue to live in a credit current, we cannot continue to tell the american people were gonna build all of these systems while at the same time investing an important things, here at home. and be serious about building a strong and good america. that's a kind of america i want to build. >> one minute, for the vice president. >> can we start the clock over? i held off for the applause, can we? [laughs] >> you can proceed sir. >> i think that foremost responsibility of the president is to stand with a national security of this country. the governor talked about limits, what we can do, poses to modernization system. he talks now about maybe will develop some new kind of missile it takes eight years, ten years, to do that.
8:32 pm
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 that frees people were not heard. they were wrong. and the result is, redeploy, in the soviets kept employing, and then we negotiated from strength, and now we have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age to ban weapons. we just don't make unilateral cuts if the soviets are going to behave themselves. i'm proud to have been part of admission that sudden the. . >> and compton -- >> governor today they may call them role models, they used to be called heroes.
8:33 pm
a generation that could inspire a whole -- microcosm to your heroes were. a question instead are who the heroes who are in american life today. who are the ones that you would point out to young americans as figures that inspires the country. ? >> when i think of heroes i think back, presently, there are many people that i admire in this country today some are in public life some in congress, some fellow governors are real heroes to me. i think those young athletes that represent us in the olympics are tremendously impressive. we are proud of them. they felt strongly about us and they did well bias. you think of doctors and scientists. jonah for example who discovered a vaccine. one of the most tread diseases we've ever had.
8:34 pm
he's a hero. the classroom teachers. classroom teachers that i've met. youngsters have today real heroes. they inspire them. they teach them. but more than that they are role models. members of the clergy of the same. drug councils on the street providing help to youngsters. for people to ask for help and want help. doing the hard and hook work which it takes to provide the kind of leadership, that kind of leadership and support. people in lawton force meant taking lives every day. to be one of those doors and take it down and try to -- the communities into orchids. so there are many, many heroes and the current day. these are people that give themselves every day and every month and in many cases there people in the community who are will models. --
8:35 pm
recognizes support. gives them the kind of recognition the need and deserve so more and more young people themselves can become the young people of tomorrow. can go into public service, can go into, council going to law enforcement, -- for generations to come. >> one minute for president george bush. >> i think a teacher here, teaching calculus to young kids. 80% of them going to college. i think a young man and his country who was released from a cuban in jail, said in a brilliant book against all hope about what's actually evening in cuba. the people who are going into space again. -- i agree with the governor on athletics in their something corny about having sports heroes. young people who are clean and honorable out there setting the
8:36 pm
pace. i think of doctor fauci. never heard of him. he's a very fine research at that and that's digit of health working on the research of. aids i think we should also give credit to the president of the united states. he's the one who's gotten us at the arms control agreement and the senate agreement. he's leading the office at a popularity of all-time. he's our hero. >> and has a question for you mister vice president. >> let's take the pace a little bit mister vice president. in this campaign some hard and very bitter things have been spoken by each side about each side. if you would consider for a moment governor dukakis and his years of public service. is there anything else you can say about him? anything you find admirable?
8:37 pm
>> you're staying in my clothes. have something to say about it. >> let me tell you something about that. >> bob and i were sitting out there before the democratic convention and we saw the governor and his son on television the night before. and his family. and his mother who was there. i was saying to barbara we always kept family as a bit of an oasis for us. you all know me, we held it back a little. we use that as a role model. the way he took understandable pride in his heritage. what his family means to him. we've got a strong family and we watched that and we said hey we need to release the push kids. you saw ten grandchildren they're jumping all over the grand father in the convention. you see our five kids all over the country and their spouses. so i would see that the concept of the caucus family has my great respect. i don't know if that is kind or
8:38 pm
not. it's just objective statement. i think that anybody who gets into the political arena has to face you guys has to deserve a noble prize. it's got a little nasty out. there it's not some much fun sometimes. i would sit down quell a bit in politics a long time and i don't hear that kind of piling. on that kind of ugly rumor that was never true. printed. come on. some of it is unfair that he's on the arena. teddy roosevelt was talking about the arena. you know neither feel greatly or succeed. doesn't matter. succeed. i salute those things. i salute those with political power. -- had an expression about. this here all these intellectual complaining about the negative coverage, -- says he didn't run for sheriff. either michael has run for caucus and so has george bush. >> governor. a one minute response.
