19 Oct 1992

Good evening. Welcome to this third and final debate among the three major candidates for president of the US. Governor Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, President George Bush, the Republican nominee, -- (APPLAUSE) -- and independent candidate Ross Perot. (APPLAUSE) I am Jim Lehrer of the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour on PBS. I will be the moderator for this debate, which is being sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It will be 90 minutes long. It is happening before an audience on the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing. The format was conceived by and agreed to by representatives of the Bush and Clinton campaigns, and it is somewhat different than those used in the earlier debates. I will ask questions for the first half under rules that permit follow-ups. A panel of 3 other journalists will ask questions in the 2nd half under rules that do not. As always, each candidate will have 2 minutes, up to 2 minutes, to make a closing statement. The order of those, as well as that for the formal questioning, were all determined by a drawing. Gentlemen, again welcome and again good evening. It seems, from what some of those voters said at your Richmond debate, and from polling and other data, that each of you, fairly or not, faces serious voter concerns about the underlying credibility and believability of what each of you says you would do as president in the next 4 years. Governor Clinton, in accordance with the draw, those concerns about you are first: you are promising to create jobs, reduce the deficit, reform the health care system, rebuild the infrastructure, guarantee college education for everyone who is qualified, among many other things, all with financial pain only for the very rich. Some people are having trouble apparently believing that is possible. Should they have that concern?

Mr. President, a response.

Roughly 1 minute. We can loosen that up a little bit but go ahead.

Mr. Perot, what do you think of the governor's approach, what he just laid out?

Governor, the word "pain" -- one of the other leadership things that's put on you is that you don't speak of pain, that you speak of all things -- nobody's going to really have to suffer under your plan. You've heard what Mr. Perot has said. He's said it's got -- to do the things that you want to do, you can't do it by just taking the money from the rich. That's what the president says as well. How do you respond to that? They said the numbers don't add up.

As a practical matter, Mr. President, do you agree with the governor when he says that the middle class, the taxes on the middle class -- do your numbers agree that the taxes on the middle class have gone up during the last --

Mr. President, when you said just then that you admit your mistakes and you looked at Governor Clinton and said -- what mistake is it that you want him to admit to?

Governor, is that true?

This year.

Mr. Perot, if you were sitting at home now and just heard this exchange about Arkansas, who would you believe?

Why is that a mistake?

What he did as governor of Arkansas is irrelevant?

Governor?

It's not --

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to get in on this.

Governor Clinton has to operate under a balanced budget amendment -- he has to do it, that is the law. I'd like to see a balanced budget amendment for America, to protect the American taxpayers, and then that would discipline not only the executive branch but the spending Congress, the Congress that's been in control of one party, his party, for 38 years. And we almost had it done. And that institution, the House of Representatives -- everyone is yelling "Clean House!" One of the reasons is we almost had it done, and the speaker -- a very, able, decent fellow, I might add -- but he twisted the arms of some of the sponsors of that legislation and had them change their vote. What's relevant here is that tool, that discipline, that he has to live by in Arkansas, and I'd like it for the American people. I want the line-item veto. I want a check-off, so if the Congress can't do it, let people check off their income tax, 10% of it, to compel the government to cut spending. And if they can't do it, if the Congress can't do it, let them then have to do it across the board. That's what we call a sequester. That's the discipline we need, and I'm working for that -- to protect the American taxpayer against the big spenders.

Jim, I don't think that's a fair shot. I hear it -- I hear it echoed by political opponents. But I don't think it's fair. I think we've been fighting from day one to do something about the inner cities. I'm for enterprise zones. I have had it in every single proposal I've sent to the Congress. And now we hear a lot of talk, oh, well, we all want enterprise zones, and yet the House and the Senate can't send it down without loading it up with a lot of, you know, these Christmas tree ornaments they put on the legislation. I don't think in racial harmony that I'm a laggard on that. I've been speaking out since day 1. We've gotten the Americans for Disabilities Act, which I think is one of the foremost pieces of civil rights legislation. And yes, it took me to veto 2 civil rights quota bills because I don't believe in quotas, and I don't think the American people believe in quotas. And I beat back the Congress on that, and then we passed a decent civil rights bill that offers guarantees against discrimination in employment. And that is good. I've spoken out over and over again against antisemitism and racism, and I think my record as a member of Congress speaks for itself on that. What was the other part of it?

I don't think that's true at all. I don't think that's true, but you know, let others fire away on it.

I'd like to just talk about issues, and so --

Well, no, but the point is that's a subjective thing. See, the subjective thing is when does President Bush react? And it would be very difficult for me to answer that in any short period of time.

