From: kellym@ether.UUCP (Kelly M McArthur)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Transcript of the Second Presidential Debate
Keywords: Bush, Clinton, Perot once again
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:11:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ether.979
Reply-To: kellym@ether.UUCP (Kelly M McArthur)
Distribution: usa
Organization: HALF, Portland, OR



The Second  Presidental Debate				10/15/92

====================================================================

NOTE: This transcript was taken from the Closed-Caption 
data stream with the aid of a "TextGrabber" transciption device 
(manufactured by Preferred Technologies, Dallas, Tx (214) 702-9191).  
Unfortunately, as is common with programs that are broadcast live, 
there are a few typos that occur when the operator gets behind and such.  
I apologize for the 30 column mode, but that's how they come out.
Reformatting this is left as an excersize to the reader.
Also remember that this is taken ver batim, so tortured prose and 
bizarre syntax are the norm (especially for Mr. Perot.)  

Consider this entire document to be [sic].  

====================================================================

>> Good evening and welcome to 
this second of three  
presidential debates between  
the major candidates for  
President of the United  
States. 
The candidates are the  
republican nominee president  
George Bush, the independent  
Ross Perot and governor Bill  
Clinton, the democratic  
nominee. 
My name is Carol Simpson and I 
will be the moderator for  
tonight's 90 minute debate  
which is coming to us 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 goings. 
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. 
>> Let's go. 
>> And I think the first  
question is over here. 
>> 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  
United States? 
>> 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 and  
become a foreign lobbyist,  
make $30,000 a month, then  
take a leave and work on  
presidential campaigns, make 
sure you have good contacts  
and go back out. 
If you want to get down to  
brass tax, get all the trade 
negotiations over the years  
and say, fellows, 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 two-way street,  
just couldn't do it. 
We have got to stop sending  
jobs overseas. 
To those of you in the  
audience who are business  
people, pretty simple -- if  
you're paying $12, $13, $14  
for factory workers and you  
can move your factory the  
south of the border, pay  
$1.00 An hour, you have a  
mature work force, pay $1  
for your labor, have no  
health care, that's the most 
expensive single element in  
making a car, have no  
environmental controls, no  
pollution controls, and no  
retirement, and you don't  
care about anything but  
making money, there will be  
a job giant sucking sound  
going south. 
So, if the people send me to 
Washington, the first thing  
I'll do is study that 2,000  
page agreement and make sure 
it is a two-way street. 
One last point here, I  
decided I was dumb and  
didn't understand it, so I  
called the who's who of the  
people who have been around  
it, I said why don't  
everybody go south. 
They said it would be  
disruptive. 
I got them up to 12 to 15  
years and said, how does it  
stop being disruptive? 
That is when their jobs come 
up from $1 to $6 and ours go  
down to $6, then it is level 
again, but in the meantime,  
you've wrecked the country  
with these kinds of deals. 
We've got to cut out. 
>> Thank you, Mr. Perot. 
I see that the president has 
stood up, so he must have  
something to say about this. 
>> 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 
we're going to move south  
because they're lower wages, 
they're lower wages now and  
they haven't done that. 
And so, I've 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. 
And so I will keep on as  
president trying to get a  
successful conclusion to the 
GAT round, the big Uruguay  
round of trade that will  
open up markets for our  
agriculture particularly. 
I want to continue to work  
after we get this NAFTA  
agreement ratified after  
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. 
>> Governor Clinton? 
>> I'd like to answer the  
question because I've  
actually been a governor for 
12 years, so I've known a  
lot of people who have lost  
their jobs because of jobs  
moving overseas, and I know  
a lot of people whose plants 
have been strengthened by  
increasing exports. 
The trick is to expand our  
export base and to expand  
trade on terms that are fair 
to us. 
It is true that our exports  
to Mexico, for example, have 
gone up, and our trade  
deficit's gone down. 
It is 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 it 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 them  
overseas than there are for  
modernizing plants and  
equipment here. 
Our competitors don't do  
that. 
Emphasize and subsidize  
modernizing plant equipment  
here, not in 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. 
>> Thank you, I think we  
have a question over here. 
>> Yeah, this is for  
Governor Clinton. 
In the real world, that is  
outside of Washington d.C.,  
Compensation and achievement 
are based on goals defined  
and achieved. 
The deficit is my question,  
my question is about the  
deficit. 
Would you define in specific 
dollar goals how much you  
would reduce the deficit in  
each of the four years of a  
Clinton administration and  
then enter into a legally  
binding contract with the  
American people that if you  
did not achieve those goals  
that you would not seek a  
second term? 
>> Answer yes or no and then 
comment on your answer,  
please. 
>> 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 four years and  
grow the economy. 
Now, I can get rid of it in  
four 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 her 
hired to analyze his plan  
says that it will bring the  
deficit down in five years,  
but it will make  
unemployment bad for four  
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 in taxes and  
investing and growing this  
economy. 
I ask everybody to look at  
my economic ideas, nine  
Nobel prize winners, five  
other economists and  
hundreds of business people  
including a lot of  
republicans said this is  
the way you have to go, if  
you can'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  
four years and you can vote  
me right out if you think  
I've done a lousy job, and I 
welcome you to do that. 
>> Mr. President? 
>> 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. 
So, 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 think that's the way 
to do it. 
Here's the things that will 
help. 
Give us a balanced budget  
amendment. 
He always talks about  
Arkansas having a balanced  
budget, and they do, but he  
has a balanced budget  
amendment. 
You have to do it. 
I would 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 would like to have what 43 
governors, 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 have proposed another  
one -- some sophisticates  
think it may be a little  
gimmicky, I think it is a good 
one, a checkoff, it says to  
you as a taxpayer, say  
you're going to pay a tax of 
a thousand bucks or  
something, you can check 10% 
of that, if you want to, in  
one box, and that 10%, $100, 
or if you're paying $10,000, 
$1,000, 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 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. 
>> How about you, Mr. Perot? 
>> Well, with $4 trillion in 
debt, we're going into debt  
an additional $1 Billion, a  
little more than $1 Billion  
every working day of the  
year. 
Now, the thing I love about  
it, I'm just a businessman,  
i was down in Texas taking  
care of business, tending to 
my family, this situation  
got so bad that I decided I  
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  
billion -- $50 million in an 
hour-and-a-half. 
Now, it's not the  
republicans' fault of  
course, and it is note the  
democrats' fault and what  
I'm looking for is who did  
it? 
Now, they're the two folks  
involved, so maybe if you  
put them together, they did 
it. 
Now, the facts are, we have  
to fix it. 
We're living -- 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, ten 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%. 
What's happening in the  
meantime? 
The dollar has gone through  
the floor? 
Who's fault is that, not the 
democrats, not the  
republicans, somewhere out  
there there's an extraterrestrial
 that's doing this, I guess. 
Everybody says they are  
taking responsibility. 
Somebody, somewhere has to  
take responsibility for  
this. 
Put it to be bluntly, the  
American people, if you want 
me to be your president,  
we're going to face our  
problems, we'll deal with  
the problems, we'll solve  
our problems. 