8:39 pm
>> didn't hear the word liberal or left one time. >> that is true. >> doesn't that prove the point george, values but family, education, community. decent homes for young people and family on long island i visited on monday were blue and buddies mueller but -- seven children making good on things they couldn't live in the community and which they grew up in. those are basic american values. i believe in them. i think you believe in them. they are not left the right. they are decent american values. i guess one thing that concerns me about this as the attempt to label things that which all of us will. even we may have different approaches. you may think that you deal
8:40 pm
with them in different ways but they're basically american. i believe in, them george bush believes of, them the vast majority of americans within them and i would hope the tone we gestured could be the town that we have for the rest of the american campaign. i think that a american people would appreciate. it >> regret one or vice president. >> -- abortion remains a very troubling issue i would like to explore that a minute frail. you have said that regard abortion as murder but she would make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. my question is why should a woman who discovers through -- that her baby will be born with the sex disease for instance, that the baby will live for only two years in pain be forced to carry the fetus to. term get a woman who becomes pregnant by incest --
8:41 pm
>> let me answer your question and i hope it doesn't get too personal or modeling. -- i was running record in west texas and i got a call from her to come home. went to the doctor. the doctors had beautiful child. your child has a few weeks to live. and so what we do about it? she has a cute leukemia. a few weeks to live. we take the child to new york, thanks to the miraculous sacrifice of doctors and nurses the child state lived for six months and then died. if that child were here today, and i was told the same thing. our granddaughter for example. that child could stay alive or ten or 15 years or maybe the rest of their life. and so i don't think if you make an exception based on medical knowledge of the time. i think human life is very,
8:42 pm
very precious. and look this hasn't been a easy decision for me to. make i know others disagree with it. when i was in that little church across the river from washington, and saw our grandchild christened in our face, i was very pleased indeed that the mother had not reported that child and put the child up for adoption. so just feel that this is where i'm coming from. it is powerful. i don't necessarily mother issue or others on the issue but that's how i george bush feel about. it >> one minute. >> margaret, -- and i had almost a same experience that the pushes. had we had a baby any lift to minutes after he was born. but isn't the real question if the answer is how many
8:43 pm
exceptions you have to make because -- who makes the decision? who makes this very difficult, decision. i think it has to be the woman. the exercise of her own conscious religious beliefs that makes that decision. who are we to say underserved done circumstances it's not all right and on other circumstances it isn't. that's a question that only a woman can make after consulting conscience and consulting her religious principle. i would hope that we would give to women in this country a right to make the decision and make it in the conscious of their religious beliefs. >> i would like to return at the top of a defense budget in this minute. you've said in the campaign that he would maintain a stable defense budget. yet you are on the board.