I thought you'd forgotten I was here.

I will let the American people decide that. I would rather not critique the 2 candidates.

The only thing I would say about that is, I think that on the economy, Mr. Bush said for a long time there was no recession, and then said it would be better to do nothing than to have a compromise effort with the Congress. He really didn't have a new economic program until over 1300 days into his presidency, and not all of his health care initiative has been presented to the Congress even now. I think it's important to elect a president who is committed to getting this economy going again, and who realizes we have to abandon trickle-down economics and put the American people first again, and who will send programs to the Congress in the first hundred days to deal with the critical issues that America is crying out for leadership on -- jobs, incomes, the health care crisis, the need to control the economy. Those things deserve to be dealt with from day one. I will deal with them from day 1. They will be my first priority, not my election year concern.

Well, I think you're overlooking that we have had major accomplishments in the first term. But if you're talking about protecting the taxpayer against his friends in the US Congress, go back to what it was like when you had a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. You don't have to go back to Herbert Hoover. Go back to Jimmy Carter, and interest rates were 21%, inflation was 15%. The misery index -- unemployment and inflation added together -- it was invented by the Democrats -- went right through the roof. We've cut it in half. And all you hear about is how bad things are. You know, remember the question, are you better off? Well, is a homebuyer better off he can refinance the home, because interest rates are down? Is the senior citizen better off because inflation is not wiping out their family's savings? I think they are. Is the guy out of work better off? Of course he's not, but he's not gonna be better off if we grow the government, if we invest, as Governor Clinton says, invest in more government. You've got to free up the private sector. You've got to let small businesses have more incentives. For 3 months -- quarters I've been fighting, 3 quarters been fighting to get the Congress to pass some incentives for small business. Capital gains, investment tax allowance, credit for first- time homebuyers. And it's blocked by the Congress. And then if a little of it comes my way, they load it up with Christmas trees and tax increases, and I have to stand up and favor the taxpayer.

I think the General Motors thing is very relevant. I did everything I could to get General Motors to face its problems in the mid-'80s while it was still financially strong. They just wouldn't do it, and everybody now knows the terrible price they're paying by waiting until it's obvious to the brain-dead that they have problems. Now, hundreds, thousands of good, decent people, whole cities up here in this state are adversely impacted because they would not move in a timely way. Our government is that point now. The thing that I am in this race for is to tap the American people on the shoulder and to say to every single one of you, fix it while we're still relatively strong. If you have a heart problem, you don't wait till a heart attack to address it. So the General Motors experience is relevant. At the point when I could not get them to address those problems, I had created so much stress in the board, who wanted to just keep the Lawrence Welk music going, that they asked to buy my remaining shares. I sold them my remaining shares. They went their way. I went my way because it was obvious we had a complete disagreement about what should be done with the company. But let's take my life in perspective. Again and again, on complex, difficult tasks, I have stayed the course. When I was asked by our government to do the POW project, within a year the Vietnamese had sent people into Canada to make arrangements to have me and my family killed. And I had 5 small children, and my family and I decided we would stay the course, and we lived with that problem for 3 years. Then I got into the Texas War on Drugs program and the big-time drug dealers got all upset. Then when I had 2 people imprisoned in Iran, I could have left them there. I could have rationalized it. We went over, we got them out, we brought them back home. And since then, for years, I have lived with the burden of the Middle East, where it's eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth country, in terms of their unhappiness with the fact that I was successful in that effort. Again and again and again, in the middle of the night, at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, my government has called me to take extraordinary steps for Americans in distress, and again and again and again I have responded. And I didn't wilt and I didn't quit. Now, what happened in July we've covered again and again and again. But I think in terms of the American people's concern about my commitment, I'm here tonight, folks; I never quit supporting you as you put me on the ballot in the other 26 states; and when you asked me to come back in, I came back in. And talk about not quitting, I'm spending my money on this campaign; the 2 parties are spending your money, taxpayer money. I put my wallet on the table for you and your children. Over $60 million at least will go into this campaign to leave the American dream to you and your children, to get this country straightened out, because if anybody owes it to you, I do. I've lived the American dream; I'd like for your children to be able to live it, too. (Laughter)