We'll pay down our debt,  
we'll pass on the American  
dream to our children, and I 
will not leave our children  
a situation that they have  
today. 
When I was a boy, it took  
two generations to double  
the standard of living. 
Today it will take 12  
generations. 
Our children will not see  
the American dream because  
of this debt that somebody  
somewhere dropped on us. 
>> You're all wonderful  
speakers and I know you have 
lots 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. 
>> Yes, I'd like to address  
all of the candidates with  
this question. 
The amount of candidates  
have spent in this campaign  
trashing their opponents' 
character is large. 
Why can't your expressions  
and proposals the issues to  
try to build a consensus  
around the best aspects of  
all proposals? 
>> Who wants to take that  
one? 
Mr. Perot, you have an  
answer for everything, don't 
you? 
Go ahead, sir. 
>> 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 o'clock to 11  
o'clock eastern, you're  
going to talk about how you  
are going to pay the debt  
down, so we'll come right  
down no that one? 
See? 
We'll be on Saturday night  
on ABC. 
>> Okay, okay. 
>> Finally, I couldn't agree 
with you more. 
Couldn't agree with you  
more. 
And I have said again and  
again and again, let's get  
off the 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. 
>> Thank you, Mr. Perot. 
So, that seems directed, he  
would say, at you gentlemen, 
that have been doing that. 
Mr. Clinton, governor  
Clinton? 
Oh, President Bush, how  
would you like to respond? 
>> Well, first place, I  
believe that character is a  
part of being president. 
I think you have to look at 
it. 
I think that has to be a  
part of candidate for  
president or being  
president. 
In terms of programs, I've  
submitted, what, four  
different budgets to the  
United States congress in  
great detail. 
They're so heavy they can  
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 four 
years. 
So, I feel I've been talking 
issues. 
You know, nobody likes --  
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? 
Suffered through that? 
Well, he raised the question 
of my father. 
It was a good line. 
Well rehearsed. 
Well delivered. 
But he raised a question of  
my father and said, "well,  
your father, Prescott Bush,  
was against McCarthy, should 
be ashamed of yourself,  
McCarthyism. 
I remember something my dad  
told me. 
I was an 18-year-old. 
Going to Penn station to go  
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. 
And that has said something  
about character. 
My argument with governor  
Clinton, you can call it mud 
wrestling, but I think it's  
fair to put it in focus, is, 
I am deeply troubled by  
someone who demonstrates and 
organizes  
demonstration's 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 about Ross  
Perot's running mate sitting 
in a jail? 
How would he feel about it? 
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  
an after-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 got to say what you're  
for. 
And -- 
>> Mr. President, I'm  
getting time queues, with  
all due respect. 
Governor Clinton? 
>> Let me say, first of all  
to you, that I believe so  
strongly in the question you 
asked that I suggested this  
format tonight. 
I started doing these  
formats a year ago in New  
Hampshire. 
And I found that we had huge 
crowds because all I did was 
let people ask questions and 
I tried to give very  
specific answers. 
I also had a program  
starting last year. 
I've been disturbed by the  
tone and the ton nor of this 
campaign. 
Thank goodness of networks  
have a fact check so I don't 
have to just go blue in the  
face any more. 
Mr. Bush said once again  
tonight I was going to have  
a $50 Billion tax increase. 
When Mr. Quayle said that,  
the networks said, that's  
not true. 
He has over $100 Billion of  
tax cuts and incentives. 
I'm not going to take of  
your time. 
We will have a debate in  
four days and we can talk  
about the character thing. 
"The Washington post" said  
they couldn't believe Mr.  
Bush was making character an 
issue because he was a great 
chameleon for changes the  
issues. 
I don't want to get into it. 
>> I don't believe it. 
>> You don't have to believe 
t 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 neck 
four years. 
So I think you're right and  
I hope the rest of the night 
belongs to you. 
>> 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? 
Who wants to say why you  
don't like the way the  
campaign is going? 
We have a gentleman back  
here? 
>> Forgive the notes here,  
but I'm shy on camera. 
The focus of my work is  
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 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. 
>> So your question is? 
>> Can we focus on the  
issues and not the  
personalities and the mud? 
I think there is a need, if  
we could take a poll here  
with the folks from Gallup, 
perhaps, I think there is a  
real need here to focus at  
this point on the needs. 
>> How do you respond? 
How do you gentlemen  
respond? 
>> I agree with him. 
>> Let's do it! 
>> President Bush. 
>> Let's do it. 
Let's talk about programs  
for children. 
>> Could we cross our  
hearts -- it sounds silly  
here. 
Could we make a commitment. 
We are not under oath, but  
could you make a commitment  
to the citizens of the  
United States to meet our  
needs, and we have many, and 
not yours. 
I repeat that, it's a real  
need, I think, that we all  
have. 
>> I think it depends how  
you define it. 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. 
The 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 I -- in principal,  
though, I'll take your point 
and think we ought to  
discuss child care or  
whatever else it is. 
>> And you two? 
>> Ross had his hand up. 
>> Yes, Ross. 
>> No hedges, no ifs ands  
and buts, I'll take the  
pledge because I know the  
American people want to talk 
about issues and not tabloid 
journalism. 
So I'll take the pledge and  
we'll stay on the issues. 
Just for the record, I don't 
have any spin doctors. 
I don't have any speech  
writers. 
It probably shows. 
I make those charts you see  
on television. 
Now -- but, you don't have  
to wonder if it's me  
talking. 
When you see is what you  
get, and if you don't like  
it, you got two other  
choices, right? 
>> Now, wait a minute. 
I want to say something, Ross,  
in fairness. 
The ideas I expressed are  
mine. 
I worked on them for 12  
years and I'm the only  
person who hasn't been part  
of Washington in any way for 
the last 20 years, so I  
don't want the implication  
that everything we say is  
cooked up and put in our  
head by someone else. 
I worked as governor for 12  
years and I am as sick as  
you are about waking up to  
figure out how to defend  
myself every day. 
I never thought I would ever 
be involved in something  
like this. 
>> May I finish? 
>> Yes. 
>> Very briefly. 
I don't have any foreign  
money in my campaign, no  
foreign lobbyists on leave  
in my campaign or PAC money  
in my campaign. 
I have 5  million  
hard-working people who put  
me on the ballot, and I  
belong to them. 
They are interested in what  
you are interested in. 
I have taken the pledge on  
cutting the deficit in half. 
I never got to say that. 
It's a great young group of 
people, lead or leave,  
college people, who don't  
want us to spend their  
money. 
I took the pledge. 
We cut it out. 
>> Thank you. 
We have a question here. 
>> 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  
system, et cetera? 
Thank you. 
>> The cities? 
Who's going to fix the  
cities and how? 
>> I'd be glad to take a  
shot at it. 
>> Please. 
>> I'm not sure -- and I  
could understand if you  
haven't seen this because  
there has been a lot of hugh 
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 from 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 deficit, 
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.. 
You hear all the negatives. 
When you're president, you  
expect this, everybody is critical of  
the incumbent. 