8:44 pm
>> can i say that's the decision of the congress and the president concurrent. >> if you are on the board of a group called jobs in peace and boston that advocates for 24% cut in the budget and a transfer of that budget and to the domestic economy. my question is do you share that goal? a long-range goal. if you are why do you are you wherever why do allow this group to use its letterhead on its funding advisory. >> i don't share that goal. an example of how oftentimes we might be associate with organizations, all of his particular positions we don't support, even though we support in general the hope that overtime particularly those reductions in strategic weapons -- if we can negotiate with the soviet union and bring down the number of conventional weapons -- at some point it might be possible to reduce the fence,
8:45 pm
and use those four important things here at home like jobs and job training, college opportunity, have and housing. >> and the environment, and i think that all of us care about. why do you think this panics president, even within a relatively stable government, and that's what we're gonna have for the foreseeable future we will have to make those tough choices i was talking about. and mr. bush does not seem to want to make them. 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 that. but i also see a tremendous opportunity now to negotiate with the soviet union, to build on the progress we made, with the inf treaty, which i strongly support. and most democrats do. to get those reductions of strategic weapons to get a ministry, and to make progress on the reduction of can bench in the forces. we can do that if we do it in a way that gets deeper cuts on soviet size, which is where they have to come from. then i think we have an opportunity or the long run, to begin to move some of our
8:46 pm
resources from the military, two important domestic priorities that can provide college opportunities for those young women. from texas, just the other day, from along the texas just to teachers, a mother and father, who had a child as a freshman in college, electrical engineer major, 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 gonna happen overnight, it certainly won't have to happen on a step to step progress. as we move in our negotiations. but it certainly the all-time goal of all americans. >> one minute for the vice president. the >> defense >> budget today takes far less percentage of the growth national product that he did in president kennedy's time, for example. we 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
8:47 pm
country can pick up this, 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 gonna have to make choices, i said i would have the secretary of defense sit down, but for all the president is negotiating with the soviet union, i simply do not want to make these unilateral cuts. and i think those that advocate the freeze, missed the point that there was a better way, and that better way has result -- resulted in a principle. asymmetrical cuts soviets take out more than we do, and the principle of intrusive verification. i those two principles can now be applied to conventional forces, the strategic forces provided we leave our hand before we sit down at the table. >> you are now facing that dreaded last resort. increase taxes. which talks to you decide is the least honors? >> may i disagree with the
8:48 pm
premise of your question? >> for the sake of argument, no. [laughs] >> as a matter of reality, i would 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 and are not being paid in, not taxes owed by average americans would not have an alternative. we 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 are not collecting 100 billion dollars or more in taxes own to this country. and that is just absolutely unfair to the vast majority of americans, who pay their taxes and pay them on time. the task force which included to internal revenue commission, so one republican former running commissions, and one democrat. there was bipartisan commission, studied by two respected economists, which indicated that we could collect some 40
8:49 pm
45 billion dollars of those taxes. the point is, you've got to have a president who is prepared to do this. and it begins right away, and preferably a president who was governor estate who had very successful experience doing this. in my own state, we did it. in other states, we've done. and republican governments as well as democratic governments. we've had great success, in ramming enforcement. now, the vice president, i will probably tell you that is gonna take an army of irs collectors again. well, his campaign manager, we used to be the secretary of treasury, with taking great credit about a year ago. and asked and received from the congress, substantial additional funds to hire intern -- internal revenue agents to go and collect these funds. i am happy to join jim baker saying that we agree on this. but the fact of the matter is, this is something that we must begin, with a new administration. but the organ task force, the bipartisan tax force, estimates
8:50 pm
we can collect about 105 billion over five years. and another study even more than that. that's when you began. >> one minute response, for your vice president. >> well, you didn't predicate that lack of support for when i called the freeze, for some good very good economist, he did support that concept. i think i agree with the governor of massachusetts, i am optimistic, they jumped on yesterday. they said i was optimistic about the united states, i am optimistic. and i believe we can this longest expansion going. i was not there when the stock market dropped, bringing my hands and said this is the end of the world. as some political leaders where. 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 in the congress
8:51 pm