I don't have any criticism of Mr. Perot. I think what I'd like to talk about a minute, since you're asking the question, is the General Motors issue. I don't think there's any question that the automobile executives made some errors in the 1980s, but I also think we should look at how much productivity has increased lately, how much labor has done to increase productivity and how much management has done. And we're still losing a lot of auto jobs, in my judgment, because we don't have a national economic strategy that will build the industrial base of this country. Just today I met with the presidents and the vice presidents of the Willow Run union here, near here. They both said they were Vietnam veterans supporting me because I had an economic program to put them back to work. We need an investment incentive to modernize plant and equipment; we've got to control the health care costs for those people -- otherwise we can't keep the manufacturing jobs here; and we need a tough trade policy that is fair, that insists on open markets in return for open markets. We ought to have a strategy that will build the economic and industrial base. So I think Mr. Perot was right in questioning the management practices. But they didn't have much of a partner in government here as compared with the policies the Germans and the Japanese followed, and I believe we can do better. That's one of the things I want to change. I know that we can grow manufacturing jobs. We did it in my state, and we can do it nationally.

To this?

Well, I wondered, when Governor Clinton was talking to the auto workers, whether he talked about his and Senator Gore's favoring CAFE standards, fuel efficiency standards, of 40 miles per gallon. That would break the auto industry and throw a lot of people out of work. As regarding Mr. Perot, I take back something I said about him. I once said, in a frivolous moment, when he got out of the race: If you can't stand the heat, buy an air conditioning company. And I take it back, because I think -- he said he made a mistake. And the thing I find is if I make a mistake, I admit it. I've never heard Governor Clinton make a mistake. But one mistake he's made is fuel efficiency standards at 40 to 45 miles a gallon will throw many auto workers out of work, and you can't have it both ways. There's a pattern here of appealing to the auto workers and then trying to appeal to the spotted owl crowds or the extremes in the environmental movement. You can't do it as president: you can't have a pattern of one side of the issue one day and another the next. So my argument is not with Ross Perot; it is more with Governor Clinton.

Let's just talk about the CAFE standards -- that's the fuel efficiency standards. They are now 27.5 miles per gallon per automobile fleet. I never said -- and I defy you to find where I said -- I gave an extensive environmental speech in April, and I said that we ought to have a goal of raising the fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles a gallon. I think that should be a goal. I have never said we should write it into law if there is evidence that that goal cannot be achieved. The Natl Science Foundation did a study which said it would be difficult for us to reach fuel efficiency standards in excess of 37 miles per gallon by the year 2000. I think we should try to raise the fuel efficiency. And let me say this. I think we ought to have incentives to do it, I think we ought to push to do it. That doesn't mean we have to write it into the law. Look, I am a job creator, not a job destroyer. It is the Bush administration that has had no new jobs in the private sector in the last 4 years. In my state, we're leading the country in private sector job growth. But it is good for America to improve fuel efficiency. We also ought to convert more vehicles to compressed natural gas. That's another way to improve the environment.

Well, everybody's nibbling around the edges. Let's go to the center of the bull's-eye, the core problem. And believe me, everybody on the factory floor all over this country knows it. You implement that NAFTA, the Mexican trade agreement, where they pay people a dollar an hour, have no health care, no retirement, no pollution controls, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country right at a time when we need the tax base to pay the debt and pay down the interest on the debt and get our house back in order. We've got to proceed very carefully on that. See, there's a lot I don't understand. I do understand business. I do understand creating jobs. I do understand how to make things work. And I got a long history of doing that. Now, if you want to go to the core problem that faces everybody in manufacturing in this country, it's that agreement that's about to be put into practice. It's very simple. Everybody says it'll create jobs. Yes, it'll create bubble jobs. Now, you know, watch this -- listen very carefully to this. One-time surge while we build factories and ship machine tools and equipment down there. Then year after year for decades, they will have jobs. And I finally -- I thought I didn't understand it -- called all the experts, and they said, oh, it'll be disruptive for 12 to 15 years. We haven't got 12 days, folks. We cannot lose those jobs. They were eventually saying, Mexican jobs will eventually come to $7.50 an hour, ours will eventually go down to $7.50 an hour. Makes you feel real good to hear that, right? Let's think it through here. Let's be careful. I'm for free trade philosophically, but I have studied these trade agreements till the world has gone flat, and we don't have good trade agreements across the world. I hope we'll have a chance to get into that tonight, because I can get right to the center of the bull's-eye and tell you why we're losing whole industries in this country.

Oh, no, it will cost jobs, but that's not -- let me say this. I'd rather, if you gave me 2 bad choices --

I'd rather have some jobs left here than just see everything head south, see?