They can do better. 
Here is something we can  
take great pride in because  
it does get to what you're  
talking about, our home  
initiative, our home  
ownership initiative, vote  
to pass the congress to have 
people own their own homes  
instead of living in deadly  
tenements. 
Our enter prize zones would  
bring jobs into the  
inner city. 
There's a good program. 
I need the help of everybody 
across this country to get  
it passed in a substantial  
way by the congress. 
When we went out to south  
central and Los Angeles,  
some of you may remember the 
riots there. 
I went out there. 
I went to a boys' club, and  
every one of them, the boys' 
club leaders, the ministers  
were saying "pass enterprise 
zones." 
We go back to Washington and 
very difficult to get it  
through congress, but  
there's going to be a new  
congress. 
Nobody likes gridlock. 
There will be a new one. 
I don't want to get this man 
mad at me. 
There was a post office  
scandal and a bank scandal. 
We will have new congress  
and you can sit down and say 
help me pass these programs  
through congress. 
>> Mr. Perot, aren't you  
threatened to veto the urban 
aid bill that included  
enterprise zones? 
>> Sure, but the problem is  
you can so many things  
included in overall bill  
that you have to look for  
the overall good if you have a  
line item veto, you can  
knock out the pork and the  
tax increases and do what  
the people want, and that is 
create enterprise zones. 
>> Governor Clinton, you are 
chomping at the bit. 
>> That Bill pays for these  
urban enterprise zones by  
asking for wealthy Americans 
to pay a little more, that's 
why he wants to veto it. 
This is why he vetoed an  
earlier Bill. 
This is not mud slinging. 
This is fact slinging. 
This is facts. 
That would give investment  
tax credits to reinvest in  
our cities and country, but  
it asks for the wealth yet  
Americans to pay a little  
more. 
Mr. Perot wants to do the  
same thing. 
We agree with him. 
Let me tell you specifically 
what my plan does. 
It dedicates $20 Billion a  
year in each of the next  
four years for investments  
and communications,  
transportation,  
environmental cleanups and  
new technologists for the  
21st century, and we would  
target it in areas  
especially that have bean  
depressed or lost  
defense-related jobs. 
There are 220,000 people who 
lost their defense-related  
jobs. 
They ought to be involved in 
high-speed rail and waste  
recycling, clean water  
technology and things of that 
kind. 
We can create millions of  
jobs in these new  
technologies, more than we  
will lose in defense if we  
target it but we are  
investing more percentage of 
our income in things you  
just asked about than our  
major competitors and our  
wealth is going down as a  
result of t it is making the 
country poorer, which is why 
i answered the gentleman the 
way I did before. 
We have to both bring down  
our deficit and get our  
economy going through these  
kind of investments to get  
the wealth and jobs and  
incomes we need in this  
country. 
>> Mr. Perot, what about  
your plans for the cities? 
You want to tackle the  
economy and the deficit. 
>> You have to have money to 
pay for these. 
You have to create jobs and  
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 
people holding hands and get 
the bill signed because I  
talked to democratic leaders 
and they want it, republican 
leaders want it but since  
they are bred from childhood 
to fight with one another,  
they don't get results. 
I would see if we could  
build bridges. 
Rules is what counts. 
The president can't order  
congress around. 
Congress can't order the  
president around. 
That's not good for a guy  
who has never been there,  
but you have to work  
together. 
I have talked to the  
chairman of the committees  
that want it. 
They're democrats. 
The president wants it but  
we sit in gridlock because  
it is a campaign year. 
We have the savings and loan 
mess. 
That's another story we're  
going to pay a big price for 
right after the election. 
The facts are -- the facts  
are the American people are 
hurting. 
These people are hurting in  
the inner cities. 
We're shipping the "low-pay  
jobs" overseas. 
What are low-paying jobs,  
shoes, textiles, yesterday's 
industries? 
They're tomorrow's jobs in  
the inner cities. 
If I'm out of work, I will  
cut grass tomorrow to  
support my family, I will be 
happy to make shoes or make 
sausage. 
Give me a job, put those  
jobs in the inner cities  
instead of shipping them to  
China where they have prison 
labor. 
Mr. Perot, everybody thought 
you won the first debate  
because you were plain  
speaking and you made it  
sound oh so simple, we'll  
just do it. 
What makes you think we're  
going to be able to get the  
democrats together better  
than these guys? 
>> If you ask me to fly a  
fighter plane or be an  
astronaut, I can't.  I  
spent my life creating jobs. 
It's something I know how to 
do. 
In the inner city, they're  
starved. 
>> Are you answering my  
questions? 
>> Do you want jobs in the  
inner city? 
>> No. 
I want you to tell me how  
you can get the republicans  
and democrats in congress to 
work together better than  
these two gentlemen men? 
>> I have 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, in this senate  
committee, to the chairman  
who is anxious to get this  
bill passed, the president  
who is anxious, rather than  
just yelling at one another, 
why don't we find out where  
we're apart, try to get  
together and get the bill  
passed and give the people  
the benefits and not play  
party politics right now. 
I think the press would  
follow is so closely we  
would get it done. 
I doubt if they will give me 
the chance but I would drop  
everything and go work on  
it. 
>> My question was  
originally for governor  
Clinton. 
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? 
>> Governor Clinton? 
>> I support the right to  
keep and bear arms. 
I live in a state where over 
half the adults have hunting 
or fishing licenses or both. 
But I believe we have to  
have some way of checking  
handguns before they're  
sold, to check the criminal  
history of the mental  
health history and age of  
the people buying them. 
Therefore, I support the  
Brady Bill. 
Which would propose a  
national waiting period,  
unless and until a state did 
what only Virginia has done  
now, which is to automate  
its records. 
Once you automate your  
records, then you don't have 
to have a waiting period,  
but at least you can check. 
I also think we should have, 
frankly, restrictions on  
assault weapons whose only  
purpose is to kill. 
We need to give the police a 
fighting chance. 
In our urban areas where the 
gangs are building up. 
The third thing I would say  
doesn't bear directly on gun 
control, but it's very  
important. 
We need more police on the  
street. 
There is a crime bill which  
would put more police on the 
street which was killed for  
this session by a filibuster 
in the senate, mostly by  
republican senators. 
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 the I 
also believe that we should  
offer college scholarships  
to people who will agree to  
work 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% 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. 
>> Thank you. 
President 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 is 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 have been fighting for  
changes in the exclusionary  
rules, 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  
we need stronger death  
penalties for those that  
kill police officers. 
Virginia's on 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 my -- 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 thing, one last  
point I'd make. 
Drugs. 
We have got to win our  
national strategy against  
drugs. 
The fight against drugs. 
We're making some progress,  
doing a little better on  
interdiction. 
We're not doing as well  
amongst the people that get  
to be habitual drug users. 
The good news is, and I  
think it's true in Richmond, 
teenage use is down of  
cocaine, substantially, 60%  
in the last couple years. 
So, we're making progress,  
but until we get that one  
done, we're not going to  
solve the neighborhood crime 
problem. 
