The 1992 Vice Presidential Debates

The vice presidential debate took place on October13,1992 in Atlanta, Georgia. The moderator is Hal Bruno of ABC News. Mr.Bruno introduces the vice presidential candidates and describes the formatin his opening remarks. Below is the transcript of that debate. The reprintis approximately 35 pages long.

  HAL BRUNO:  Good evening from Atlanta and welcome to the vicepresidential debate sponsored by the Nonpartisan Commission onPresidential Debates.  It's being held here in the Theater for theArts on the campus of Georgia Tech.  I'm Hal Bruno from ABC News andI'm going to be moderating tonight's debate.  The participants areRepublican Vice President Dan Quayle.  (Applause)  Democratic Senator Al Gore.  (Applause)  And retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, who is the vicepresidential nominee--  (Applause)  --for independent candidate Ross Perot.  (Applause)  Now, the ground rules for tonight's debate.  Each candidate willhave 2 minutes for an opening statement.  I will then present theissues to be discussed.  For each topic, the candidates will have aminute and 15 seconds to respond.  Then this will be followed by a 5minute discussion period in which they can ask questions of each otherif they so choose.  Now, the order of response has been determined by a drawing andwe'll rotate with each topic.  At the end of the debate, eachcandidate will have 2 minutes for a closing statement.  Our radio and TV audience should know that the candidates were givenan equal allocation of auditorium seats for their supporters.  So I'dlike to ask the audience here in the theater to please refrain fromapplause or any partisan demonstration once the debate is under waybecause it takes time away from the candidates.  So with that pleafrom your moderator let's get started.  And we'll turn first to Senator Gore for his opening statement.  SENATOR GORE:  Good evening.  It's great to be here in Atlanta forthis debate where America will be showcases to the world when the 1996Olympics are put on right here.  It's appropriate because in a realsense, our discussion this evening will be about what kind of nationwe want to be 4 years from now.  It's also a pleasure to be with my 2opponents this evening.  Admiral Stockdale, may I say it's a specialhonor to share this stage with you.  Those of us who served in Vietnamlooked at you as a national hero even before you were awarded theCongressional Medal of Honor.  And Mr. Vice President--Dan, if I may--it was 16 years ago that youand I went to the Congress on the very first day together.  I'll makeyou a deal this evening.  If you don't try to compare George Bush toHarry Truman, I won't compare you to Jack Kennedy.  (Applause)  Harry Truman--  VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE:  Do you remember the last time someonecompared themselves to Jack Kennedy?  Do you remember what they said?  GORE:  Harry Truman, it's worth remembering, assumed the presidencywhen Franklin Roosevelt died here in Georgia--only one of manyoccasions when fate thrust a vice president into the Oval Office in atime of crisis.  It's something to think about during the debate thisevening.  But our real discussion is going to be about change.  BillClinton and I stand for change because we don't believe our nation canstand 4 more years of what we've had under George Bush and Dan Quayle.  When the recession came they were like a deer caught in theheadlights--paralyzed into inaction, blinded to the suffering and painof bankruptcies and people who were unemployed.  We have anenvironmental crisis, a health insurance crisis, substandardeducation.  It is time for a change.  Bill Clinton and I want to get our country moving forward again, putour people back to work, and create a bright future for the US ofAmerica.  BRUNO:  Okay, the next statement will be from Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  Well, thank you, Senator Gore, for reminding me about myperformance in the 1988 vice presidential debate.  This is 1992, BillClinton is running against President George Bush.  There are 2 thingsthat I'm going to stress during this debate:  one, Bill Clinton'seconomic plan and his agenda will make matters much, much worse--hewill raise your taxes, he will increase spending, he will makegovernment bigger, jobs will be lost; second, Bill Clinton does nothave the strength nor the character to be president of the US.  (Applause)  Let us look at the agendas.  President Bush wants to hold the lineon taxes, Bill Clinton wants to raise taxes.  President Bush is for abalanced budget amendment, Bill Clinton is opposed to it.  We want toreform the legal system because it's too costly, Bill Clinton wantsthe status quo.  We want to reform the health care system, BillClinton wants to ration health care.  Bill Clinton wants to empowergovernment, we want to empower people.  In St.  Louis, Missouri, in June of this year, Bill Clinton saidthis:  "America is the mockery of the world." He is wrong.  At some time during these next 4 years there is going to be acrisis--there will be an international crisis.  I can't tell you whereit's going to be, I can't even tell you the circumstances--but it willhappen.  We need a president who has the experience, who has beentested, who has the integrity and qualifications to handle the crisis.The president has been tested, the president has the integrity and thecharacter.  The choice is yours.  You need to have a president you can trust.  Can you really trustBill Clinton?  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale, your opening statement, please, sir?  ADMIRAL STOCKDALE:  Who am I?  Why am I here?  (Laughter and applause)  I'm not a politician--everybody knows that.  So don't expect me touse the language of the Washington insider.  Thirty-seven years in theNavy, and only one of them up there in Washington.  And now I'm anacademic.  The centerpiece of my life was the Vietnam War.  I was there the dayit started.  I led the first bombing raid against North Vietnam.  Iwas there the day it ended, and I was there for everything in between.Ten years in Vietnam, aerial combat, and torture.  I know things aboutthe Vietnam War better than anybody in the world.  I know some thingsabout the Vietnam War better than anybody in the world.  And I know how governments, how American governments can be--can becourageous, and how they can be callow.  And that's important.  That'sone thing I'm an insider on.  I was the leader of the underground of the American pilots who wereshot down in prison in North Vietnam.  You should know that theAmerican character displayed in those dungeons by those fine men was athing of beauty.  I look back on those years as the beginning of wisdom, learningeverything a man can learn about the vulnerabilities and the strengthsthat are ours as Americans.  Why am I here tonight?  I am here because I have in my brain and inmy heart what it takes to lead America through tough times.  BRUNO:  Thank you, Admiral.  I thought since you're running for vicepresident, that we ought to start off by talking about the vicepresidency itself.  The vice president presides over the Senate, hecasts a deciding vote in case of a tie, but his role really depends onthe assignments that are given to him by the president.  However, if apresident should die in office, or is unable to serve for any otherreason, the vice president automatically becomes president, and thathas happened 5 times in this century.  So the proposition I put on the table for you to discuss is this.  What role would each of you like to play as vice president, whatareas interest you, and what are your qualifications to serve aspresident, if necessary?  In the case of Vice President Quayle, who we're starting with, Isuppose you'd tell us the role that you did play in the first term andwhich you'd like to do in a 2nd term.  Go ahead, sir.  QUAYLE:  Well, then I won't give you that answer.  Qualifications.  I've been there, Hal.  I've done the job.  I'vebeen tested.  I've been vice president for 4 years.  Senator Gorereferred to us being elected to the Congress together in 1976.  I'vedone the job.  I've done many things for the president.  But even as vice president you never know exactly what your role isgoing to be from time to time, and let me just give you an example ofwhere I was tested under fire and in a crisis.  President Bush was flying to Malta in 1989 to meet with PresidentGorbachev.  It was the first meeting between President Bush andPresident Gorbachev.  They had known each other before.  A coup broke out in the Philippines.  I had to go to the situationroom.  I had to assemble the president's advisers.  I talked toPresident Aquino.  I made the recommendation to the president.  Thepresident made the decision, the coup was suppressed, democracycontinued in the Philippines, the situation was ended.  I've been there.  And I'll tell you one other thing that qualifiesyou for being president--and it's this, Hal-- you've got to stand upfor what you believe in.  And nobody has ever criticized me for nothaving strong beliefs.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  My association with Mr.  Perot is a very personal oneand as I have stood in and finally taken his running mate position, hehas granted me total autonomy.  I don't take advantage of it, but I amsure that he would make me a partner in decision, in making decisionsabout the way to handle health care, the way to get this economy backon its feet again, in every way.  I have not had the experience of these gentlemen, but--to be anymore specific--but I know I have his trust, and I intend to act in away to keep that situation alive.  Thank you.  BRUNO:  Senator Gore.  GORE:  Bill Clinton understands the meaning of the words "teamwork"and "partnership." If we're successful in our efforts to gain yourtrust and lead this nation, we will work together to put our countryback on the right track again.  The experience that George Bush andDan Quayle have been talking about includes the worst economicperformance since the Great Depression.  Unemployment is up, personalincome is down, bankruptcies are up, housing starts are down.  Howlong can we continue with trickle-down economics when the record offailure is so abundantly clear?  Discussions of the vice presidency tend sometimes to focus on thecrisis during which a vice president is thrust into the Oval Office,and indeed, one-3rd of the vice presidents who have served have beenmoved into the White House.  But the teamwork and partnership beforehand--and hopefully thatsituation never happens--how you work together is criticallyimportant.  The way we work together in this campaign is one sample.  Now I'd like to say in response to Vice President Quayle- -he talkedabout Malta and the Philippines.  