No, I'm saying our principal need now is to stabilize the tax base, which is the job base, and create a growing, dynamic base. Now please, folks, if you don't hear anything else I say, remember where the -- millions of people at work are our tax base. Jim, one quick point. If you confiscate the Forbes 400 wealth, take it all, you cannot balance the budget this year. Kind of gets your head straight about where the taxes, year in and year out, have gotta come from. Millions and millions of people at work.

I'm caught in the middle on NAFTA. Ross says, with great conviction, he opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement. I am for the North American Free Trade Agreement. My problem with Governor Clinton, once again, is that one time he's gonna make up his mind, he sees some merit in it, but then he sees a lot of things wrong with it. Then the other day he says he's for it, however then we've got to pass other legislation. When you're president of the US, you cannot have this pattern of saying well, I'm for it but I'm on the other side of it. And it's true on this and it's true on CAFE. Look, if Ross were right when we get a free trade agreement with Mexico, why wouldn't they have gone down there now? You have a differential in wages right now. I just have an honest philosophical difference. I think free trade is going to expand our job opportunity. I think it is exports that have saved us when we're in a global slowdown, a connected global slowdown, a recession in some countries. And it's free trade, fair trade that needs to be our hallmark, and we need more free trade agreements, not fewer.

I'd like to respond to that. You know, Mr. Bush was very grateful when I was among the Democrats who said he ought to have the authority to negotiate an agreement with Mexico. Neither I nor anybody else, as far a I know, agreed to give him our proxy to say that whatever he did was fine for the workers of this country and for the interests of this country. I am the one who's in the middle on this. Mr. Perot says it's a bad deal. Mr. Bush says it's a hunky-dory deal. I say on balance it does more good than harm if, if we can get some protection for the environment so that the Mexicans have to follow their own environmental standards, their own labor law standards, and if we have a genuine commitment to reeducate and retrain the American workers who lose their jobs and reinvest in this economy. I have a realistic approach to trade. I want more trade, and I know there are some good things in that agreement. But it can sure be made better. Let me just point out, just today in the Los Angeles Times Clyde Prestowitz, who was one of President Reagan's leading trade advisers and a life-long conservative Republican, endorsed my candidacy because he knows that I'll have a free and fair trade policy, a hard-headed, realistic policy, and not get caught up in rubber-stamping everything the Bush administration did. If I wanted to do that, why would I run for president, Jim? Anybody else can run the middle class down and run the economy in a ditch. I want to change it. (APPLAUSE)

I think he made my case. On the one hand, it's a good deal but on the other hand I'd make it better. You can't do that as president. You can't do it on the war, where he says well, I was with the minority but I guess I would have voted with the majority. This is my point tonight. We're talking about 2 weeks from now you've gotta decide who's gonna be president. And there is this pattern that has plagued him in the primaries and now about trying to have it both ways on all these issues. You can't do that. And if you make a mistake, say you made a mistake and go on about your business, trying to serve the American people. Right now we heard it. Ross is against it. I am for it. He says on the one hand I am for it and on the other hand I may be against it.

That's what's wrong with Mr. Bush. His whole deal is you've gotta be for it or against it, you can't make it better. I believe we can be better. I think the American people are sick and tired of either/or solutions, people being pushed in the corner, polarized to extremes.

But I've always said trickle-down government is bad.

Mr. Perot.

Yes.

No, it's -- Mr. Perot, you're doing fine. Go ahead. Whatever you want to say, say it.

Wait a minute. I was going to ask -- I thought you wanted to respond to what we're talking about.

All right.

Mr. President, how do you respond to that? Mr. Perot's made that charge several times. The fact that you have people working in your campaign who are paid foreign lobbyists.

And as soon as I found it out, he went out the door. (Laughter)

One quick relevant specific. We're getting ready to dismantle the airlines industry in our country, and none of you know it. And I doubt in all candor if the president knows it. But this deal that we're doing with BAC and US Air and KLM and Northwest, guess who's on the president's campaign big time: a guy from Northwest. This deal is terribly destructive to the US airline industry. One of the largest industries in the world is the travel and tourist business. We won't be making airplanes in this country 10 years from now if we let deals like this go through. If the president has any interest tonight, I'll detail it to you; I won't take 10 minutes tonight. All these things take a few minutes. But that's happening as we sit here today. We hammerlock the American companies -- American Airlines, Delta -- the last few great we have, because we're trying to do this deal with these 2 European companies. And never forget, they've got Airbus over there, and it's a government-owned, privately owned, consortium across Europe. They're dying to get the commercial airline business. Japan is trying to get the commercial airline business. I don't think there are any villains inside government on this issue, but there's sure a lot of people who don't understand business. And maybe you need somebody up there who understands when you're getting your pocket picked. (APPLAUSE)

Governor, I'm sorry, but that concludes my time with -- well, you...