>> Mr. Perot, there are  
young black males in America 
dying at unprecedented  
rates. 
>> I would like to comment  
on this. 
>> I'm going to let you. 
Adopt, homicide is the  
biggest cause of death among 
blacks age 15 to  
24-year-olds. 
What will you do to get the  
guns off the streets? 
>> On any program, and this  
includes crime, you'll find  
we have all kinds of great  
plans lying around that  
never get enacted into law  
and implemented. 
I don't care what it is. 
Competitiveness, health  
care, crime, you name it. 
The Brady Bill, I agree that 
it's a timid step in the  
right direction, but it  
won't fix it. 
>> So -- 
>> Why pass a law that won't 
fix it? 
Now, what it really boils  
down to is can you live --  
we have become so  
preoccupied with the rights  
of the criminal that we have 
forgotten the rights of the  
innocent, 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. 
Now, that's where we are. 
We have got to become more  
concerned about people who  
play by the rules and get  
the balance we require. 
This is going to take first  
building a consensus and  
grass roots 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 a 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 four years  
doing nothing. 
>> Thank you. 
Thank you, Mr. Perot. 
We have a question up here. 
>> Please state your  
position on term limits and, 
if you are in favor of them, 
how will you get them  
enacted? 
>> Any order? 
I'll be glad to respond. 
>> Thank you. 
>> I strongly support term  
limits for members of the  
United States congress. 
I believe it would return  
the government closer to the 
people in a way that Ross  
Perot is talking about. 
The president's terms are  
limited to two. 
A total of eight 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 -- sorry  
little post office that  
can't, you know, can't do  
anything right and a bank  
that has more overdrafts  
than all the Chase and  
Citibank put together. 
We've got to do something  
about it, and I think that  
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. 
>> Thank you. 
Governor Clinton? 
>> I know they're popular,  
but I'm against them. 
I'll tell you why. 
I believe, number one, it  
would pose a real problem  
for a lot of smaller states  
and the congress. 
It would have enough trouble 
now making sure their  
interests are heard. 
Number two, I think it would 
increase the influence of  
unelected staff members in  
the congress who have too  
much influence already. 
I want to cut the size of  
the congressional staff, but 
I think you're going to have 
too much influence there  
with people who are never  
elected who have lots of  
expertise. 
Number three, if the people  
really have a mind to  
change, they can. 
You're going to have 120 to  
150 new members of congress. 
Now, let me tell you what I  
favor instead. 
I favor strict controls on  
how much you can spend  
running for congress. 
Strict limits on political  
action committees. 
Requirements that people  
running for congress appear  
in open public debates like  
we're doing now. 
If you did that, you could  
take away the incumbent's  
advantage because  
challengers like me would  
have a chance to run against 
incumbents like him for  
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. 
>> Mr. Perot, would you like 
to address term limitations? 
>> Let me do it first on a  
personal view. 
I intend to be there one  
term, I don't intend to  
spend one minute of one day  
thinking about re-election. 
It is a matter of principle, 
and my situation is unique,  
and I understand it, I would 
take absolutely no compensation. 
I go as their servant. 
I have set as strong an  
example as we can. 
When we sit down at Capitol  
Hill, tomorrow night I will  
be talking about government 
reform. 
It's a long subject, you  
wouldn't let me finish  
tonight. 
If you want to hear it,  
you'll get it tomorrow  
night, but the point is --  
you'll hear it tomorrow  
night. 
But we have got to reform  
government. 
If you put term limits in  
and don't reform government, 
you won't get the 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 life time career. 
Good people will go serve  
and then go back to their  
homes and not become foreign 
lobbyists and cash in at  
$30,000 a month and 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? 
>> We have a question over  
here. 
>> 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? 
>> 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 have lost  
their jobs, lost their  
businesses, had to give up  
their jobs because of sick  
children, so let me try to  
answer you in this way. 
Let's start with the  
premise, we spend 30% more  
of our income than any  
nation on earth on health  
care. 
And yet we ensure fewer  
people. 
We have 35 million people  
without any insurance at  all. 
I see them all the time. 
$100,000 Americans a month  
have lost their health  
insurance just in the last  
four years. 
So, if you analyze where  
we're out of line with other 
countries, you come up with  
the following conclusions -- 
number one, we spend at  
least $60 Billion a year on  
insurance administrative  
costs, bureaucracy and  
government regulation that  
wouldn't be spent in any  
other nation. 
So, we have to have, in my  
judgment, a drastic  
simplification of the basic  
health insurance policies of 
this country. 
Be very comprehensive for  
everybody. 
Employers would cover their 
employees. 
Government would cover the  
unemployed. 
Number two, I think you have 
to take on specifically the  
insurance companies and  
require them to make some  
significant change in the  
way they rate people in the  
big community pools. 
I think you have to tell the 
pharmaceutical companies  
they can't keep raising drug 
prices at 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  
costs and maintain the  
quality. 
To do that you need a system 
of managed competition where 
all of us are covered in big 
groups and we can choose our 
doctors and our hospitals,  
at wide range, but there's  
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 set  
guidelines with population  
growth. 
No, let me say, some people  
say we can't do that, 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 than the rest 
of the country. 
This is very important. 
It's a big human problem. 
And a devastating economic  
problem for mesh, and I'm  
going to set a plan to do  
that within the first 100  
days of my presidency. 
It's terribly important. 
>> Sorry to cut you short. 
President Bush, health care 
reform. 
>> I just have to say  
something. 
I don't want to stampede. 
Ross Perot was very  
articulate across the  
country. 
I don't want people to cut  
the president's salary off. 
Barbara's sitting over here. 
I have proposed 10% cut,  
downsize the government and  
we can get that done. 
She asked a question, I  
think, whether the health  
care profession was to  
blame. 
No. 
One thing to blame is these  
malpractice lawsuits. 
They are breaking the  
system. 
It costs 20 to 25 Billion  
dollars 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  
someone along the highway  
when they're hurt because  
they're afraid some lawyer's 
going to come along and get  
a big lawsuit. 
So you can't blame the  
practitioners in the  
health program. 
My goal is this, keep the  
government out as far as  
possible, make health care  
available to the poorest of  
the poor through vouchers,  
next ranging the income  
bracket through tax credits, 
and get on the business  
about pooling insurance. 
A great big company can  
buy -- Ross has a great big 
company, very successful. 
He can buy insurance cheaper 
than mom and pop stores on  
the corner, but if those mom 
and pop stores get together  
and pool, they can bring the 
health care costs down. 
I want to keep government  
out of it. 
I don't like this idea of  
these boards. 
It all sounds to me like you 
have some government setting 
price. 
I want competition and I  
want to pool the insurance  
and take care of it that  
way. 
Here's another point. 
I think medical insurance  
should go with a person. 
If you leave a business, I  
think your insurance should  
go with you to some other  
business. 
You shouldn't be worrying  
about if you get a new job,  
and part of our business is  
to make it what we call  
portable, big word, if you  
work for the Jones company,  
you go to the Smith company, 
your insurance goes with  
you. 