George Bush has concentrated onevery other country in the world.  When are you guys going to startworrying about our people here in the US of America and get ourcountry moving again?  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Again, I will ask the audience:  please do not applaud, ittakes time from the candidates.  All right, now we have 5 minutes fordiscussion.  Go ahead, Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  The answer to that is very simple:  we are not going toraise taxes to create new jobs, we have a plan to create new jobs.But that wasn't the question.  The question dealt with qualifications.Teamwork and partnership may be fine in the Congress, SenatorGore--that's what Congress is all about, compromise, teamwork, workingthings out.  But when you're president of the US or when you're vicepresident and you have to fill in like I did the night of the crisisin the Philippines, you've got to make a decision, you've got to makeup your mind.  Bill Clinton, running for president of the US, saidthis about the Persian Gulf war.  He said:  "Had I been in the Senate,I would have voted with the majority, if it was a close vote.  But Iagreed with the arguments of the minority."  You can't have it both ways, you have to make a decision.  Youcannot sit there in an international crisis--  (Applause)  --and sit there and say, well, on the one hand, this is okay, and,on the other hand, this is okay.  You've got to make the decision.President Bush has made the decisions; he's been tested, he's got theexperience, he's got the qualification, he's got the integrity to beour president for the next 4 years.  BRUNO:  Thank you, Mr.  Vice President.  Admiral Stockdale, it'syour turn to respond next, and then Senator Gore will have his chanceto respond.  STOCKDALE:  Okay.  I thought this was just an open session, this5-minute thing, and I didn't have anything to add to his.  But Iwill--  GORE:  Well, I'll jump in if you don't want--  (Laughter)  QUAYLE:  I thought anyone could jump in whenever they wanted to.  BRUNO:  Okay, whatever pleases you gentlemen is fine with me.You're the candidates.  QUAYLE:  But I want Admiral Stockdale's time.  (Laughter and applause)  BRUNO:  This is not the Senate, where you can trade off time.  Goahead, Senator Gore.  GORE:  I'll let you all figure out the rules, I've got some pointsthat I want to make here, and I still haven't gotten an answer to myquestion on when you guys are going to start worrying about thiscountry, but I want to elaborate on it before--  QUAYLE:  Why doesn't the Democratic Congress--why doesn't theDemocratic Congress--  BRUNO:  Mr.  Vice President, let him say his thoughts, and then youcan come in.  GORE:  I was very patient in letting you get off that string ofattacks.  We've been listening to--  QUAYLE:  Good points.  GORE:  --trickle-down economics for 12 years now, and you all stillsupport trickle-down to the very last drop.  And, you know, talkingabout this point of concentrating on every other country in the worldas opposed to the people of our country right here at home, whenGeorge Bush took former Secretary of State Baker out of the State Deptand put him in charge of the campaign and made him chief of staff inthe White, Mr.  Baker, who's quite a capable man, said that for theselast 4 years George Bush was working on the problems of the rest ofthe world and in the next 4 years he would target America.  Well, Iwant you to know we really appreciate that.  But Bill Clinton and Iwill target America from day one.  We won't wait 4 years before weconcentrate on the problems in this country.  He went on to say that it's really amazing what George Bush can dowhen he concentrates.  Well, it's time that we had a president likeBill Clinton who can concentrate and will concentrate and work on theproblems of real people in this country.  You know, our country is introuble.  We simply cannot continue with this philosophy of givinghuge tax cuts to the very wealthy, raising taxes on middle incomefamilies the way Bush and Quayle have done and then waiting for it towork.  How much longer will it take, Dan, for trickle down economicsto work, in your theory?  QUAYLE:  Well, we're going to have plenty of time to talk abouttrickle down government, which you're for.  But the question--  GORE:  Well, I'd like to hear the answer.  QUAYLE:  But the question is--the question is--and which you havefailed to address, and that is, why is Bill Clinton qualified to bepresident of the US.  You've talked about--  GORE:  Oh, I'll be happy to answer that question--  QUAYLE:  You've talked about Jim Baker.  You've talked about trickledown economics.  You've talked about the worst economy-  BRUNO:  Now, wait a minute.  The question was about--  QUAYLE:  --in 50 years.  GORE:  I'll be happy to answer those.  May I answer--  QUAYLE:  Why is he qualified to be president of the US?  GORE:  I'll be happy to--  QUAYLE:  I want to go back and make a point--  GORE:  Well, you've asked me the question.  If you won't answer myquestion I will answer yours.  QUAYLE:  I have not asked you a question.  I've made a statement,that you have not told us why Bill Clinton is qualified to bepresident of the US.  I pointed out what he said about the PersianGulf War.  But let me repeat it for you.  Here's what he said,Senator.  You know full well what he said.  GORE:  You want me to answer your question?  QUAYLE:  I'm making a statement.  Then you can answer it.  BRUNO:  Can we give Admiral Stockdale a chance to come in, please--  (Applause)  And again, audience--  (Simultaneous conversation)  QUAYLE:  (Inaudible) here's what he said.  I mean, this is thePersian Gulf War--the most important event in his political lifetimeand here's what Bill Clinton says.  If it's a close vote, I'd votewith the majority.  BRUNO:  Let's give Admiral Stockdale a chance to come in.  QUAYLE:  But he was the minority.  That qualifies you for beingpresident of the US.  I hope America is listening very closely to thisdebate tonight.  STOCKDALE:  And I think America is seeing right now the reason thisnation is in gridlock.  (Laughter, applause)  The trickle downs and the tax and spends, or whatever you want tocall them are at swords points.  We can't get this economy going.Over here we've got Dan whose president is going to take 8 years tobalance the budget and on my left, the senator, whose boss is going toget it half way balanced in 4 years.  Ross Perot has got a plan tobalance the budget 5 years in length from start to finish.  Andwe're--people of the non-professional category who are just sick ofthis terrible thing that's happened to the country.  And we've got aman who knows how to fix it, and I'm working for him.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  I was a little bit worried that there might not be a freeflowing discussion tonight.  (Laughter)  Let's move on to the economy.  Specifically the economy was talkedabout at great length the other night in the presidential debate.Let's talk about a very particular aspect of the economy and that is,getting people back to work.  For the average person, the great fearis losing his or her job and many Americans have lost jobs in thisrecession, which also means the loss of benefits, the loss of a home,the destruction of a family's security.  Specifically, how would youradministration go about getting people back to work and how long is itgoing to take?  And we start with Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  The lifeblood of our economy is investment.  And rightnow when we pay $350--we borrow $350 billion a year it saps the moneymarkets and the private investors are not getting their share.  Whatwe do is work on that budget by an aggressive program, not a painfulprogram, so that we can start borrowing less money and getting moreinvestment money on the street through entrepreneurs who can buildfactories, who will hire people, and maybe we'll start manufacturinggoods here in this country again.  That's-- that's my answer.  BRUNO:  Okay.  Senator Gore.  GORE:  Bill Clinton's top priority is putting America back to work.Bill Clinton and I will create good, high-wage jobs for our people,the same way he has done in his state.  Bill Clinton has createdhigh-wage manufacturing jobs at 10 times the national average and infact according to the statistics coming from the Bush-Quayle LaborDept, for the last 2 years in a role Bill Clinton's state has beennumber one among all 50 in the creation of jobs in the private sector.  By contrast, in the nation as a whole, during the last 4 years, itis the first time since the presidency of Herbert Hoover, that we havegone for a 4-year period with fewer jobs at the end of that 4-yearperiod than we had at the beginning.  And look at manufacturing.  We have lost 1.4 million jobs inmanufacturing under George Bush and Dan Quayle.  They have even--welearned 2 weeks ago--taken our tax dollars and subsidized the movingof US factories to foreign countries.  Now don't deny it because 60Minutes and Nightline and the nation's newspapers have investigatedthis very carefully.  (Laughter.)  When are you going to stop using our tax dollars to shut downAmerican factories and move 'em to foreign countries and throwAmericans out of work?  BRUNO:  Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  Senator, don't always believe what you see on television.  (Applause.)  Let me tell you:  the media have been wrong before.  We have neversubsidized any country--or any company to move from the US to LatinAmerica.  You know full well the Caribbean Basin Initiative, you'vesupported that.  GORE:  No.  QUAYLE:  That is a program there--  GORE:  I voted against it.  QUAYLE:  You voted for it and your record--  GORE:  No.  QUAYLE:  Okay.  Well, we'll--we'll have a lot of interesting debateafter this debate.  Our people will be glad to furnish the press, ifthey're interested, in Senator Gore's voting record on the CaribbeanBasin Initiative.  But let's talk--you know, you keep talking abouttrickle-down economics and all this stuff, about the worst economysince Hoover.  It is a bad economy.  It's a tough economy.  Thequestion isn't--it's now who you're going to blame; what are you goingto do about it?  Your proposal it so raise $150 billion in taxes.  Toraise $220 billion in new spending.  GORE:  No.  QUAYLE:  How is raising taxes going to help small business?  How israising taxes going to help the farmer?  How is raising taxes going tohelp the consumer in America?  I submit to you that raising taxes willmake matters much, much worse.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Admiral.  We now throw it open for discussion.  AdmiralStockdale, it's your turn to start the discussion.  