All right, go ahead, quick, quickly.

I'm going to be in real trouble if I don't bring out -- it's now time...

OK.

Now we're going to move to the 2nd half...

We're going to move to the...

All right, I want to bring in...

All right. Now we're going to bring in 3 other journalists to ask questions. They are Susan Rook of CNN, Gene Gibbons of Reuters and Helen Thomas of United Press Intl. You thought you'd never get in here, did you?

OK we're going to continue on the subject of leadership and the first question goes to Gov Clinton for a 2-minute answer. It will be asked by Helen Thomas. Helen?

If I had it to do over again I might answer the questions a little better. You know, I'd been in public life a long time and no one had ever questioned my role and so I was asked a lot of questions about things that happened a long time ago and I don't think I answered them as well as I could have. Going back 23 years, I don't know, Helen. I was opposed to the war. I couldn't help that. I felt very strongly about it, and I didn't want to go at the time. It's easy to say in retrospect I would have done something differently. President Lincoln opposed the war and there were people who said maybe he shouldn't be president, but I think he made us a pretty good president in wartime. We've had a lot of other presidents who didn't wear their country's uniform who had to order our young soldiers into battle, including President Wilson and President Roosevelt. So the answer is I could do that. I wouldn't relish doing it but I wouldn't shrink from it. I think that the president has to be prepared to use the power of the nation when our vital interests are threatened, when our treaty commitments are at stake, when we know that something has to be done that is in the national interest, and that is a part of being president. Could I do it? Yes, I could.

Well, I've expressed my heartfelt difference with Governor Clinton on organizing demonstrations while in a foreign land against your country, when young ghetto kids have been drafted and are dying. My argument with him on -- the question was about the draft -- is that there's this same pattern. In New Hampshire Senator Kerrey said you ought to level, you ought to tell the truth about it. On April 17 he said he'd bring out all the records on the draft. They have not been forthcoming. He got a deferment or he didn't. He got a notice or he didn't. And I think it's this pattern that troubles me, more than the draft. A lot of decent, honorable people felt as he did on the draft. But it's this pattern. And again, you might be able to make amendments all the time, Governor, but you've got to, as president, you can't be on all these different sides, and you can't have this pattern of saying well, I did this or I didn't, then the facts come out and you change it. That's my big difference with him on the draft. It wasn't failing to serve.

Yes, sir. Helen?

I've spent my whole adult life very close to the military. I feel very strongly about the people who go into battle for our country. I appreciate their idealism, their sacrifices. Appreciate the sacrifices their families make. That's been displayed again and again in a very tangible way. I look on this as history. I don't look on it personally as relevant, and I consider it really a waste of time tonight, when you consider the issues that face our country right now.

nan

Mr. Perot, 1 minute.

I'm taking responsibility for saying your time's up.

All right. Governor Clinton, 1 minute, sir.

All right, Mr. Perot, the question is for you. You have a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Susan Rook.

You're talking about 2 different subjects. In order to lead, you first have to use the White House as a bully pulpit and lead; then you have to develop consensus or you can't get anything done, and that's where we are now. We can't get anything done. How do you get anything done when you've got all of these political action committees, all of these thousands of registered lobbyists -- 40,000 registered lobbyists, 23,000 special interest groups -- and the list goes on and on and on. And the average citizen out here is just working hard every day. You've got to go to the people. I just love the fact that everybody, particularly in the media, goes bonkers over the town hall. I guess it's because you will lose your right to tell them what to think. The point is, they'll get to decide what to think. (Laughter and applause) I love the fact that people will listen to a guy with a bad accent and a poor presentation manner talking about flip charts for 30 minutes, because they want the details. See, all the folks up there at the top said the attention span of the American people is no more than 5 minutes, they won't watch it. They're thirsty for it. You want to have a new program in this country. If you get grassroots America excited about it, and if they tap Congress on the shoulder and say do it, Charlie, it'll happen. And that's a whole lot different from these fellows running up and down the halls whispering in their ears now and promising campaign funds for the next election if they do it. Now, I think that's going back to where we started. That's having a government from the people. I think that's the essence of leadership, rather than cutting deals in dark rooms in Washington. (APPLAUSE)