I think it's a good program  
and I'm excited about  
getting it done. 
>> Mr. Perot. 
>> We have the most  
expensive health care system 
in the world. 
20% Of our gross national  
product goes to health care. 
Our industrial competitors  
spend less and have better  
health care. Japan spends a  
little over 6% of its GNP,  
Germany spends 8%. 
It's fascinating. 
You bought a front row, box  
seat and you're not happy  
with your health care. 
You are saying we have bad  
health care but very  
expensive health care. 
Folks, here's why. 
Go home and look in the  
mirror. 
You own this country but you 
have no voice in it the way  
it's organized now. 
If you have a high-risk  
experience, comparable to  
bungee jumping, go into  
congress sometime when  
they're working on this kind 
of legislation when the  
lobbyists are running up and 
down the halls. 
Wear your safety-toe shoes  
and you are looked on as a  
major nuisance. 
You now have a government  
that comes at you. 
You're supposed to have a  
government that comes from  
you. 
There are all kinds of good 
ideas, brilliant ideas,  
terrific ideas on health  
care. 
None of them ever get  
implemented because -- a  
senator runs every six  
years, he has to raise  
$20,000 bucks a week to run. 
Who is he going to listen  
to, us or the folks running  
up and down the halls, the  
lobbyists, the PAC money? 
He listens to them, the  
health care industry, not us. 
You have to have a  
government that comes from  
you. 
You got to reassert your  
ownership in this country,  
and you 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 you. 
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 they're all  
ears, too, and listen to you 
so you get what you want. 
And shouldn't you? 
You paid for it. 
Why shouldn't you get what  
you want as opposed to a  
lobbyist who writes down a  
piece of law and it goes  
through? 
That's the way the game is  
played now. 
Until you change it, you  
will be unhappy. 
>> Governor Clinton, you  
want one brief point. 
>> We have elections so  
people can make decisions  
about this. 
The point I want to make to  
you is the bipartisan  
commission reviewed my plan  
and the Bush plan, and they  
were as many republicans as  
democratic health care  
experts on it, and they  
concluded 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 
the economy and the average  
family would save $1,200 a  
year under the plan I  
offered without any erosion  
of the quality of health care. 
So I ask you to look at  
that, and you have to vote  
for somebody with a plan. 
That's what you have  
elections for. 
People say he got elected to 
do this and the congress  
say, I'm going to do it. 
That's what election was  
about. 
>> Governor Clinton, thank  
you, brief. 
We have a question right  
here. 
>> 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? 
>> May I answer the  
question? 
>> Mr. Perot, yes, of  
course. 
Go right ahead. 
>> The question is for each  
of you, so -- 
>> I am disrupting my  
private life and business to 
get involved in this active. 
That's how much I care about 
it, and, believe me, if you  
knew my family and the  
private life I have, you  
would agree in a minute  
that's more fun than getting 
involved in politics. 
I lived the American dream. 
I come from a modest  
background. 
Nobody's been luckier than I 
am. 
All across the spectrum, and 
my greatest riches of all  
are my wife and children. 
That's true of anybody. 
I want all the children -- I 
want these young people up  
here to start with nothing  
but an idea like I did and  
build a business, but they  
have 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  
personal basis, I owe it to  
my children and  
grandchildren. 
>> Well, I think the  
national debt affects  
everybody. 
Obviously, it has a lot to  
do with interest rates. 
>> She's saying you  
personally. 
>> You on a personal basis. 
How has it affected you? 
>> Has it affected you  
personally? 
>> I'm sure it has. 
I love my grandchildren. 
>> How? 
>> I want to think they're  
going to be able to afford  
an education. 
I think 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? 
I'm not sure I get it. 
Help me with the question,  
and I'll try to answer it. 
>> I've had friends that  
have been laid off from  
jobs. 
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? 
>> I think she means more  
the recession, the economic  
problems today the country  
faces rather than the  
deficit. 
>> Listen. 
You ought to be in the White 
House for a day and here  
what I hear and see the mail 
I see and touch the people I 
touch from time to time. 
I was in the Lomaxa 
church, black church just  
outside of Washington, d.C., 
And I read in the bulletin  
about teenage pregnancies  
and the difficulties  
families are having to make  
ends meet. 
I talk to parents, and you  
got to care. 
Everybody cares that people  
aren't doing well, but I  
don't think it's fair to say 
you haven't had cancer,  
therefore, you don't know  
what it's like. 
I don't think it's fair to  
say whatever it is, if you  
haven't been hit by it  
personally, but everybody's  
affected by the debt because 
of the tremendous interest  
that goes into paying on  
that debt, everything's more 
expensive. 
Everything comes out of your 
pocket and my pocket. 
So -- but I think in terms  
of the recession, of course  
you feel it when you're  
president of the united  
states. 
That's why I'm trying to do  
something about it by  
stimulating investing,  
better education systems. 
Glad to clarify. 
>> Tell me how it affected  
you again? 
You know people who lost  
their jobs and lost their  
homes? 
>> Yes. 
>> Well, I have 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 and  
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 four years when 
in my state -- when people  
lose their jobs, there's a  
good chance I'll know them  
by their names. 
When the factory closes, I  
know the people who ran it,  
when the businesses go  
bankrupt, I know them. 
I have been out here for 13  
months meeting in meetings  
like this ever since October 
with people like you all  
over America, people who  
lost their jobs, lost their 
livelihoods, lost their  
health insurance. 
What I want you to  
understand is the national  
debt is not the only cause  
of that. 
It's because America has not 
invested in it's people. 
It's because we have not  
grown. 
It's because we had 12 years 
of trickle-down economics. 
We went from first to 12th  
in wages. 
We have not produced private 
sector jobs and most people  
are working harder for less  
money than 12 years ago  
we are in the grip of a  
failed economic theory, and  
this decision you're about  
to make better be about what 
kind of economic theory you 
want, not just people saying 
i want to go fix it, but  
what are we going to do. 
I think we have to invest in 
American jobs, American  
education, control American  
health care costs and bring  
the American people together 
again. 
>> Thank you, governor  
Clinton. 
We are a little more than  
halfway through this  
program, and I'm glad that  
we're getting the diversity  
of questions that we are,  
and I don't want to forget  
these folks on the wings  
over here. 
So let's go over here. 
Do you have a question? 
>> My name is Ben Smith. 
I work in the finance field  
counseling retirees and I'm  
personally concerned about  
three major areas. 
One is the social security  
administration or the 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  
that 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 generals, but specifics, 
because I think they're very 
disturbing issues. 
>> President Bush, may we  
start with you. 
>> Well, the social  
security, you're an expert,  
and I'm sure I can learn  
from you the details of the  
pension guarantee fund and  
the social security fund. 
The social security system  
was fixed about five years  
and I think it's projected  
out to be sound beyond that, 
so at least we have time to  
work with it. 
But on all of these things a 
sound economy is the only  
way to get it going. 
Growth in the economy is  
going to add to the overall  
prosperity and wealth. 
I can't give you a specific  
answer on the pension  
guarantee fund. 