STOCKDALE:  Well, we've got to re--we've got to clean out the barn,if I may quote my boss, and start getting this investment money on thestreet so we can get, and encourage entrepreneurs to build factories.We--the program is out there.  It's a put-together thing that requiressome sacrifice, but not excessive, and we are willing to move forwardin--on a 5-year clip to put us back where we can start over andget--get this nation straightened out.  BRUNO:  Senator Gore, getting people back to work.  GORE:  Well, the difference between the Perot- Stockdale plan andthe Clinton-Gore plan is that Ross Perot's plan concentrates almostexclusively on balancing the budget and reducing the budget deficit,and the danger is that if that is the only goal it could throw ournation back into an even worse recession.  Bill Clinton and I have a detailed 5-year budget plan to create goodjobs, cut the budget deficit in half, and eliminate the investmentdeficit in order to get our economy moving forward again.  We have a$20-billion infrastructure fund to create a nationwide network ofhigh-speed rail, for example, and what are called informationsuperhighways to open up a whole universe of knowledge for our youngpeople and to help our universities and companies that rely on newadvances in the information revolution.  We also have tax incentivesfor investment in job-creating activities, not the kind ofencouragement for short-term rip-offs like the proposal that we havehad from George Bush.  But I want to return and say one more time:  you have used our taxdollars to subsidize the recruitment of US companies to move overseasand throw Americans out of work.  In Decaturville, Tennessee, not veryfar from my home, a factory was shut down right there when they weresolicited by officials paid with US taxpayers' money, and then thereplacement workers in a foreign country were trained with our taxdollars and then their imports were subsidized coming back into theUS.  When are you going to stop that program?  QUAYLE:  We do not have any program that encourages companies toclose down here and to go and invest on foreign soil.  That isabsolutely outrageous.  Of course American businesses do have businessabroad; we've got global competition.  We want businesses to expand.Do you realize this, Senator, that every job that's overseas there's 3jobs back here to support that.  But never have we ever, nor would we, support the idea of someoneclosing down a factory here and moving overseas.  That's just totallyridiculous.  GORE:  It's going on right now; it happened in Tennessee, inDecaturville, Tennessee.  When George Bush went to Nashville, theemployees who lost their jobs asked to meet with--  QUAYLE:  I want to get back--  GORE:  I talked with them.  Let me tell you what they're feeling.Some of them are in their 50s and 60s.  They want to know wherethey're going to get new jobs when their jobs have been destroyed.And there are 1.4 million manufacturing jobs that have been lostbecause of the policies of you and George Bush.  Do you seriouslybelieve that we ought to continue the same policies that have createdthe worst economy since the Great Depression?  QUAYLE:  I hope that when you talked to those people you said:  andthe first thing that Bill Clinton and I are going to do is to raise$150 billion in new taxes.  GORE:  You got that wrong, too.  QUAYLE:  And the first--that is part of your plan.  GORE:  No, it's not.  QUAYLE:  A hundred and fifty billion dollars in new taxes.  Well,you're going to disavow your plan.  GORE:  Listen, what we're proposing--  QUAYLE:  You know what you're doing, you know what you're doing?You're pulling a Clinton.  (Laughter)  And you know what a Clinton is?  And you know what Clinton is?  AClinton is, is what he says--he says one thing one day and anotherthing the next day--you try to have both sides of the issues.  Thefact of the matter is that you are proposing $150 billion in newtaxes.  GORE:  No.  QUAYLE:  And I hope that you talk to the people in Tennessee--  GORE:  No, we're not.  QUAYLE:  --and told them that--  GORE:  You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it true.  QUAYLE:  --going to have new taxes.  I hope you talked to them aboutthe fact that you were going to increase spending to $220 billion.I'm sure what you didn't talk to them about was about how we're goingto reform the health care system, like the president wants to do.  Hewants to go out and to reform the health care system so that everyAmerican will have available to them affordable health insurance.  I'm sure one other thing that you didn't talk to them about,Senator, and that is legal reform, because your position on legalreform is the status quo.  And yet you talk about foreign competition.Why should an American company have to spend 15 to 20 times on productliability and insurance costs compared to a company in Japan or acompany in Germany or somewhere else?  That's not right.  We haveproduct liability reform legislation on Capitol Hill.  It will createjobs.  And a Democratic Congress won't pass it.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Okay.  I think it's time to move on to our next topic.  All3 of you gentlemen have some expertise in defense and the armedforces.  Vice President Quayle and Senator Gore both served on theSenate Armed Services Committee.  Admiral Stockdale, of course, has avery distinguished military career.  With the end of the Cold War, everyone agrees that there are goingto be major cuts.  They've already started in the defense budget.  Butthis country has a long history of neglecting its military needs inpeace time and then paying for it with heavy casualties when we'recaught unprepared.  How much of a defense cut is safe?  What happensto the people who are forced to leave the military services, or ifthey lose their jobs because they're working in defense industries.  I think we start with Senator Gore this time.  GORE:  Bill Clinton and I support a strong national defense.  He andI have both fought for change within the Democratic Party as well aswithin the country.  In the aftermath of the Cold War, the definitionof strong national defense has obviously changed somewhat.  Forexample, George Bush wants to maintain at least 150,000 Americansoldiers in Europe, even though World War II ended 50 years ago.  Bill Clinton and I agree with so many military experts who believethat it is time for the Europeans, who are so much wealthier now andmore powerful than they were at the end of World War II to startpicking up a little more of that tab themselves and not rely soexclusively on the US taxpayers for the defense of Europe.  We believe that we can make savings in our defense budget and at thesame time, improve our national security.  Now, for those who are affected by the cutbacks, whether they comefrom George Bush or Bill Clinton and me--the difference is, BillClinton and I have a defense conversion program so that those who wonthe Cold War will not be left out in the cold.  We want to put them towork building an infrastructure and an economy here in this countryfor the '90's and the next century.  BRUNO:  Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  We won the Cold War because we invested in nationalsecurity.  We won the Cold War because we invested in our military.We didn't win the Cold--we won the Cold War because we invested innational security.  We won the Cold War because we invested in ourmilitary.  We didn't win the cold--or we won the Cold War becauseAmerica had the political will and made the right decisions.  Yes, wecan make the cuts in defense and we have.  Bill Clinton wants to cutdefense another $60 billion.  I'd say to the defense workers inCalifornia and elsewhere, a $60 billion defense cut is going to cut alot of jobs out.  Yes, we are making a conversion and we can go to a civil spacerather than having defense--or the defense industry.  Well, let me saythis:  we would not have won the Cold War if we had listened toSenator Gore and his crowd, and had supported a nuclear freeze.  Ifyou would have supported that attitude--if you would have supportedthat attitude, we would not have won the Cold War.  We won the ColdWar because we invested and we went forward.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Mr.--Admiral Stockdale, please.  STOCKDALE:  Yes, thanks.  The numbers, in terms of the dollar cuts,as they stand on our plans now, show us almost the same as the vicepresident's.  But we'd note that Mr.-- Governor Clinton's plan isalmost twice as much a cut as either one of us.  I've been through theend of World War II, and the surprise beginning of Korea, to see howwe--it cost us more money because we overcut the defense budget in thefirst place.  I don't say that--  (Applause.)  So I think that should be eyed with great suspicion, people that arereally kicking the props out from under our grand militaryestablishment prematurely.  Now there's other differences between the Perot approach and what wesee up here on either side of me, and that has to do with we want tofocus our interests, economic and military, more to the Pacific.  Wefigure that we are generally going along with any sort of a troopremoval from Europe.  So that's still another face of this puzzle.  BRUNO:  Senator Gore, would you like to start the discussion periodon this topic?  GORE:  Yeah, I'd like to respond first to you, Admiral Stockdale.Under the details of our 5-year budget plan, we do propose more indefense cuts than George Bush and Dan Quayle, but only 5 % more.  Admiral Crowe, who I think was one of your classmates in Annapolis--  STOCKDALE:  Oh, yes, I've known him--  GORE:  --has endorsed--  STOCKDALE:  --50 years.  GORE:  --the military portions of our plan, even though he was thechairman of the Joint Chiefs under George Bush, and John White hasendorsed the economic aspects of our plan, even though I believe hewas the architect of Ross Perot's economic plan.  Now when I heard George Bush say at the convention in Houston, thatwhen he heard the phrase "we won the Cold War," it made him wonder whothe "we" was.  Well, I want to tell you, President Bush, the "we" isthe people of the US of America.  This wasn't a partisan victory thatcame suddenly, a few months after you took the oath of office.  Thisstarted with Harry Truman and it was a bipartisan effort from the verybeginning.  George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall coming downis like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.  (Applause.)  And I want to, I want to add--I want to add one other thing, becausein the debate a few nights ago, I think President Bush made a veryserious misstatement of fact in response to Ross Perot.  It was kindof a little lecture he gave to Ross Perot when he said those SS-18sare gone, Ross, that's done.  