Well, I believe in the town hall meetings; they started with my campaign in New Hampshire. And I think Ross Perot has done a good job in having them. And I, as you know, pushed for the debate to include the 209 American citizens who were part of it in Richmond a few days ago. I've done a lot of them, and I'll continue to do them as president. But I'd also like to point out that I haven't been part of what we're criticizing in Washington tonight. Of the 3 of us, I have balanced a government budget 12 times, I have offered and passed campaign finance reform, offered, pushed for and passed in public referendum lobbyist restrictions, done the kinds of things you have to do to get legislators together not only to establish consensus but to challenge them to change. And in 12 years as governor I guess I've taken on every interest group there was in my state at one time or another to fight for change. It can be done. That's why I tried to be so specific in this campaign to have a mandate, if elected, so that Congress will know what the American people have voted for. (APPLAUSE)

I would like the record to show the panelists that Ross Perot took the first shot at the press. My favorite bumper sticker, though, is: Annoy the Media. Re-elect President Bush. And I just had to work that in. Sorry, Helen. (Laughter and applause) I'm going to pay for this later on. Look, you have to build a consensus, but in some things -- Ross mentioned Saddam Hussein. Yes, we tried, and, yes, we failed to bring him into the family of nations; he had the 4th largest army. But then when he moved against Kuwait, I said this will not stand. And it's hard to build a consensus. We went to the UN, we made historic resolutions up there, the whole world was united, our Congress was dragging its feet. Governor Clinton said, well, I might have been with the minority, let sanctions work -- but I guess I would have voted with the majority. A president can't do that. Sometimes he has to act. And in this case I'm glad we did, because if we had let sanctions work and tried to build a consensus on that, Saddam Hussein today would be in Saudi Arabia controlling the world's oil supply, and he would be there maybe with a nuclear weapon. We busted the 4th largest army, and we did it through leadership.

President Bush, gentlemen, I acknowledge that all of you have women and ethnic minorities working for you and working with you. But when we look at the circle of the key people closest to you, your inner circle of advisers, we see white men only. Why? And when will that change?

The key people, President Bush.

The key people, the people beyond the glass ceiling. (APPLAUSE)

Mr. Perot, 1 minute.

I've got reply on that. That gets to the national honor. We did not say to Saddam Hussein, Ross, you can take the northern part of Kuwait.

That is absolutely absurd.

Glaspie has testified -- (APPLAUSE) -- and Glaspie's papers have been presented to the US Senate. Please, let's be factual.

Mr. President, just to make sure that everybody knows what's going on here, when you responded directly to Mr. Perot, you violated the rule, your rules. Now --

I just want to make sure everybody understands. If you all want to change the rules, we can do it.

Governor Clinton, you have a minute.

All right. Next question goes to you, Mr. Perot. It's a 2-minute question and Helen will ask it. Helen?

No. They're not correct and if you look at my life, until I got involved in this effort, I was one person. And then after the Republican dirty tricks group got through with me I'm another person, which I consider an absolutely sick operation. And all of you in the press know exactly what I'm talking about. They investigated every single one of my children. They investigated my wife. They interviewed all of my children's friends from childhood on. They went to extraordinary sick lengths, and I just found it amusing that they would take 2 or 3 cases where I was involved in lawsuits and would engage an investigator -- the lawyers would engage an investigator, which is common. And the only difference between me and any other businessman that has the range of businesses that I have is I haven't had that many lawsuits. So that's just another one of those little fruit-loopy things they make up to try to, instead of facing issues, to try to redefine a person that's running against them. This goes on night and day. I will do everything I can, if I get up there, to make dirty tricks a thing of the past. One of the 2 groups has raised it to an art form. It's a sick art form. Now, let's go back to Saddam Hussein. We gave Ambassador Glaspie written instructions. That's a fact. We've never let the Congress and the Foreign Relations, Senate Intelligence Committees see them. That's a fact. Ambassador Glaspie did a lot of talking right after July 25 and that's a fact and it's in all the newspapers. And you pull all of it at once and read it and I did, and it's pretty clear what she and Kelly and the other key guys around that thing thought they were doing. Then at the end of the war, when they had to go testify about it, their stories are a total disconnect from what they said in August, September and October. So I say this is very simple. Saddam Hussein released a tape, as you know, claiming it was a transcript of their meeting, where she said we will not become involved in your border dispute and, in effect, you can take the northern part of the country. We later said no, that's not true. I said well, this is simple. What were her written instructions? We guard those like the secrets of the atomic bomb, literally. Now, I say whose country is this? This is ours. Who will get hurt if we lay those papers on the table? The worst thing is, again, it's a mistake. Nobody did any of this with evil intent. I just object to the fact that we cover up and hide things. Whether it's Iran-contra, Iraq-gate or you name it, it's a steady stream.