spends it. continue to spend that. the american working men and women are not taxed too little, the federal government continues to spend too much. >> mister vice president andrea has a question for you. >> mister vice president you have ruled out any change and social security benefits even for the wealthy. now can you stand here tonight and look at the whole generation of 18 to 34-year-olds in the eye, the very people who are going to have financing the retirement, and tell them that they should be financing the retirement of people like yourself, like governor dukakis, and for that matter, people such as ourselves, here on this panel? >> more so, you any. >> we could argue that. >> we have to go back to what socialist security was. when it was created. it wasn't created as a welfare program. it wasn't created -- it was created as a whole
8:52 pm
retirement health supplemental retirement program. it wasn't created as a welfare program. so here's what's happening. we came in to 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 in the socialist security trust fund was put back in the sound solvent condition. so i don't want to fool around with it. there's a good political reason because it's just about this time of year, that the democrats start saying the republicans are gonna take away or social security. it always works that way. i am 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 gonna be operating its surpluses, and i don't want their liberal democratic congress to spin out of that social security trust fund or go and take the money out for
8:53 pm
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 support it, slipping the cold for a 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 a sale, 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 gonna 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 in this country. >> governor you have one minute sir. >> i don't know which george bush and listening to. george bush of years ago said that social security was basically a welfare system. and in 1985 he flew back from
8:54 pm
the west coast took out that colin. i voted against that with the national governors association won a majority, we won about two thirds that was necessary, before they pass that resolution. but everybody knows what they were doing, and i proposed it. the reason we raised concerns not just an election, years but every year, is because republicans, once they are elected, will go in and start getting. you did it in 1985, the administration trying to do it repeatedly, repeatedly an 80, one 82, and i'm sure you will try to do it again, because there is no way that you can finance what you want to spend, there's no way you can pay for that five-year, 40 billion dollar tax cut for the rich. and still, by all of those weapons that you want to buy, unless you rate the social security trust fund. >> and vice president. >> mister vice president there are three justices in the supreme court who are in their eighties and it's very likely the next president will get a
8:55 pm
chance to put a lasting mark on the supreme court. for the record, what your nominees to the supreme court half 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? >> one, i don't have a list yet. i feel pretty confident tonight, but not that confident. secondly, secondly, i don't have any litmus test. but what i would do, is a people to the federal bench that will not legislate from the bench. who will interpret the constitution. i do not want to see as go to, again and, i'm using this word advisedly, to 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 the judges like
8:56 pm
that. there is no litmus test on any issue. but i will go after, and fine men and women to interpret. and i don't have a list, but i think the appointments to the president make to the bench have been outstanding, outstanding appointments. >> including [inaudible]? >> yeah. >> governor, you have a one minute response. >> as the vice president of the united states seeks robert, but then no standing appointment, that is a very good reason for voting for mike got his. in november. and i think mr. bush supported the this nomination. now mr. bush has never appointed a judge. i've appointed over 130, so i have a record. a number part of it. i don't ask people whether they are republican or democrat, i've appointed prosecutors, defenders. i don't appoint people i think are liberal or people i think
8:57 pm
are conservative. i appoint people of their independence, intelligence, people who married the bench. and those are the standards that i would use at nominating people in the supreme court of the united states. these appointments are for life. these appointments are for life, and win the vice president talks of liberals, on the bench, i wonder how he's talking about. is he talking about a former governor, in the state of california who is a former prosecutor? and a republican, because i think chief justice warren, was an outstanding chief justice. >> this ann compton has a question for you, governor dukakis. >> governor, millions of americans are entitled to some of the protections and benefits of the federal government provides including social security, pensions, medicare for the elderly, medicaid for the boy. but in fact, there are so many millions of americans who are eligible, that government just can't continue to pay for all of those programs, as they are currently constituted.
8:58 pm
a new 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, which you can be yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements ought to be redrawn? >> why do people who want to balance budgets, or bring the deficit, always go to those programs, which tend to benefit people of very modest means? you know, 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. medicare is not getting less expensive, medical care for the elderly is getting more expensive. with greater deductibles, with your benefits, the kinds of things. you've had under this administration, is the caught, chopped, reduced it pension benefits. one gets under medicare, yes
8:59 pm
now we now have catastrophic health insurance, but it's gonna cost. and that's gonna be an additional burden on elderly citizens. they had bipartisan support, it should've 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 gonna begin, and i'm not gonna go to entitlements. as it means for cutting that deficit. when we are spending billions on something like starting wars. when we are spending billions another weapon systems which apparently, the vice president wants to keep as back pocket, or someplace. if we continue to spend billions on them, and we will -- it will force us to good security, and cut medicare, 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, take it off public assistance. i talked that about the first debate, about the possibility