He--he reached a deal with Boris Yeltsinto completely remove them so we can all sleep safely without any feartonight.  But you know what?  They thought they were going to get that deal,but when he took the person in charge of the negotiations out of theState Dept and put him in charge of the reelection campaign, the dealunraveled and now there is no START II deal at all.  In fact there areserious problems.  Isn't it a fact, Dan, that every single one of those SS-18s is stillthere, in the silos, and under the START I treaty, only half of thesilos are supposed to be dismantled, and there is no deal to get ridof the other half?  Didn't the president make a mistake there?  BRUNO:  Vice President Quayle, please.  QUAYLE:  The president does have a commitment from Boris Yeltsin toeliminate the SS-18s.  That is a commitment to--  GORE:  Is it an agreement?  QUAYLE:  It is a commitment.  GORE:  Oh.  (Laughter)  QUAYLE:  Let's talk about, let's talk about--  GORE:  Well, he said he'd--  BRUNO:  Let him talk, Senator.  QUAYLE:  Lighten up here, Al.  (Laughter and applause)  BRUNO:  Go ahead.  QUAYLE:  Let's talk about getting agreements.  You know, thepresident of the US doesn't just negotiate with your friends inCongress; the president of the US deals on the international scene.He's got to deal with the president of Russia, he's got to deal withthe chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Britain, thepresident of France, the prime minister of Japan--he's got to dealwith a whole host of leaders around the world.  And the leaders sitdown and they will negotiate, and they will come to agreements withpeople that they trust.  And this is a fundamental problem with BillClinton, is trust and character.  It is not the issue of how he avoided military service 20-some yearsago; it's the fact--it's the fact that he does not tell the truthabout it.  He first said he didn't get an induction notice, then wefind out that he did; he said he didn't have an ROTC slot, then wefind out he did; he said he didn't use Senator Fulbright's office forspecial influence, then we find out that he did.  These are inconsistencies.  Bill Clinton has trouble telling thetruth.  And he will have a very difficult time dealing with somebodylike President Yeltsin or Chancellor Kohl or Prime Minister Major orPresident Mitterrand, because truth and integrity are prerequisites tobeing president of the US.  (Applause)  GORE:  I want to respond to that, I want to respond to that.  GeorgeBush, in case you've forgotten, Dan, said "Read my lips--no newtaxes."  (Laughter and applause)  And you know what?  QUAYLE:  I didn't think I was going to hear that tonight.  GORE:  Hold on, hold on, let me finish.  QUAYLE:  Okay.  GORE:  He also said he wanted to be the environmental president;then he went on to say he wanted to be the education president.  Thenhe said that he wouldn't raise taxes again--no, never, ever, ever.Then the next day his spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, came out and saidthat's not a pledge.  Then 2 weeks ago he said that after theelection, if you win, then James Baker's going to go back to besecretary of state; then a week later, in the debate a few nights ago,he said, no, after the election, if we win, James Baker is going to bein charge of domestic policy.  Which is it, Dan?  Is he going to--what's your role in this going tobe?  (Laughter and applause)  BRUNO:  Well, we'll have to move on to another topic.  QUAYLE:  Let me--  BRUNO:  Sorry, Mr.  Vice President.  QUAYLE:  I don't have time to respond to that?  BRUNO:  You'll get plenty of chance to respond, so don't worry.  QUAYLE:  Okay, you're the moderator.  I was under the assumptionthat when the thing is like that that you get a chance to respond.  BRUNO:  Well, we ran out of time; according to the agreement, it'stime to move on.  And I want to stick to the agreement.  QUAYLE:  Okay.  Well, you got the last word on that, but we'll comeback to it.  BRUNO:  But you'll have a chance--I can see what's happening here:we throw out the topic and then we drift.  But that's okay, because Ithink it's making for a healthy exchange.  (Laughter)  The only thing I would ask of you--  GORE:  I'm enjoying it.  (Laughter)  BRUNO:  The only thing I would ask of you gentlemen is that when weget to the discussion period, whoever talks first be considerate ofthe others, because you have a tendency to filibuster.  QUAYLE:  Look over there.  (Laughter)  BRUNO:  Okay, I'm not pointing any fingers.  Let's talk about theenvironment--we'll get away from controversy.  (Laughter)  Everyone wants a safe and clean environment, but there's an ongoingconflict between environmental protection and the need for economicgrowth and jobs.  So the point I throw out on the table is, how do youresolve this conflict between protection of the environment and growthin jobs, and why has it taken so long to deal with basic problems,such as toxic waste dumps, clean air and clean water?  And, Vice President Quayle, it's your turn to start first.  QUAYLE:  Hal, that's a false choice.  You don't have to have achoice between the environment and jobs--you can have both.  Look atthe president's record:  clean air legislation passed the DemocraticCongress because of the leadership of George Bush.  It is the mostcomprehensive clean air act in our history.  We are firmly behindpreserving our environment, and we have a good record with which tostand.  The question comes about:  What is going to be their positionwhen it comes to the environment?  I say it's a false choice.  Youought to ask somebody in Michigan, a UAW worker in Michigan, if theythink increasing the CAFE standards, the fuel economy standards, to 45miles a gallon is a good idea--300,000 people out of work.  You oughtto talk to the timber people in the Northwest where they say that,well, we can only save the owl, forget about jobs.  You ought to talk to the timber people in the northwest, where theysay that--well, we can only save the owl.  Forget about jobs.  Youought to talk to the coal miners.  They're talking about putting acoal tax on.  They're talking about a tax on utilities, a tax ongasoline and home heating oil-- all sorts of taxes.  No, Hal, the choice isn't the environment and jobs.  With the rightpolicies--prudent policies--we can have both.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  I read Senator Gore's book about the environment and Idon't see how he could possibly pay for his proposals in today'seconomic climate.  (Applause)  You know, the Marshall Plan of the environment, and so forth.  And also, I'm told by some experts that the things that he fearsmost might not be all that dangerous, according to some scientists.You know, you can overdo, I'm told, environmental cleaning up.  If youpurify the pond, the water lilies die.  You know, I love this planetand I want it to stay here, but I don't like to have it the privateproperty of fanatics that want to overdo this thing.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Senator Gore.  GORE:  Bill Clinton and I believe we can create millions of new jobsby leading the environmental revolution instead of dragging our feetand bringing up the rear.  You know, Japan and Germany are both opening proclaiming to theworld now that the biggest new market in the history of world businessis the market for the new products and technologies that fostereconomic progress without environmental destruction.  Why is the Japanese business organization--the largest one theyhave, the Ki Den Ren (phonetic), arguing for tougher environmentalstandards than those embodied in US law?  Why is MITI--their tradeorganization--calling on all Japanese corporations everywhere in theworld to exceed by as much as possible the environmental standards ofevery country in which they're operating?  Well, maybe they're just dumb about business competition.  But maybethey know something that George Bush and Dan Quayle don't know--thatthe future will call for greater efficiency and greater environmentalefficiency.  This is an issue that touches my basic values.  I'm taught in myreligious tradition that we are given dominion over the Earth, butwe're required to be good stewards of the Earth, and that means totake care of it.  We're not doing that now under the Bush-Quaylepolicies.  They have gutted the Clean Air Act.  They have broken hispledge to be the environmental president.  Bill Clinton and I willchange that.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Okay.  Discussion period now.  Again, leave time for eachother, please.  Vice President Quayle, go ahead.  QUAYLE:  Well, I'm tempted to yield to Admiral Stockdale on this.But I--you know, the fact of the matter is that one of the proposalsthat Senator Gore has suggested is to have the taxpayers of Americaspend $100 billion a year on environmental projects in foreigncountries--  GORE:  That's not true--  QUAYLE:  Foreign aid--well, Senator, it's in your book.  On page304--  GORE:  No, it's not.  QUAYLE:  It is there.  (Applause)  It is in your book.  You know, Hal, I wanted to bring the Gore booktonight, because I figured he was going to pull a Bill Clinton on meand he has.  Because he's going to disavow what's in his book.  It'sin your book--  GORE:  No.  QUAYLE:  It comes out to $100 billion of foreign aid forenvironmental projects.  BRUNO:  All right.  Let's give him a chance to answer.  QUAYLE:  Now, how are we going to pay for it?  How are we going topay for an extra $100 billion of the taxpayers' money for this?  GORE:  Dan, I appreciate you reading my book very much, but you'vegot it wrong.  QUAYLE:  No, I've got it right.  GORE:  There's no such proposal.  QUAYLE:  Okay, well, we'll find--  BRUNO:  Let him talk, Mr Vice President.  Let the senator talk.  Goahead.  GORE:  There is no such proposal.  What I have called upon is acooperative effort by the US and Europe and Asia to work together inopening up new markets throughout the world for the new technologiesthat are necessary in order to reconcile the imperatives of economicprogress with the imperatives of environmental protection.  TakeMexico City for an example.  They are shutting down factories rightnow, not because of their economy, but because they're chokingtogether on the air pollution.  They're banning automobiles some daysof the week.  Now what they want is not new laser-guided missile systems.  Whatthey want are new engines and new factories and new products thatdon't pollute the air and the water, but nevertheless allow them tohave a decent standard of living for their people.  Last year 35 % ofour exports went to developing countries, countries where thepopulation is expanding worldwide by as much as one billion peopleevery ten years.  We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we don't facea global environmental crisis, nor should we assume that it's going tocost jobs.  