All I know is we have firm  
government credit to  
guarantee the pensions, and  
that is very important. 
It's the full faith and  
credit in the United States  
in spite of our difficulties 
it is still pretty good. 
It is still the most  
respected credit so I would 
simply say as these dates  
get close, you're going to  
have to reorganize and re-fix 
as we did with the social  
security fund. 
I think that's the only  
answer but the more  
immediate answer is to do  
what this lady is suggesting 
we do, get the deficit down  
and get on without adding to 
the woes and then  
restructure. 
One thing I called for that  
has been stymied and I will  
keep working is for  
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 live  
back in the dark ages. 
It's a big fight. 
I don't want to give my  
friend Ross another shot at 
me, but I am fighting with  
the congress to get this  
through. 
You can't just say I'm going 
to fix it. 
You have some pretty  
strong-willed guys up there  
who argue with you. 
I agree with the governor,  
that's what the election is 
about, and sound fiscal  
policy is the best answer, I 
think, to all of the three  
problems you mentioned. 
>> Mr. Perot? 
>> 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 congress says,  
measure twice, cut once. 
You know, let's make sure  
this thing is as good as we  
all think it is at the end  
of the meeting. 
Finally, our government  
passes laws and freezes the  
plan in concrete. 
Anybody that's ever built a  
successful business will  
tell you, you optimize,  
optimize, optimize after you 
put something into effect. 
The reason Medicaid and head 
care are a mess is we froze 
them. 
Everybody knows how to fix  
them. 
There are people all over  
the federal government if  
they can touch it with a  
screwdriver could fix it. 
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 five 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 interest rates down. 
A 1% increase in interest  
rates and 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 going to  
say it. 
That we are not letting that 
surplus stay in the bank. 
We are not investing that  
surplus like a pension fund. 
We are spending that surplus 
to make the deficit look  
smaller to you. 
Than it really is. 
Now, that's put you in jail  
in corporate America if you  
kept books that way, but in  
government it's 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. 
>> Mr. Perot, can you wrap  
it up? 
>> See, do you want to fix  
the problem or sound bite it? 
I understand the importance  
of time, but see this is how 
we get to the mess we're in. 
This is one of a thousand. 
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 got a double hit. 
If we're $4 trillion down,  
we should have everything  
perfect, but we don't. 
We 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. 
>> Mr. Perot -- 
>> sorry. 
>> I don't want to sound  
bite you, but we are trying  
to be fair to everyone. 
>> Absolutely. 
I apologize. 
>> All right. 
Governor Clinton? 
>> I think I remember the  
question.
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 plan, 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  
costs and radical  
reorganization of the  
insurance markets. 
You've got to do that. 
We've got to get those costs 
down. 
Number two, with regard to  
social security, that  
program, a lot of you may  
not know this, it produces a 
$70 billion surplus a year. 
Social security is in  
surplus $70 billion. 
Six increases in the payroll 
tax, that means people with  
$50,000 income or less share 
a bigger burden of the tax  
burden, which is why I want  
middle-class tax relief. 
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 babyboomers like 
me retire, we're okay. 
Number three, on the pension 
funds, I don't know as much  
about it, but I will say  
this, what I 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&L's, right? 
We had a guarantee, and what 
happened? 
You picked up a $500 billion 
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. 
>> Thank you. 
I think we have a question  
here on international  
affairs. 
Hopefully. 
>> 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? 
>> Mr. President? 
>> Well, we have come to  
that position since I became 
president. 
43 or 44 countries have gone 
democratic. 
No longer totalitarian, no  
longer living under  
dictatorship or a communist 
rule. 
This is exciting. 
This is new world order to  
me means freedom and  
democracy. 
I think we will have a  
continuing responsibility as 
the only remaining  
superpower to stay involved. 
If we pull back in some  
isolation and say we don't  
have to do our share or more 
than our share anymore, I  
believe you're going to just 
ask for conflagration that  
we'll get involved in 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 United States  
has to still be -- have the  
statue of liberty as a  
symbol of caring for others. 
We're right this very minute 
we're sending supplies in to 
help these little starves  
kids in Somalia. 
We're trying to get -- it's  
the United States that's  
taken the lead in  
humanitarian aid into  
bosnia. 
We're doing this all around  
the world, and yes, we 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 about the late 1970s,  
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 Strouss 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  
United States. 
And we have a responsibility 
to lead and to guarantee the 
security. 
If it hadn't been for us,  
Saddam Hussein would be  
sitting on top of three  
fifths of the oil supply of  
the world and he'd have  
nuclear weapons. 
And only the United States  
could do that. 
Excuse me, Carole. 
>> Thank you. 
Mr. Perot? 
>> Well, it's cost effective 
to help Russia succeed in  
its revolution. 
It's pennies on the dollar  
compared to going back to  
the cold war. 
Russia is still very unstable. 
They could go back to square 
one and worse. 
Still all the nuclear  
weapons are not dismantled. 
I'm particularly concerned  
about the intercontinental  
ones, the ones that can hit us. 
We have agreements, but  
they're still there. 
With all the instability and 
breaking into republics and  
all the middle eastern  
countries shopping for  
weapons, we have our work  
cut out for us, so we need  
to stay on top of that and  
constructively help them  
move towards democracy and  
capitalism. 
With have to have money to  
do that. 
We have to have our people  
at work. 
You see, for 45 years we  
were preoccupied with the  
red army. 
I suggest now that our  
number one preoccupation is  
red ink in our country. 
And we've got to put our  
people back to work. 
So that we can afford to do  
these things we want to do  
in Russia. 
We cannot be the policemen  
for the world any longer. 
We spend $300 billion a year 
defending the world. 
Germany and Japan spend  
around $30 billion apiece. 
It's neither. 
If I can get you to defend  
me and I can spend all mine  
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. 
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 in 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 it's job one  
to put our people back to  
work. 
>> Governor Clinton, the  
president mentioned Saddam  
Hussein. 
You had words about the  
president and Saddam  
Hussein. 
Would you care to comment? 
>> I would rather answer a  
question first, and then I'd 
be glad to, because the  
question you asked 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 
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, but I  
think the defense needs to  
be with fewer people in the  
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 weapons and
well-trained people. 
I think we have to work to  
stop the proliferation of  
weapons of mass destruction, 
got to keep go until all the 
nuclear weapons in Russia  
are gone, and the other  
republics. 
Number two, if you don't  
rebuild the economic  
strength of this country at 
home, we won't be a  
superpower. 
We can't have any more  
instances like what happened 
when Mr. Bush went to Japan  
and the Japanese prime  
minister said he felt  
sympathy for our country. 
We have to be the strongest  
economic power in the world. 
That's what got me into this 
race, so we can 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 China or any other 
place, wherever the seeds of 
freedom are sprouting. 
We can't impose it but we  
need to nourish those are  
the kind of things I would  
do as president, follow  
those three commitments into 
the future. 
>> Okay. 
We have a question up there. 
>> We 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  
educational system we have,  
and what would you do to  
change it? 
>> Who would like to begin,  
the education president? 
>> Go ahead. 