9:00 pm
of helping millions, and millions of welfare families, to get off welfare. and i'm proud to say that we finally have a welfare reform bill. -- hundreds of thousands of welfare mothers in the country and across the states and the country. today working and earning are examples of what can happen when you provide training to those welfare mothers and the when we can go to a training program. that's the way that you put a deficit down. -- >> one minute for the vice president. >> i think i've addressed it but let me simply say for the record, i didn't vote to cut cools. i voted same way he did three months before in a national governors conference, and he said at that time, quote, and this is a paraphrase, that's easy. i don't believe we need to do what you suggested here and i've said that we want to keep the social security entitlement. keep that social security trust
9:01 pm
fund sound. i think there are some ways to solve some of the -- i've made some sound proposed but then again we've got a big difference on childcare for instance. i want the family to have a choice. i don't want to see the federal government licensing grandmothers. i don't want the federal government say to communities what you can't do this anymore. what were they telling had to do it all. amal flexibility. do not these people laugh about the thousand points in life. you've got to go out and see around this country, what is happening in the volunteer sector. american helping american and i want to keep it alive, in childcare and in other entitlements. >> warner for governor of caucus. >> governor i'm going to pass on the question i originally asked you to follow up on a question and you're asked to. social security. it is true that you said that originally you sought an
9:02 pm
exemption for social security and that -- vote. when he lost that vote you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal and what's more, you had great criticism of your federal -- fellow governors who wouldn't go along as federal powers. you said it takes guts. it takes will. >> that's absolutely not true. it's a nothing to do with the debate on social security it has to do with the debates we had a previous day. >> my question is aren't you demagogued-ing the social security? >> no i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. we're not a parliamentary bias -- we vote on voting resolutions and if you don't get three to two then your voting doesn't count. against sing of caused. we did so emphatically and i never made a mistake never web. the point is as we look at this
9:03 pm
nation's future, and we have two very different visions for this nation. i want to move ahead. the vice president textbook thousand points. i'm not interested in two to 40 million points of light. i'm interested in terms of four 80 million citizens who share the american dream. all of them in every part of this country. as we look at the decisions of the next president of the united states is going to have to make, i just don't believe the place that you go first is the. those programs. those so-called entitlements that provide basic support of income, and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, disable, people who can't make their way on their own and in many cases have given a great deal to this country. vice president did call social security a few years ago. this likely a largely welfare program. it isn't. it's a contract between generations. it's something that we pay into
9:04 pm
now so that we will have secure tournament and our parents and grandparents office security torment. it's a secret -- sacred contract and i believe in. it so that's where we can go. there's lots of cuts. dishonest contractors have been lining their pockets at the expense of the american taxpayer. we certainly ought to be able to get foreign families spending -- on foreign subsidies and i'm sure we can do that. that is where we ought to go and also the programs that we've got to do first. >> one minute for the vice president. let me take him up on this question of farm subsidies. we have a fundamental different approach on agriculture. you favors the supply maintenance or production controls. he said. that he spit out on the state saying. that midwestern states. i don't. i think the foreign bill that he criticizes was good legislation. upstanding legislation. i believe the answers of the
9:05 pm
agricultural economy is not to get the government further involved, but to do what i was suggesting. first don't go back to the democratic rain embargo. the liberal democratic bright embargo that took the markets right out from under us and need mr. gorbachev say when he was here how do i know you're reliable supplier? we never should go back to that we ought to expand our markets abroad. we ought to have rule -- zones we ought to move softly on my ideas of ethanol which would use more corn and therefore create a bigger market for our agricultural products. let's not go back and keep a seal in a firm bill that passed with overwhelming democrat and republican support. the foreign payments are going to because the agricultural economy is coming back. >> margaret warner has a question for you mister president. >> mister vice president i would like to cover a subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. you've just said in this campaign i meet
9:06 pm
environmentalist. you described yourself as having a zero tolerance update looters. your record seems to suggest otherwise. when you are head of the presidents task force on regulatory relief, you did urge epa to relax regulations involving the elimination of lead from the gasoline, i believe you are suspensions of rules requiring industries to treat toxic waste in sores. and your group also encouraged osha to weaken the regulations -- dangers chemicals worksite. finally you did support the presidents claim for a clean water act. my question is how do you square your campaign rhetoric with this record? >> 90% reductions in lead since i cheered that regulatory task force. many. percent remember that expression. get the lead out. it's almost out.