Quite the contrary.  We are going to be able to createjobs as Japan and Germany are planning to do right now, if we have theguts to leave.  Now earlier we heard about the auto industry and the timberindustry.  There have been 250,000 jobs lost in the automobileindustry during the Reagan-Bush-Quayle years.  There have been tens ofthousands of jobs lost in the timber industry.  What they like to dois point the finger of blame with one hand and hand out pink slipswith the other hand.  They've done a poor job both with the economyand the environment.  (Applause.)  It's time for a change.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale, you had something you wanted to say here?  STOCKDALE:  I know that--I read where Senator Gore's mentor haddisagree with some of the scientific data that is in his book.  How doyou respond to those criticisms of that sort?  Do you--  QUAYLE:  Deny it.  GORE:  Well--  (Laughter.)  STOCKDALE:  Do you take this into account?  (Laughter.)  GORE:  No, I--let me respond.  Thank you, Admiral, for saying that.You're talking about Roger Revelle.  His family wrote a lengthy lettersaying how terribly he had been misquoted and had his remarks takencompletely out of context just before he died.  (Jeers.)  He believed up until the day he died--no, it's true, he died lastyear--  BRUNO:  I'd ask the audience to stop, please.  GORE:  --and just before he died, he co- authored an article whichwas--had statements taken completely out of context.  In fact the vastmajority of the world's scientists--and they have worked on thisextensively-- believe that we must have an effort to face up to theproblems we face with the environment.  And if we just stick out headsin the sand and pretend that it's not real, we're not doing ourselvesa favor.  Even worse than that, we're telling our children and allfuture generations that we weren't willing to face up to thisobligation.  QUAYLE:  Hal, can I--  GORE:  I believe that we have a mandate--  BRUNO:  Sure.  We've still got time.  GORE:  --to try to solve this problem, particularly when we can doit while we create jobs in the process.  BRUNO:  Go ahead, Mr Vice President, there's still time.  Not much,though.  QUAYLE:  I know it.  We've got to have a little equal time here now,Hal.  In the book you also suggest taxes on, gasoline taxes onutilities, taxes on carbon, taxes on timber.  There's a whole host oftaxes.  And I don't just--I don't believe raising taxes is the way tosolve our environmental problems.  And you talk about the bad situation in the auto industry.  You seemto say that the answer is, well, I'll just make it that much worse byincreasing the CAFE standards.  Yes, the auto industry is hurting,it's been hurting for a long time, and increasing the CAFE standardsto 45 miles per gallon, like you and Bill Clinton are suggesting, willput, as I said, 300,000 people out of work.  BRUNO:  Okay, let's move on now.  I would like to remind theaudience of one thing.  Trying to stop you from applauding may be alost cause.  I didn't say anything about hissing, but I do think it isdiscourteous, and there's no call for that, and it reflects badly onthe candidate you're supporting.  So let's knock that off.  Let's go on to health care.  Health care protection has become anecessity of life in our society, yet millions of Americans are notensured and the cost of medical treatment is practically out ofcontrol.  How do you propose to control these costs and how are you going toprovide access to health care for every American?  Let's see, whose turn is it to go now?  QUAYLE:  I think it's Admiral Stockdale's.  BRUNO:  I think it's Admiral Stockdale's turn to go first.  Goahead, sir.  STOCKDALE:  Well, we have excellent technical health care, but wedon't administer it very well, and the escalating costs top any otherbudget danger in the--on the horizon, I think.  And what Mr Perot hassuggested is that we try to re- -to look at the incentives, theincentives that are in our current way of doing business, are what arekilling us.  There's-- there's no incentive for a hypochondriac not togo to the--to Medicare every day.  There is no incentive for a doctorto curtail the expensive tests because he's under threat ofmalpractice lawyers.  And so we--we just have a web of wrong-way incentives that has to bechanged by some people who are in the medical profession and someother crafty people who know how to write contracts to changeincentives or get--get the--the incentives situation under control.  BRUNO:  Senator Gore.  GORE:  Bill Clinton and I believe that if a criminal has the rightto a lawyer, every American family ought to have the right to see adoctor of their own choosing when they need to see a doctor.  Thereare almost 40 million Americans who work full time today and yet haveno health insurance whatsoever.  We are proposing to change that, notwith a government-run plan, not with new taxes, but with a newapproach called managed competition.  We are going to provide a standard health insurance package providedby private insurance companies and eliminate the duplication and redtape, and overlap, and we're going to have cost controls to eliminatethe unnecessary procedures that are costing so much money today.  There was a bipartisan commission evenly divided between Republicansand Democrats who looked at our plan and the Bush-Quayle proposal.They said ours will save tens of billions of dollars and cover everyAmerican.  The Bush proposal, by contrast, will cost us tens ofbillions and still leave Americans uninsured.  But what I want to know is, why has George Bush waited for 3 and ahalf years during this health insurance crisis before finally comingout with a proposal, just before the election, and he still hasn'tintroduced it in Congress.  Why the long wait, Dan?  BRUNO:  Mr Vice President.  QUAYLE:  Hal, President Bush has had his health care reform agendaon Capitol Hill for 8 months.  He's had parts of it up there foryears.  You talk about increasing costs that the president has had onCapitol Hill- - medical malpractice reform legislation--for severalyears.  Defensive medicine and health care today cost $20.7 billion.Defense medicine defined as testing and treatment that is onlynecessary in case of a law suit.  Wouldn't that be nice to take $20.7billion that we're putting into our legal system and put it topreventive health care or women's health care or something elsebesides trial lawyers?  But no--you don't want to reform the health care system to drivedown costs through medical malpractice.  What you're doing--you aretalking about a government program.  Your program is to ration healthcare.  You said in your statement to see a doctor when you want to seea doctor.  When you start rationing health care there's going to be awaiting line to see a doctor unless it's an emergency.  Remember when we rationed energy in this country?  Waiting lines atthe gasoline stations.  The same thing would happen when you rationhealth care.  The president's proposal deals with tax credits,deductions and purchasing health care in the private sector and makinghealth care affordable and available to every single American.  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale, would you like to start the discussionperiod?  STOCKDALE:  Well, I'm out of ammunition on this--  GORE:  Well, let me talk then because I've got a couple of thingsthat I want to say.  BRUNO:  Go ahead, Senator.  GORE:  We still didn't get an answer to the question of why GeorgeBush waited for 3 and a half years--  QUAYLE:  He didn't wait 3 and a half years.  GORE:  --during the national--  QUAYLE:  I did answer the question.  GORE:  --health insurance crisis before he even made a proposal.And it still hasn't been submitted to Congress in the form oflegislation.  I also want to respond to the question aboutmalpractice.  Do you know which state has the lowest malpracticepremiums in the entire country?  Bill Clinton's Arkansas does--partlybecause he has passed reform measures limiting the time during whichmalpractice suits can be filed.  In fact, tort claims generally havefallen 10 % under Bill Clinton there.  But you know, that's not the reason for this health insurancecrisis.  The reason is, we've had absolutely no leadership.  Let metell you about a friend of mine named Mitch Philpot from Marietta,Georgia--not far from here--who Tipper and I met with his family inJohns Hopkins Hospital.  Their son, Brett, was in the bed next to ourson and they couldn't pay their medical bills.  They used to live inAtlanta, but they lost their house.  And while they were there, bothMitch and his wife lost their jobs because they could not get unpaidleave.  We pass legislation to give family leave under circumstances likethat, exempting small business.  How can you talk about family values,Dan, and twice veto the Family Medical Leave Act?  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Mr Vice President.  QUAYLE:  Pass our Family Leave Act, because it goes to smallbusinesses where the major problem is.  Your proposal excluded smallbusiness.  That's the problem.  Now, let me talk about health care and--  GORE:  Did you require it?  Did you require it?  QUAYLE:  My turn-- (holding hand up at Gore)  GORE:  Did you require (inaudible)--  (Simultaneous conversation)  QUAYLE:  My turn.  GORE:  It's a free discussion.  QUAYLE:  Take a breath, Al.  Inhale.  GORE:  It's a free discussion.  (Applause)  Did you require family leave in that legislation?  Yes or no?  QUAYLE:  We offered incentives to small businesses.  Yes or no--  GORE:  That's a no, isn't it?  QUAYLE:  Was small business exempted under your proposal?  GORE:  Yes.  QUAYLE:  Yes.  And that's where the biggest problem is--  GORE:  Did you require it of anyone?  QUAYLE:  I'm going to get back to the topic again--  GORE:  Did you require it of anyone?  QUAYLE:  --because he obviously doesn't want to talk about healthinsurance or health care, which you address.  I was absolutely--Ishouldn't say that--another Clinton.  You pulled another Clinton on mebecause here you go again.  Medical malpractice legislation has beenbefore the Congress of the US and you tried to convince the Americanpeople is for tort reform?  The biggest campaign contributors to yourcampaign are the trial lawyers of America.  We have a letter--andwe're going to release it again to the media, if the media isinterested--where the head of the trial lawyers of Arkansas said thatBill Clinton was basically in their back pocket, that Bill Clinton hasalways opposed tort reform of any kind.  It's in the letter, we haveit, we'll make it available-- because Bill Clinton is not for tortreform.  