>> 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. 
I bypassed congress on this 
one, Ross. 
It is called America 2000,  
and it literally says to the 
communities, reinvent the  
schools, not just the bricks 
and mortar, but the  
curriculum and everything  
else. 
Think anew. 
We have a concept called the 
new American school  
corporation where we're  
doing exactly that. 
So I believe that we got to  
get the power in the hands  
of the teachers, not the  
teachers' union. 
What's happening up there? 
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. 
In the schools that are not  
chosen are improved. 
Competition does that. 
So we've got to innovate  
through school choice. 
We have got to innovate  
through this America 2000  
program, and she is  
absolutely right. 
The programs that we've been 
trying where you control  
everything and mandate it  
from Washington don't work. 
The governors -- and I  
believe Governor Clinton was 
in on this, but I don't want 
to invoke him here. 
They come to me and 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, 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,
grants are up but it isn't  
going to do the job if we  
don't change k through 12. 
>> Governor Clinton? 
>> First of all, let me say  
that I spent more of my time 
and life on this in the last 
12 years than every other  
issue. 
70% of my state's money goes 
to the public schools and I  
was really honored when  
"time" magazine said our  
schools showed more  
improvement in any other  
state in the country except  
two states and I care about  
this and spent countless  
hours in schools. 
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 learn, where the  
average American will change 
jobs eight times in a  
lifetime and no one can  
promise you what you do for  
a living is absolutely safe  
from now on. 
Nobody can promise you that. 
There's too much change in  
the world. 
Show what -- so what should  
we do? 
Number one, under my  
program, we provide matching 
funds to state to provide  
everybody with a job and  
everybody with a job a  
chance to get a high school 
diploma, in big places on  
the job. 
Number two, we provide  
two-year apprenticeship  
programs in community  
colleges or on the job. 
Number three, we open the  
doors to college education  
to high school graduates  
without regard to income. 
They could borrow the money  
and pay it back as a  
percentage of their income  
over a couple of years of  
service to our nation here  
at home. 
Number four, we would fully  
fund the head start program  
to get little kids off to a  
good start, and, five, I  
would have an aggressive  
program of school reform. 
More choices. 
I prefer public schools or  
the new charter schools. 
We can talk about that. 
I don't think we should  
spend tax money on private  
schools. 
I prefer public school  
choice. 
I believe in more power to  
better trained principals  
and teachers with parent  
counselors to control their 
schools. 
Those things would  
revolutionize American  
education and take us to the 
top economically. 
>> Thank you, Governor  
Clinton. 
The question is, what is it  
going to cost? 
What is it going to cost? 
>> In six years -- I budget  
all this in my budget, and  
in six years the college  
program would cost $8  
billion over and above --  
the present student loan  
program costs 4 and you pay  
for busted loans because we  
don't have an automatic  
recovery system -- so the  
net cost $1 billion all the  
other stuff I mentioned  
costs much less than that. 
The head start program fully 
funded costs about $5  
billion more. 
It's all covered in my  
budget from the plans that I 
have laid out from raising  
tacks 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. 
>> Thank you. 
Mr. Perot, you on education, 
please. 
>> I got scars to show for  
being around education  
reform, and the first words  
you need to say in every  
city and state and just draw 
a line in the sand, the  
public schools exist for the 
benefit of the children. 
You're going to see a lot of 
people fall over because any 
time you spend $199 billion  
a year, somebody's getting  
it and the children get lost 
in the process. 
So that's step one. 
Keep in mind 1960 when our  
schools were the envy of the 
world, we were spending $16 
billion. 
Now we spend more than any  
nation in the world, $199  
billion and rank in the  
bottom on industrial  
education achievement. 
You got a front row, box  
seat and got a low rate  
performance. 
The government is not  
serving you. 
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 the small 
town will serve on the  
school board. 
You get in the big cities it 
is political patronage  
throwing stones and  
relatives get the janitors  
jobs at $58 thousand a  
year. 
You paying for that. 
You are paying for that. 
Those schools belong to you. 
We put up with that and as  
long as you put up with  
that, that's what you are  
going to get. 
The children get lost. 
There should be a strong  
family unit in every home. 
Nothing will ever replace  
that. 
You say what are you going  
to do about that. 
The white house is a bully  
pulpit, and I think we ought 
to be pounding on the table  
every day. 
The most efficient unit of  
government the world will  
ever know is a strong 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, they are cost  
ineffective. 
5,000 students, why is a  
school that big? 
One reason, because you have 
11 boys who can run like the 
devil and might wiegh 250. 
That has nothing to do with 
learning. 
Across Texas, half the  
school day was not academic 
pursuits. 
In Texas, you could have  
unlimited access to go to  
livestock shows. 
A boy in Houston kept a  
chicken in a bathtub in  
downtown Houston. 
Missed 65 days going to  
livestock shows and the  
chicken lost his feathers. 
That's the only way we got  
them back. 
That's your tax dollars  
being wasted. 
Neighborhood schools. 
It is expensive to bus a  
tiny child across down and  
terrible to take tiny little 
children and wait until they 
are in first grade and bus  
them across to mars and then 
they have numbers and at the 
end of the day they want out. 
You have to have world class 
teachers and world class  
books. 
If you 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. 
>> No, you don't. 
You're right, we can't have  
the industries of tomorrow  
unless we have the best  
educated work force and here 
you got for the  
disadvantaged children you  
have got to have early  
childhood development,  
cheapest money you'll ever  
spend, first contact should  
be with the mother when  
she's pregnant, that little  
child needs knob loved and  
hugged and need to feel  
special like your children  
were. 
>> Thank you. 
>> And within the first few  
years they either learn how  
to learn or don't learn how  
to learn. 
If they don't, they wind up  
in prison. 
>> Thank you, Mr. Perot. 
>> It does more to keep them 
in prison than to send them  
to Harvard. 
I rest my case. 
>> President Bush, you  
wanted to answer. 
>> I had a word for  
clarification because of  
something Governor Clinton  
said. 
My school choice program, GI 
Bill for kids, does not take 
public money and give it a  
private schools. 
It does what the GI Bill did 
itself when I came out of  
world war ii, gives the  
money 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. 
>> I just want to mention,  
if I could -- 
>> Very briefly. 
>> Very briefly. 
Involving the parents in the 
pre-school 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  
our fathers to teach their  
kids to get ready for  
school, it is the most  
successful thing we have  
ever done. 
Just a fact clarification  
real quickly, we do not  
spend a higher percentage of 
our income on public  
education than every other  
country. 
There are nine countries  
that spend more than we do  
on public education. 
We spend more on education  
because we spend so much  
more on colleges, but if you 
look at public education  
alone and you take it into  
account the fact that we  
have more racial diversity  
and poverty, it makes a big 
difference. 
There are great public  
schools where there's public 
school choice accountability 
and brilliant principals. 
I'll mention one, the  
Beasley academic center in  
Chicago, I commend if to  
anybody, as good as any  
private school in the  
country. 
>> We have very little time 
left. 