9:07 pm
clean water. i'm for clean water. but i'm not for is measuring it the way the democratic congress does. we set 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 rent against the deficit. i'm for clean water. i've been a outdoorsman and sportsman for all my life. i've been to the national parks. i've led the berlin wall a bill, formally bill johnston. i headed the task force. in congress back in the late sixties on these kinds of things on the republican side. i lived for that. so i refuse to measure once commitment as to the great double the spending. that's the same old argument that's gotten us into the trouble on the deficit side. so i will just keep saying i am one. i'm not going to go down there and dump the sled from
9:08 pm
massachusetts of the beaches off of new jersey. not gonna do that. that ball was excess fluid. can you add? this guy. this is too much damage. i'm not going to do that, i believe in the. parks i believe in the presidents commission the outdoors and i will do a good job because i'm committed. >> governor, you've got one minute. >> i'm not sure that i can get it fun in one minute. -- secondly if you're so imposed to the green embargo, why did you ask the godfather of green embargo to be one of your top foreign policy advisers. i'm against it, it was a mistake. i'm also against the pipeline embargo with u.s. attempted to oppose. that was a mistake that cost dozens of jobs for american workers in the midwest in all
9:09 pm
over the next six 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 a member of the environmental wrecking group of washington in the early eighties, and at the job of the epa, where the one that we have been seeing and listening to for the past two or three months. let me see best. he spent millions and millions of dollars on advertising across the harboring. george harbor was put in for many, years and the first governor to clean it up no thanks to. you know thanks to. you we've been cleaning up for four years. we passed landmark legislation -- you did everything you could to it get -- wow [inaudible] >> mister vice president, jimmy carter has called this the worst campaign
9:10 pm
ever. richard nixon has called this superficial, and inane, whoever started down this road first of negative campaigning, the american people coming to us completely fed up. now do you have any solutions to suggest? is the time left to fix it? as the 26 days left. for example would you agree to another debate before it's all over, so the american people would have another chance, before election day to compare you to. >> i will not agree to another debate. the american people are up to here with the. bates did 30 of them. we had seven of them. now we have three of them. i will carry this election debate, all across this country in the last whatever remains of the three half weeks or whatever we have. the answer is no. i will not have any more
9:11 pm
debates. we don't need a more debates. i spelled out my position. in terms of negative campaigning i don't want to some like canada schoolyard he started, but take a look at the dnc, -- heading out there, ridicule factor the lady from texas who was on that. i mean come on. this was just outrageous. i will try harder. if you could accept a little criticism, i went all across central illinois and talk about agricultural issues at seven stops. we had some fun. krystal gayle caught up with, us we some at the little towns. we talked about agricultural, and not one thing on your network about agricultural and not one did i read a newspaper. why? because you suggested a poll that might be coming.
9:12 pm
out because someone had something nasty about somebody else. so i don't know what the answer is. somebody hit me and said very cold water city up to issues more. how can be re-goldwater thing in arizona know from talking about the issues are not when we put a position papers to position paper, he put a position paper after position paper, and we see this much about it, because everyone else is fascinated with pools and whose her down today, and who's gonna be up or down tomorrow. so i think that we can all share, with respect, and the fact that maybe the message isn't getting. it but it's not getting up because there's to few, debates there will be no more debates. >> governor dukakis you have one minute to respond. >> we can understand the vice presidential debate why mr. bush would want to know more debates. that's my five seconds.