Let's take Mr. Bush for the moment at his word -- he's right, we don't have any evidence at least that our government did tell Saddam Hussein he could have that part of Kuwait. And let's give him the credit he deserves for organizing Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. It was a remarkable event. But let's look at where I think the real mistake was made. In 1988 when the war between Iraq and Iran ended, we knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, we had dealt with him because he was against Iran -- the enemy of my enemy maybe is my friend. All right, the war's over; we know he's dropping mustard gas on his own people, we know he's threatened to incinerate half of Israel. Several government departments -- several -- had information that he was converting our aid to military purposes and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. But in late '89 the president signed a secret policy saying we were going to continue to try to improve relations with him, and we sent him some sort of communication on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait that we still wanted better relations. So I think what was wrong -- I give credit where credit is due -- but the responsibility was in coddling Saddam Hussein when there was no reason to do it and when people at high levels in our government knew he was trying to do things that were outrageous.

Well, it's awful easy when you're dealing with 90-90 hindsight. We did try to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of nations; he did have the 4th largest army. All our Arab allies out there thought we ought to do just exactly that. And when he crossed the line, I stood up and looked into the camera and I said: This aggression will not stand. And we formed a historic coalition, and we brought him down, and we destroyed the 4th largest army. And the battlefield was searched, and there wasn't one single iota of evidence that any US weapons were on that battlefield. And the nuclear capability has been searched by the United Nations, and there hasn't been one single scintilla of evidence that there's any US technology involved in it. And what you're seeing on all this Iraq-gate is a bunch of people who were wrong on the war trying to cover their necks here and try to do a little revisionism. And I cannot let that stand, because it isn't true. Yes, we had grain credits for Iraq, and there isn't any evidence that those grain credits were diverted into weaponry -- none, none whatsoever. (APPLAUSE) And so I just have to say, it's fine. You can't stand there, Governor Clinton, and say, well, I think I'd have been -- I have supported the minority, let sanctions work or wish it would go away -- but I would have voted with the majority. Come on, that's not leadership.

Governor, an important aspect of leadership is, of course, anticipating problems. During the 1988 campaign there was little or no mention of the savings and loan crisis that has cost the American people billions and billions of dollars. Now there are rumblings that a commercial bank crisis is on the horizon. Is there such a problem, sir? If so, how bad is it and what will it cost to clean it up?

President Bush, one minute.

Mr. Perot, 1 minute.

All right, Mr. Perot, the next question -- we're going into a new round here on a category just called differences, and the question goes to you, Mr. Perot, and Gene will ask it. Gene?

The debt and the deficit. Well, if you watched my television show the other night, you saw it. And if you watch it Thursday, Friday, Saturday this week, you'll get more. A shameless plug there, Mr. President. But in a nutshell we've got to reform our government or we won't get anything done. We have a government that doesn't work. All these specific examples I'm giving tonight -- if you had a business like that, they'd be leading you away and boarding up the doors. We have a government that doesn't work. It's supposed to come from the people, it comes at the people. The people need to take their government back. You've got to reform Congress, they've got to be servants of the people again; you've got to reform the White House. We've got to turn this thing around. And it's a long list of specific items. And I've covered it again and again in print and on television. But very specifically the key thing is to turn the government back to the people and take it away from the special interests and have people go to Washington to serve. Who can give themselves a 23% pay raise anywhere in the world except Congress? Who would have 1200 airplanes worth 2 billion a year just to fly around in? I don't have a free reserved parking place at Natl Airport, why should my servants? I don't have an indoor gymnasium and an indoor tennis and an indoor every other thing they can think of; I don't have a place where I can go make free TV to send to my constituents to try to brainwash them to elect me the next time. And I'm paying for all that for those guys. I'm going to be running an ad pretty soon that shows they promised us they were going to hold the line on spending at the tax and budget summit, and I'm going to show how much they've increased this little stuff they do for themselves. And it is silly putty, folks, and the American people have had enough of it. Step one, if I get up there, we're going to clean that up. You say, how can I get Congress to do that? I'll have millions of people at my shoulder, shoulder to shoulder with me, and we will see it done work speed -- because it's wrong. We've turned the country upside down. (APPLAUSE)

I would just point out, on the point Mr. Perot made, I agree that we need to cut spending in Congress. I've called for a 25% reduction in congressional staffs and expenditures. But the White House staff increased its expenditures by considerably more than Congress has in the last 4 years under the Bush administration, and Congress has actually spent a billion dollars less than President Bush asked them to spend. Now, when you out-spend Congress you're really swinging. That, however, is not my only passion. The real problem in this country is that most people are working hard and falling farther behind. My passion is to pass a jobs program and get incomes up with an investment incentive program to grow jobs in the private sector, to waste less public money and invest more, to control health care costs and provide for affordable health care for all Americans and to make sure we've got the best trained workforce in the world. That is my passion. We've gotta get this country growing again and this economy strong again or we can't bring down the deficit. Economic growth is the key to the future of this country. (APPLAUSE)

On government reform?