It occurs to me that we have 
talked all this time and  
there has not been one  
question about some of the  
racial tensions in ethnic  
tensions in America. 
Is there anyone in this  
audience that would like to  
pose a question to the  
candidates on this? 
Yes? 
>> What I would like to  
know, and this is to any of  
the three of you, aside from 
the recent accomplishments  
of your party, aside from  
those accomplishments, in  
racial representation and  
without citing any of your  
current appointments or  
successful elections, when  
do you estimate your party  
will both nominate and elect 
an Afro-American and female  
ticket to the presidency of  
the United States? 
>> Governor Clinton, why  
don't you answer that first. 
>> Well, I don't have any  
idea, but I hope it will  
happen sometime in my  
lifetime. 
>> I do too. 
>> 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, my mother and 
my wife and my daughter,  
this would be a lot better  
place to live if women were  
running it sometimes. 
I do think there are special 
experiences and judgments  
and backgrounds and  
understandings that women  
bring to this process, by  
the way. 
This lady said here, how  
have you been affected by  
the economy? 
I mean, women know what it's 
like to be paid an unequal  
amount for equal work? 
They know what it's like not 
to have family leave or  
child care, so I think it  
would be a good thing for  
America if it happened, and  
i think it will happen in my 
lifetime. 
>> 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? 
>> I think if Barbara Bush  
were running this year, she  
would be elected, but it's  
too late. 
You don't want us to mention 
appointees, but when you see 
the quality of people in our 
administration, see how  
colin powell performed, I  
say administration, he's --  
you weren't impressed with  
the fact that he -- 
>> excuse me -- 
>> 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? 
>> I'm totally impressed  
with that. 
I want to know when is your 
guess. 
>> I see. 
You meantime? 
>> Yeah. 
>> I don't know. 
Starting after four years. 
I think you'll see more  
minority candidates and  
women candidates coming  
forward. 
This is supposed to be the  
women's, year of the women  
in the senate, let's see how 
they do. 
I hope a lot of them win. 
>> We only have a minute  
left. 
Unless you just won't do it, 
Colin Powell will be on  
somebody's ticket four years 
from now, right? 
Right? 
That's it. 
Four years. 
>> How about a woman? 
>> Now, if he won't be,  
General Waller would be a  
concern. 
You say, why do you keep  
picking military people? 
These are people if that I  
just happen to know and have 
a high regard for. 
I'm sure there are hundreds  
of others. 
>> How about dr. Lou  
Sullivan? 
>> Absolutely. 
>> A good man. 
>> What about a woman? 
>> My candidate's back  
there. 
>> Okay, I can think of  
many. 
>> Many? 
>> Absolutely. 
>> When? 
>> Okay, how about Sandra  
Day O'Connor? 
Dr. Bernadine Healy,  
National Institute of  
Health. 
I yield the floor. 
Name some more. 
>> Thank you. 
>> 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 debate. 
It is time for the  
two-minute closing  
statements, and by prior  
agreement, president Bush  
will go first. 
>> May I ask for an  
exception because I think we 
owe Carole Simpson, anybody  
can stand in between these  
three characters here and  
get the job done, we owe her 
a round of applause. 
[ Applause ] 
>> Don't take it out of my  
time. 
>> That's right. 
I feel strongly about it,  
but I don't want it to come  
out of my time. 
Let me just say to the  
American people in 2  weeks  
we're going to choose who  
should sit in this Oval  
Office, who to lead the  
economic recovery. 
Who to be the leader of the  
free world. 
Who to get the deficit down. 
Three ways to do that. 
One is to raise taxes. 
One is to reduce spending,  
controlling that mandatory  
spending. 
Another one is to invest and 
to save and to stimulate  
growth. 
I do not want to raise  
taxes. 
I differ with the two here  
on that. 
I'm just not going to do  
that. 
I do believe that we need to 
control mandatory spending. 
I think we need to invest  
and save more. 
I believe 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. 
Let me pose this question to 
America. 
If in the next five minutes  
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 one  
of the three of us, who  
would you choose? 
Who has the perseverance,  
the character, the  
integrity, the maturity to  
get the job done? 
I hope I'm that person. 
Thank you very, very much. 
>> Thank you, Mr. President. 
And now a closing statement  
from Mr. Perot. 
>> If the American people  
want to do it and not talk  
about it, then they ought  
to, you know, I'm one person 
who ought to consider. 
If they want to keep slow  
dancing and talk about and  
not do it, I'm not your man. 
I am resource oriented,  
action oriented. 
I have built my businesses  
getting things done in three 
months that my competitors  
took 18 months to do. 
You can't do that with  
congress, everybody says. 
Sure you can. 
Congress is -- they're all  
good people. 
They're all patriots, but  
you got to link arms and  
work with them. 
Sure you'll have arguments,  
sure you'll have fights. 
We have them all day every  
day, but we get the job  
done. 
Now, I have to come back in  
my close to one thing,  
because I am passionate  
about education. 
I was talking about  
education for disadvantaged  
little children. 
Let me tell you one specific 
pilot program where children 
who don't have a chance go  
to this program when they're 
three, now we're going back  
to when the mother is  
pregnant and they'll start  
right after they're born,  
but starting when they're  
three and going to this  
school until they're nine  
and then going into the  
public school, in the 4th  
grade, 90% are on the honor 
roll. 
Now, that will change  
America. 
Those children will all go  
to college. 
They will live the American 
dream. 
And I beg the American  
people, anytime they think  
about reforming education,  
to take this piece of  
society that doesn't have a  
chance and take these little 
pieces of clay that can be  
shaped and molded and give  
them the same love and  
nurture and affection and  
support you give your  
children, and teach them  
that they're unique and that 
they're precious and there's 
only one person in the world 
like them. 
And you will see this nation 
bloom. 
And we will have so many  
people who are qualified for 
the top job, that it will be 
terrific. 
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 dollars in  
taxes, and for a guy who  
started out with everything  
he owned in the trunk of his 
car, that ain't bad. 
>> Once again, Mr. Perot -- 
>> it is in your hands. 
I wish you well. 
I'll see you tomorrow night. 
On NBC. 
10:30, 11 O'clock eastern. 
>> Finally, last but not  
least, Governor Clinton. 
>> Thank you, carol. 
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 two  
or three things. 
First of all, the people of  
my state have let me be  
their governor for 12 years  
because I made commitments  
to two things. 
More jobs and better  
schools. 
Our schools are now better,  
our children get off to a  
better start from 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, fourth in  
manufacturing job growth,  
fourth in income growth,  
fourth in the economy. 
I'm proud of that. 
It happened because I can  
work with people. 
Republicans and democrats. 
That's why we've had 24  
retired generals and  
admirals, hundreds of  
people, many of them  
republican, support this  
campaign. 
You have to decide whether  
you want to change or not. 
We do not need four 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 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 kids to  
grow up to be part of the  
first generation of  
Americans to do worse than  
her parents. 
We are 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. 
>> 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 next  
Monday, October 19th from  
the campus of Michigan State 
University in East Lansing, 
Michigan. 
I'm Carole Simpson. 
Good night.