9:13 pm
andrew i think we both have a responsibility to try to address the issues. as we have fundamental differences. i think a great many of them have come up today. i think if we get rid of the labels, and i'm not keeping count, but i think mr. bush has use the label liberal at least 11 times. every time you use that label i qualify for one of the tax breaks that evening very for the rich. isn't that the point? americans have agreement in the -- want the mission to move forward. i'm concerned about the fact that 15% of our manufacturing and 2% of our banking in nearly half of our banking in new york state is controlled by foreign governments. -- those are the issues on which we ought to be debating. put away the flag factories and blooms and those kinds of things and get on with a real
9:14 pm
discussion about these things. >> andrea mitchell has a question for you. >> we are talking about issues so let's return to something you said earlier about modernization of land based missiles. you said he didn't rule it out, but there are limits to what we could spend. then you went on to talk about a much more expensive aspect of our defense strategy namely armed forces. do you somehow see defense forces as a substitute for our strategic forces? and did not talk about the land based missiles and not committing to modernizing do you somehow believe that we can have survive a bull nuclear force based on the air and sea legs of our triad? >> 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've got to make sure that we've got a effective incredible strong nuclear deterrent but we also need will equipped and well trained who was forces.
9:15 pm
every defense expert i know including people in the pentagon itself will tell you that given the level of defense spending, the level of defense appropriations which the congress has now approved, the president designed, there is no way that you can do all of these things at once. that's why, tough choices will be required. tough choices i am prepared to make, mr. bush is not prepared to make. but, i think we can go far beyond this, as well, because we have opportunities. step by step, to bring down the level of strategic weapons, get a test ban treaty. negotiate those conventional force reductions, i would challenge -- challenge gorbachev to chant -- join us in eliminating regional conflict in the middle east. central america. let's get him working on this, and see if we can get them to join israel in our other our nations, if all possible arab leaders, and finally bringing peace to this region. and i think that's one reason why we need fresh a litter ship
9:16 pm
in the white house to bring peace in the middle east. let's go to work and and if we ask all of america. failed policy which is, has increased cuban and soviet influence. centerline america want to work with us i've met them i know them i speak the language. we want to work with them, building a relationship and they with us. but not one of us keep democratic leaders support our policies in central america. and we've got to work with, them if we're gonna create an environment for human rights and a market for people in this hemisphere. and go to work on our single most important problem, and that is the avalanche drugs that is pouring 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. i hope very much to be president. >> mister vice president, you have one minute. >> in terms of regional tensions we have now gotten the
9:17 pm
attention of the soviet union. and the reason we've gone 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 a discredited freeze, my opponent had trouble criticizing us on our policy, and it now looks because it's a steady negotiation that we may have an agreement. that will remove cubans for mongolia. we see the russians coming out of afghanistan. that would've stopped if we hadn't been willing to even start this soviets coming out, if we hadn't even been willing to support to freedom fighters there. and the policy on central america has failed because the congress have 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 had done nothing other than solidify
9:18 pm
their marxist domination over that country. >> ann compton for governor into caucus. >> there is a new color retailer to be polish and regular basis, and another -- was close for safety concerns. some of the pentagon feared that too much priority has been played on the weapons program, not enough on the current programs, hint ordering the result in shortage would be amounting to nothing less than you let out -- unilateral nuclear disarmament. is that a priority that you feel has been ignored by this administration, or the pentagon officials are making too much of it? >> it's a great concern of mine. and i think of all americans. and perhaps, the vice president can tell us what has been going on. this is another example of misplaced priorities the administration, which once is on weapons system, that we don't need and cannot afford, now conferences with a very serious problem. the plans which were supposed to be producing plutonium and providing the necessary material for existing weapons.
9:19 pm
yes, if we don't do something about it, we may find ourselves unilaterally if i may use that term dismantling some of these met -- weapons. what's been going on? who's been in charge? what's been going on? why have there been these safety violations? why are these plants closing down? i don't let the lightest cost is, but it's going to be in the range of 20 5:50, 75, 100 billion dollars? now somebody has to pay the responsibility for this, maybe the vice president has an answer. but i am somebody who believes, very strongly in taking care of the fundamentals first. before we start new stuff. and that is something which will be a priority of jim lehrer ours in the new administration because without, it we cannot have the effective or strong, credible nuclear deterrent we must have. >> mister vice president you have one minute. >> that is a 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.