I'd like to know where Bill Clinton stands on health insurance.When he was campaigning in New Hampshire, he said I am for thepay-or-play health insurance.  Pay or play, that's a 7 to 9 % payrolltax on every worker in America that participates in this program.  GORE:  Can I respond?  QUAYLE:  And then, all of a sudden, this summer he says, oh, I'm notfor a pay or play.  Here we go again.  Bill Clinton, one day he's forpay or play, the next day he's against pay or play.  He does it ineducation.  He writes Polly Williams, a Democrat state legislator inMilwaukee, Wisconsin, saying I'm for choice in education; then he goesto the NEA teachers union and says, sorry, I'm not for choice ineducation because you won't let me be for choice in education.  One time Bill Clinton says term limits--we ought to limit terms,it's ridiculous that a member of Congress can serve for 30, 40, 50years, and you limit the terms of the president-- but that's anothersubject.  GORE:  We're fixing to limit one.  (Laughter)  QUAYLE:  It's not going to be mine; it's going to be people like youand Kennedy and Metzenbaum and George Mitchell and the rest of thatDemocratic Congress on Capitol Hill--that's who we're talking about.  (Applause)  And that's who the American people--as you well know, you've gotterm limits for a president, you don't have term limits for Congress,and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we don't.  GORE:  I want to respond to some of this.  QUAYLE:  Here goes Bill Clinton again:  he says, well, term limits,that's an interesting idea, I think I might be in favor of that.  Thenhis Democratic friends in Congress say, no, Bill, you can't be forthat.  Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth.  GORE:  I want to respond, if I might.  BRUNO:  Go ahead, Senator, quickly.  GORE:  You know, in response to my question before that long laundrylist, he said that they had their own family leave proposal.  It wasjust like the proposal of your party back when Social Security wasfirst proposed.  You said:  we're for it as long as it's voluntary.Same with Medicare.  You said:  we're for it so long as it'svoluntary.  Civil rights--we're for it so long as it's voluntary.  BRUNO:  Senator, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap this one up.  GORE:  Family leave is important enough to be required.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  Okay, thanks.  Coming out of health care, again trying toavoid controversy, let's talk about the abortion debate.  (Laughter)  Abortion rights has been a bitter controversy in this country foralmost 20 years.  It's been heightened by the recent Supreme Courtdecisions.  So I'll make it very simple in this question:  Where doeach of you stand on the issue?  What actions will your president'sadministration take on the abortion question?  Will it be a factor inthe appointment of federal judges, especially to the Supreme Court?And I believe that Senator Gore goes first.  GORE:  Bill Clinton and I support the right of a woman to choose.  (Applause)  That doesn't mean we're pro-abortion; in fact, we believe there areway too many abortions in this country.  And the way to reduce them isby reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, not vetoing familyplanning legislation the way George Bush has consistently done.  The reason we are pro-choice and in favor of a woman's right toprivacy is because we believe that during the early stages of apregnancy the government has no business coming in and ordering awoman to do what the government thinks is best.  What Dan Quayle andGeorge Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson think is the rightdecision in a given set of circumstances is their privilege--but don'thave the government order a woman to do what they think is the rightthing to do.  We ought to be able to build more common ground among those whodescribe themselves as pro-choice and pro-life in efforts to reducethe number of unwanted pregnancies.  But, Dan, you can clear this up very simply by repeating after me:I support the right of a woman to choose.  Can you say that?  BRUNO:  Vice President Quayle, your turn.  QUAYLE:  This issue is an issue that divides Americans deeply.  Ihappen to be pro-life.  I have been pro-life for my 16 years--  (Applause.)  --in public life.  My objective and the president's objective is totry to reduce abortions in this country.  We have 1.6 millionabortions.  We have more abortions in Washington, DC, than we do livebirths.  Why shouldn't we have more reflection upon the issue beforeabor--the decision of abortion is made.  I would hope that we wouldagree upon that.  Something like a 24-hour waiting period, parentalnotification.  I was in Los Angeles recently and I talked to a woman who told methat she had an abortion when she was 17 years of age.  And lookingback on that she said it was a mistake.  She said--she said I wishedat that time, that I was going through this difficult time, that I hadcounseling to talk about the post-abortion trauma, and talk aboutadoption rather than abortion.  Because if I had had that discussion,I would have had the child.  Let's not forget that every abortionstops a beating heart.  I think we have far too many abortions in thiscountry, in this country of ours.  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  I believe that a woman owns her body and what she doeswith it is her own business, period.  (Applause.)  Period.  BRUNO:  That's it?  (Applause.)  STOCKDALE:  I don't--I, too, abhor abortions, but I don't think theyshould be made illegal, and I don't--and I don't think it's apolitical issue.  I think it's a privacy issue.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  You caught me by surprise.  Let's go ahead with thediscussion of this issue.  Senator Gore.  GORE:  Well, you notice in his response, that Dan did not say Isupport the right of a woman to choose.  That is because he and GeorgeBush have turned over their party to Pat Buchanan and PhyllisSchlafly, who have ordered them to endorse a platform which makes allabortions illegal under any circumstances, regardless of what has ledto that decision by a woman.  Even in cases of rape and incest, their platform requires that awoman be penalized, that she not be allowed to make a choice, if shebelieves, in consultation with her family, her doctor, and others,whoever she chooses, that she wants to have an abortion after rape, orincest.  They make it completely--  QUAYLE:  Senator, do you support a 24-hour waiting period?  GORE:  --illegal under any of those circumstances.  Now they want to waffle around--  QUAYLE:  Do you support a 24-hour waiting period?  GORE:  Let me finish this, briefly.  Now--now you want to wafflearound on it and give the impression that maybe you don't really meanwhat you say.  But again, you can clear it up by simply repeating Isupport the right of a woman to choose.  Say it.  BRUNO:  Let him say it himself.  Let him say his own words.  Goahead, Mr Vice President.  QUAYLE:  Thank you.  Talk about waffling around.  This issue is avery important issue.  It has been debated throughout your public lifeand throughout my public life, and one thing that I don't think thatit is wise to do, and that is to change your position.  At one time, and most of the time in the House of Representatives,you had a pro-life position.  GORE:  That's simply not true.  QUAYLE:  In 1987, you wrote a letter, and we'll pass this out to themedia--  GORE:  That is simply not true.  QUAYLE:  You wrote a letter saying that you oppose taxpayer fundingof abortion.  Bill Clinton has the same type of a record.  GORE:  In some circumstances.  QUAYLE:  You're going to qualify it now.  GORE:  And I still do.  QUAYLE:  And Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, alsoworked with the Right to Life people and supported Right to Lifepositions and now he has changed.  Talk about waffling around.  Thisis the typical type of Clinton response.  Even on the issue likeabortion.  He's on both sides of the issue.  Take the NAFTA agreement--  GORE:  Well, wait--  BRUNO:  Let's stick with the question, Mr Vice President.  QUAYLE:  How long did he have--  GORE:  I know you want to change the subject, Dan, but let's stay onthis one for a while.  QUAYLE:  How long did he have to wait-- or how quickly did he changehis position on education?  He changes his position all the time.  GORE:  Let's stay with this issue for a while.  QUAYLE:  Bill Clinton--Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth.3 words he fears most in the English language.  BRUNO:  Does anybody have any view about the appointment of judgeson this?  QUAYLE:  Tell the truth.  GORE:  Yeah, I want to talk about this, because the question was notabout free trade or education.  The question--  QUAYLE:  Talk about waffling.  You're the one who brought up the--  GORE:  Now, I let you talk.  QUAYLE:  --issue of waffling.  He's waffled on the abortion issue.  GORE:  I let you talk.  Let me talk now.  It's going to be a longevening if you're like this, now.  QUAYLE:  Oh, no, it's not--  GORE:  Don't change the subject--  BRUNO:  Let's get on with it.  Gentlemen, let's get on with it.  GORE:  Don't change the subject--  QUAYLE:  Well, answer my questions, then.  GORE:  What you have done--  QUAYLE:  Answer my questions.  On the 24 hour waiting period--do yousupport that?  GORE:  I have had the same position--  QUAYLE:  Do you support that?  GORE:  I have had the same position on abortion in favor of awoman's right to choose.  Do you support a woman's right to choose--  QUAYLE:  Do you support a 24 hour waiting period to have--  GORE:  You're still avoiding--  QUAYLE:  How about avoiding the question?  GORE:  --the question.  Now, wait a minute.  Let me tell you whythis is so important.  There are millions of women in this country whopassionately believe in the right of a woman to privacy.  And theywant to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will take away theright to privacy.  Make no mistake about it.  That is their agenda--  (Applause)  And if you support them, don't be surprised if that is exactly whatthey want to do and that is why Dan Quayle refuses to say this eveningthat he supports the right of a woman to choose.  I agree with Admiral Stockdale and the vast majority of Democratsand Republicans in this country.  You know, one of the reasons so manyRepublicans are supporting the Clinton- Gore ticket is because they'veturned over the party to this right wing extremist group which takespositions on issues like abortion that don't even allow exceptions forrape and incest.  BRUNO:  Senator--  GORE:  Again, can't you just say you support the right of a woman tochoose?  BRUNO:  Could we give Admiral Stockdale a chance to jump in here ifhe wants to, if he dares to.  