9:20 pm
yes the savannah river plan needs to be made more safe. will he join me, in suggesting that we may need another plan? maybe an idaho, to take care of the requirements nuclear material requirements, for our defense apartment. i hope he will. it 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 plane safe nuclear power. i believe that the more depended we become on foreign oil celeste our national security is enhanced. and therefore i've made some proposals to strengthen the domestic oil energy -- industry by more incentive going into look forward and find and produce oil. made in some incentives in terms of secondary interest to reproduction, that we're gonna have to use more gas, more coal, and more safe nuclear power for our energy base. so i am one who believes that we can and must do what he's talking about.
9:21 pm
>> ann compton has a question for you. >> mr. vice president as many as 100 officials on this administration have left the government under it and an ethical cloud, some have been indicted and convicted on cases of influence once they are 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 in the lobby that very departments you once managed? >> yeah no apply to congress, too. i'll do both. because i think, you see i am the one who, i dictated by being a little fashion of this, but i do believe in public service, i believe in public service and its 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 is in jail, because he betrayed the public trust. ahead of education, and yet this man, the governor, appointed the president to a rocking fish. he said that it fish routes from the head down, as he was
9:22 pm
going after hit and miss. look, we need the highest possible ethical standards, i will have an ethical office in the white house, that would 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 to 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 their new congressman to a code of ethics, through major emphasis in full disclosure, that i've got a good record. and there are more if you want to talk about percentage of members, or more members of congress who have been under investigation, percentage wise,
9:23 pm
then people in the executive branch. and so it isn't -- state governments have had a tough time. some of his college presidents aren't exactly holier now. so, let's not be throwing stones about it. let's say, this isn't democrat, and it isn't a liberal or conservative. let's go to work together and do something about it. >> governor you have one minute to respond. >> i would agree that integrity is not republican, or democrat issue. it's a un-american issue. but here again, i don't know which george bush i'm listening to. wasn't this sinister bush that supported mr. mace? that call james white an excellent secretary of the interior? provided support for some of these people that brought along the supreme court of the united states? we've had dozens, and dozens of officials in this administration who have left under a cloud, who has left
9:24 pm
with a prosecution in their arms, indicted or convicted. this is in 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 for the kinds of standards that we will set, it's because a tells the american people in advance, just what kind of people were looking for. i think mr. bush picked dan quayle, i think that's is a great deal of the american people about the standards that we said in the quality of people he will pick to serve in our conservatives. >> each of the candidates, i have to inform you, that it comes to the end of our questions. that's a pretty. 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
9:25 pm
differs closing, statements are. >> 20 years ago, as a young man just graduated from law school, i came to this city, all 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 someday i would win that nomination and when my parties nomination. 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 to people to lead us into the future president feel united states. our opponents -- opponents say things are. cape town rock about. that there is no need to worry. they say we should be satisfied. but i don't think we can be satisfied when we are spending 150 billion dollars a year in inches alone, at the national debt. much of it going to foreign banks. or when 25% of our high school students are dropping out of school. or where we have two and a half
9:26 pm
million of our fellow citizens, third of them veterans, who are homeless or living in the streets, or when mr. bush prescription for 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. bentsen and i are optimist, and so are the american people. and we ask you 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, the hospitality you've given us in your homes, and communities, all across this country. we love you, and we are grateful to you for everything, but you've given to us. and we hope, that we will be serving in the white house, in january of 1981. thank you, god bless you. [applause]
9:27 pm
>> vice president bush, your closing, statements are. >> sometimes it does seem that i 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 need it when i say i want a kinder and gentler nation. and by that i want to have child care for the families, and the parents to 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
9:28 pm
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 a 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 you're grandfather working for 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.
9:29 pm
and he was right then, and we still are. the last best hope of man on earth. and i ask for your support, autumn eight, and i will be a good president, working together, we can do wonderful things for the united states, and for the free world. thank you, very much. [applause]
9:30 pm
>> weeknights this month in american history tv, you are looking at past presidential
9:31 pm
debates. thursday night it's the 2000 debates between vice president al gore, and texas governor george bush. topics included tax policy, education reform, and abortion. we will also show the candidates acceptance speech of their parties conventions. it starts at 8 pm eastern. enjoy american history tv, this week and every other weekend, on c-span 3.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on