STOCKDALE:  I would like to get in--I feel like I'm an observer at apingpong game, where they're talking about well, you know, they'reexpert professional politicians that massage these intricate plots andknow every nuance to 'em.  And meantime, we're facing a desperatesituation in our economy.  I've seen the cost of living double in mylifetime.  A new granddaughter was born in my family--mygranddaughter- -3 weeks ago.  And according to the statistics that wehave-- that is, the Perot group--the chances of her seeing a doublingof the standard of living are nil.  In fact, her children will be deadbefore another--this standard of living is doubled.  So what the heck!Let's get on with talking about something substantive.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  All right.  Mr Vice President, you'll have a chance to--  (Applause)  You'll have a chance in the closing statements.  QUAYLE:  We need to get on--  BRUNO:  No, let's move on to another topic.  QUAYLE:  Just 15 seconds to respond.  GORE:  Well, can I have 15 seconds also?  BRUNO:  No, let's move on, gentlemen.  QUAYLE:  I'll tell you what.  If--  BRUNO:  Let's not--we're not horse trading.  We're having a debate.Let's go on.  Let's talk about the cities.  Because that's where amajority of Americans live, in urban areas, and they're facing afinancial and social crisis.  They've lost sources of tax revenue.The aid that once came from the federal and state governments has beendrastically cut.  There's an epidemic of drugs, crime and violence.Their streets, the schools are like war zones.  It's becomingincreasingly difficult to pay for public education, fortransportation, for police and fire protection, the basic servicesthat local government must provide.  Now, everybody says, talks about enterprise zones, that may be partof the solution, but what else are your administrations really goingto be willing to do to help the cities?  Vice President Quayle, it's your turn to go first.  QUAYLE:  Well, Hal, enterprise zones are important and it's an ideathat the president has been pushing, and there's been very strongreluctance on, with the Democratic Congress.  We'll continue to pushit.  We also want, Hal, to have home ownership.  I was at a housingsub--a housing project in San Francisco several months ago and metwith people that were trying to reclaim their neighborhood.  They wanted home ownership.  They didn't want handouts.  And I waswith the Democrat mayor of San Francisco who was there supporting ouridea.  But when you look at the cities and you see the problems wehave with crime, drugs, lack of jobs, I also want to point out one ofthe fundamental problems that we have in American cities andthroughout America today, and that is the breakdown of the Americanfamily.  I know some people laugh about it when I talk about the breakdown ofthe family, but it's true.  6ty % of the kids that are born in ourmajor cities today are born out of wedlock.  We have too manydivorces.  We have too many fathers that aren't assuming theirresponsibility.  The breakdown of the family is a contributing factorto the problems that we have in urban America.  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  I think enterprise zones are good, but I think theproblem is deeper than that.  I think we are--you know, when I was--Iran a civilization for several years, a civilization of 3 to 4 hundredwonderful men.  We had our own laws.  We had our own, practically ourown constitution.  And I put up--I was the--I was the sovereign for agood bit of that.  And I tried to analyze human predicaments in thatmicrocosm of life in the--in the world.  And I found out that when Ireally got down to putting out do's and don'ts, and lots of theseincluded take torture for this and that, and this and that, and nevertake any amnesty, for reasons they all understood and went along with.But one of the--we had an acronym, BACKUS, and each one of thoseB-a-c-k was something for which you--you had to make them hurt youbefore you did it.  Bowing in public, making, making--getting on theradio and so forth.  But at the end it was US, BACKUS.  You got thedouble meaning there.  But the US could be called the US, but it was Unity Over Self,Loners Make Out.  Somehow we're going to have to get some love in thiscountry between races, and between rich and poor.  You have got tohave leaders--and they're out there--who can do this with their barehands, with--working with, with people on the scene.  BRUNO:  Senator Gore, please.  GORE:  George Bush's urban policy has been a tale of 2 cities:  thebest of times for the very wealthy; the worst of times for everyoneelse.  We have seen a decline in urban America under the Bush-Quayleadministration.  Bill Clinton and I want to change that, by creatinggood jobs, investing in infrastructure, new programs in job trainingand apprenticeship, welfare reform--to say to a mother with youngchildren that if she gets a good job, her children are not going tolose their Medicaid benefits; incentives for investment in the innercity area, and, yes, enterprise zones.  Vice President Quayle saidthey're important, but George Bush eliminated them from his urbanplan, and then--  QUAYLE:  Well, that's not true.  GORE:  And then, when they were included in a plan that the Congresspassed,--  QUAYLE:  We have been for enterprise zones--  GORE:  --George Bush vetoed the enterprise zone law, the law thatincluded them, for one reason:  because that same bill raised taxes onthose making more than $200,000 a year.  Let's face up to it, Dan:  your top priority really, isn't it, tomake sure that the very wealthy don't have to pay any more taxes.  Wewant to cut taxes on middle-income families and raise them on thosemaking more than $200,000 a year.  QUAYLE:  What plan is that?  GORE:  And if we can take our approach, the cities will be muchbetter off.  BRUNO:  Let's start the discussion period right here.  Go ahead.  QUAYLE:  What plan is that that's just going to raise taxes on thosemaking over $200,000 a year?  You may call that your plan, buteveryone knows that you simply can't get $150 billion in new taxes byraising the marginal tax rate to a top rate of 36 % and only tax thosemaking $200,000 a year.  It's absolutely ridiculous.  The top 2 %which you refer to, that gets you down to $64,000; then you have abouta $40-billion shortfall--that gets you down to $36,000 a year.Everybody making more than $36,000 a year will have their taxesincreased if Bill Clinton is president of the US.  And I don't know how you're going to go to urban America and saythat raising taxes is good for you.  I don't know how you're going togo to urban America and say, well, the best thing that we can offer issimply to raise taxes again.  This is nothing more than atax-and-spend platform.  We've seen it before.  It doesn't work.  Let me tell you about a story.  GORE:  Can I respond to some of that?  QUAYLE:  I've got a very good example--  GORE:  Can I respond to some of that?  QUAYLE:  --when we talk about families here, because I was meetingwith some former gang members in Phoenix and Los Angeles andAlbuquerque, New Mexico.  And when I talked to those former gangmembers, here's what they told why they joined the gang.  They said,well, joining a gang is like joining a family.  I said, joining afamily?  Yes, because the gang offered support, it offered leadership,it offered comfort, it was a way to get ahead.  Where have we come if joining a gang is like being a member of thefamily?  BRUNO:  Senator Gore, you wanted to respond?  QUAYLE:  And that's why I think that families have to bestrengthened, and you don't strengthen the American family by raisingtaxes.  GORE:  I do want to respond to that.  BRUNO:  Go ahead, Senator, Admiral.  GORE:  George Bush and Dan Quayle want to protect the very wealthy.That is the group that has gotten all of the tax cuts under theBush-Quayle administration.  Nobody here who is middle income hasgotten a tax cut because middle-income families have had tax increasesunder Bush and Quayle in order to finance the cuts for the verywealthy.  That's what trickle-down economics is all about.  And theywant to continue it.  We're proposing to also require foreign corporations to pay the sametaxes that American corporations do when they do business here in theUS of America.  George Bush has not been willing to enforce the lawsand collect those taxes.  We want to close that loophole and raisemore money in that way.  BRUNO:  Senator, can we stick to the cities, sir?  GORE:  Excuse me?  BRUNO:  Stick to the cities.  GORE:  All right.  Well, he, he talked about ways to raise money tohelp the cities.  What we're proposing is to invest in theinfrastructure in cities and have targeted tax incentives forinvestment right in inner city areas.  The enterprise zones representa part of our proposal also, and strengthening the family throughwelfare reform.  And you know the Bush administration has cut out--hasvetoed family leave, they have cut childhood immunization and collegeaid.  If you don't support parents and you don't support children,how--how can you say you support families?  QUAYLE:  How about supporting parents and the right to choose wheretheir kids go to school, Al?  (Applause.)  Do you support that?  GORE:  We--  QUAYLE:  Let the parents--let the parents--  GORE:  Do you want me to answer?  QUAYLE:  --public or private schools?  GORE:  Want me to answer?  BRUNO:  Go ahead.  GORE:  We support the public school choice to go to any publicschool of your choice.  What we don't support-- and listen to whatthey're proposing--to take US taxpayer dollars and subsidize privateschools.  Now I'm all for private schools, but to use taxpayerdollars, when the people who get these little vouchers often won't beable to afford the private school anyway, and the private school isnot--  QUAYLE:  Al, I think, I think it's important--  GORE:  --under any obligation to admit them, that is a ripoff of theUS taxpayer.  QUAYLE:  That's important.  This is a very- -this is a veryimportant issue.  Choice in education is a very important issue.  BRUNO:  Let him respond.  QUAYLE:  And he said that he was not for choosing--giving theparents the right to choose to send their children to public schools.But it's okay for the wealthy to choose to send their kids to privateschools, but it's not okay for the middle class and the working poorto choose where they want to send their kids to school.  I think that it's time that all parents in America have a right tochoose where they send their kids to school to get an education.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Admiral Stockdale, would you like to have the last word inthis period?  STOCKDALE:  I--I come down on the side of freedom of school choice.The--and there's a lot of misunderstandings that I've heard heretonight, that I may have the answer to.  The-- starting at, you know,for the last, almost a decade, we've worried about our schoolsofficially through Washington, and the president had a meeting of allthe governors, and then they tried the conventional fixes for schools,that is, to increase the certification of-- requirements for theteachers, to lengthen the school day, to lengthen the school year andnothing--this is a very brief overview of the thing--but nothinghappened.  And it's time to change the school's structure.  Inschools, bureaucracy is bad and autonomy is good.  The only goodschools--  (Applause.)  --we have are those run by talented principals and devoted teachers,and they're running their own show.  How many times have I thrived?You know, the best thing I had when I ran that civilization, itsucceeded, and it's a landmark.  The best thing I had going for me wasI had no contact with Washington for all those years.  (Applause.)  GORE:  Could I respond?  BRUNO:  We have to go on.  What I'm about to say doesn't apply tothe debate tonight; it applies to the campaign that's been going onoutside this auditorium.  With 3 weeks to go, this campaign has attimes been very ugly, with the tone being set by personal negativeattacks.  As candidates, how does it look from your viewpoint?  And are thesetactics really necessary?  Admiral Stockdale--it's your turn to gofirst.  STOCKDALE:  You know, I didn't have my hearing aid turned on.  Tellme again.  (Laughter)  BRUNO:  I'm sorry, sir.  I was saying that at times this campaignhas been very ugly with personal negative attacks.  As a candidate,how does it look from where you are and are these tactics reallynecessary?  STOCKDALE:  Nasty attacks--well, I think there is a case to be madefor putting emphasis on character over these issues that we've beenbatting back and forth and have a life of their own.  Sure, you haveto know where you're going with your government, but character is thebig variable in the success.  Character of the leads is the bigvariable in the success--long term success--of an administration.  I went to a friend of mine in New York some years ago and he was apresident of a major TV network and he said, you know, I think we havemessed up this whole--this election process--it was an electionyear--by stressing that--putting out the dogma that issues are thething to talk about, not character.  He said, I felt so strongly about this, I went back and read theLincoln-Douglas debates.  Read those debates.  How do they come down?Douglas is all character.  He knows all of the little stinky numbersthese guys do.  Abraham Lincoln had character.  Thank God we got theright president in the Civil War.  But that is a question that is a valid one, and you know, I wouldlike to brag about the character of my boss.  BRUNO:  Okay, Senator Gore.  GORE:  This election is about the future of our country, not aboutpersonal attacks against one candidate or another.  Our nation is introuble and it is appalling to me that with 10 million Americans outwork, with the rest working harder for less money than they did 4years ago, with the loss of 1.4 million manufacturing jobs in ournation, with the health care crisis, a crisis of crime and drugs andAIDS, substandard education, that George Bush would constantly try tolevel personal attacks at his opponent.  Now, this, of course, just reached a new low last week when heresorted to a classic McCarthyite technique of trying to smear BillClinton over a trip that he took as a student along with lots of otherRhodes Scholars who were invited to go to Russia.  It's a classicMcCarthyite smear technique.  I think the president of the US ought toapologize.  I think that he insulted the intelligence of the Americanpeople and I'm awful proud that the American people rejected thattactic so overwhelmingly that he decided he had made a mistake.  Doyou think it was a mistake, too, Dan?  BRUNO:  Okay.  Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  Let me answer the question.  BRUNO:  Go ahead.  QUAYLE:  Hal, you said--and I wrote it down here--"personal negativeattacks." (Laughs) Has anyone been reading my press clippings for thelast 4 years?  (Applause)  But I happen to--I agree with one thing on--with Senator Gore, andthat is that we ought to look to the future, and the future is, who'sgoing to be the next president of the US.  And is it a negative attackand a personal attack to point out that Bill Clinton has troubletelling the truth?  He said that he didn't even demonstrate--he toldthe people in Arkansas in 1978.  Then we find out he organizeddemonstrations.  You know, I don't care whether he demonstrated ordidn't demonstrate.  The fact--the question is, tell the truth.  Justtell us the truth.  Today, Bill Clinton-- excuse me--yesterday inPhiladelphia on a radio show, yesterday on a radio show, heattacked--Admiral, he attacks Ross Perot saying the media is givingRoss Perot a free ride.  The press asked him when the klieg lights areon, said what do you mean by Ross Perot getting a free ride?  He saysI didn't say that at all.  I mean, you can't have it both ways.  No, I don't think that is apersonal attack.  What I find troubling with Bill Clinton is he can'ttell the truth.  You cannot lead this great country of ours bymisleading the people.  (Applause)  BRUNO:  All right, gentlemen, the control room advises me that inorder to have time for your closing statements, which we certainlywant, there simply is not going to be time for a discussion period onthis particular topic.  So let's go to the closing statements.  You have 2 minutes each.And we'll start with Admiral Stockdale.  STOCKDALE:  I think the best justification for getting Ross Perot inthe race again to say is that we're seeing this kind of chit-chat backand forth about issues that don't concentrate on where ourgrandchildren--the living standards of our children and grandchildren.He is, as I have read in more than one article, a revolutionary; he'sgot plans out there that are going to double the speed at which thisbudget problem is being cared for.  It was asked how, if we wouldsqueeze down so fast that we would strangle the economy in theprocess.  That is an art, to follow all those variables and know whento let up and to nurse this economy back together with pulls andpushes.  And there's no better man in the world to do that than that oldartist, Ross Perot.  And so I think that my closing statement is thatI think I'm in a room with people that aren't the life of reality.The US is in deep trouble.  We've got to have somebody that can get upthere and bring out the firehoses and get it stopped, and that's whatwe're about in the Perot campaign.  BRUNO:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Senator Gore, your closing statement, sir.  GORE:  Three weeks from today, our nation will make a fatefuldecision.  We can continue traveling the road we have been on, whichhas led to higher unemployment and worse economic times, or we canreach out for change.  If we choose change, it will require us toreach down inside ourselves to find the courage to take a newdirection.  Sometimes it seems deceptively easy to continue with old habits evenwhen they're no longer good for us.  Trickle-down economics simplydoes not work.  We have had an increase in all of the things thatshould be decreasing.  Everything that should have been increasing hasbeen going down.  We have got to change direction.  Bill Clinton offers a new approach.  He has been named by the other49 governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, as the best and mosteffective governor in the entire US of America.  He's moved 17,000 people off the welfare rolls and on to payrolls.He has introduced innovations in health care and education, and again,he has led the nation for the last 2 years in a row in the creation ofjobs in the private sector.  Isn't it time for a new approach, a new generation of ideas andleadership, to put our nation's people first and to get our economymoving again?  We simply cannot stand to continue with this failed approach that isno good for us.  Ultimately, it is a choice between hope and fear, achoice between the future and the past.  It is time to reach out for abetter nation.  We are bigger than George Bush has told us we are, asa nation, and we have a much brighter future.  Give us a chance.  With your help, we'll change this country and wecan't wait to get started.  (Applause.)  BRUNO:  Vice President Quayle.  QUAYLE:  Thank you, Hal.  I'd like to use this closing statement totalk to you about a few people that I have met in these last 4 years.I think of a woman in Chicago when I was talking to parents abouteducation where she stood up and said I'm sick and tired of theseschools in this city being nothing but a factory for failure.  Andthat's why we support choice in education.  I was in Beaumont, Texas, and met with small business people, andthey wanted to reform the civil justice system because they think ourlegal system costs too much and there's too much of a delay in gettingan answer.  I was in Middletown, Ohio, talking to a welfare woman, where shesaid I want to go back to work and I had a job offered to me but I'mnot going to take it because I have 2 children at home and the jobthat is offered to me doesn't have health insurance.  Under PresidentBush's health care reform package that woman won't have to make achoice about going back to work or health care for her children,because she'll have both.  I was in Vilnius, Lithuania, Independence Square, speaking to 10,000people in the middle of winter.  Hundreds of people came up to me andsaid:  God bless America.  Yes, in the next 4 years, as I said, somewhere, some time, there'sgoing to be a crisis, and you need to have a president that isqualified, has the experience, and has been tested.  Not one timeduring this evening, during 90 minutes, did Al Gore tell us why BillClinton is qualified to be president.  He never answered my chargesthat Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth.  The choice is yours.  The American people should demand that theirpresident tell the truth.  Do you really believe-- do you reallybelieve Bill Clinton will tell the truth?  And do you, do you trustBill Clinton to be your president?  (Applause)  BRUNO:  That concludes this vice presidential debate.  I'd like tothank Vice President Quayle, Senator Gore, Admiral Stockdale for beingparticipants.  The next presidential debate is scheduled for this Thursday at 9:00PM Eastern Time at the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia.To all of our viewers and listeners, thank you and good night.  (Applause)

All photographs by: Focused Images Photography.Washington, DC

Net.Capitol, Inc. Presidential Debate History The Commission on PresidentialDebates