Government reform?

Well, how about this for a government reform policy? Reduce the White House staff by a 3rd after or at the same time the Congress does the same thing for their staff. Term limits for members of the US Congress. Give the government back to the people. Let's do it that way. The president has term limits. Let's limit some of these guys sitting out here tonight. (APPLAUSE) Term limits. And then how about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Forty-3 -- more than that -- states have it, I believe. Let's try that. And you want to do something about all this extra spending that concerns Mr. Perot and me? Okay. How about a line item veto? Forty-three governors have that. And give it to the president, and if the Congress isn't big enough to do it, let the president have a shot at this excess spending. A line item veto. That means you can take a line and cut out some of the pork out of a meaningful bill. Governor Clinton keeps hitting me on vetoing legislation. Well, that's the only protection the taxpayer has against some of these reckless pork programs up there, and I'd rather be able to just line it right out of there and get on about passing some good stuff but leave out the garbage. Line item veto -- there's a good reform program for you.

Governor Clinton, you said that you will raise taxes on the rich, people with incomes of $200,000 a year or higher. A lot of people are saying that you will have to go lower than that, much lower. Will you make a pledge tonight below which, an income level that you will not go below? I'm looking for numbers, sir, not just a concept.

President Bush, you have one minute.

Mr. Perot.

We've got a wash, according to my calculation. We have a wash. And we go to Mr. Perot for one minute. In other words, it's a violation of the rule, that's what I meant, Mr. Perot.

That's right. You're clear. (Laughter and applause)

All right. This is the last question, and it goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer. And it will be asked by Helen.

Well, I think the answer to why the drop, I think, has been the economy in the doldrums. Why I'll win is I think I have the best plan of the 3 of us up here to do something about it. Mine does not grow the government, it does not invest, have government invest. It says we need to do better in terms of stimulating private business. We got a big philosophical difference here tonight between one who thinks the government can do all these things through tax and spend, and one who thinks it ought to go the other way. And so I believe the answer is, I'm going to win it because I'm getting into focus my agenda for America's renewal, and also I think that Governor Clinton's had pretty much of a free ride. On looking specifically at the Arkansas record -- he keeps criticizing us, criticizing me, I'm the incumbent, fine. But he's an incumbent, and we've got to look at all the facts. They're almost at the bottom on every single category. We can't do that to the American people. And then, Helen, I really believe where people are going to ask this question about trust, because I do think there's a pattern by Governor Clinton of saying one thing to please one group, and then trying to please another group. And I think that pattern is a dangerous thing to suggest would work for the Oval Office. It doesn't work that way when you're president. Truman is right. The buck stops there. And you have to make decisions even when it's against your own interest. And I've done that. It's against my political interest to say go ahead and go along with the tax increase, but I did what I thought was right at the time. So I think people are going to be looking for trust and experience. And then, I mentioned it the other night, I think if there's a crisis, people are going to say, well, George Bush has taken us through some tough crises, and we trust him to do that. And so I'll make the appeal on a wide array of issues. Also I got a philosophical difference. I got to watch the clock here. I don't think we're a declining nation. The whole world has had economic problems. We're doing better than a lot of the countries in the world. And we're going to lead the way out of this economic recession across this world and economic slowdown here at home.

That's why I think I'll win.

I'm the last one, right?

One minute after you.

I'm totally focussed on the fact that we may have bank failures and nobody answered it. I'm totally focussed on the fact that we are still evading the issue of the Glaspie papers. I'm totally focussed on the fact that we still could have enterprise zones, according to both parties, but we don't. So I am still focussed on gridlock, I guess. And I am also focussed on the fact that isn't it a paradox that we have the highest productivity in our workforce in the industrialized world and at the same time have the largest trade deficit, and at the same time rank behind 9 other nations in what we pay our most productive people in the world, and we're losing whole industries overseas. Now, can't somebody agree with me that the government is breaking business's legs with these trade agreements? They're breaking business's legs in a number of different ways. We have an adversarial relationship that's destroying jobs and sending them overseas while we have the finest workers in the world. Keep in mind a factory worker has nothing to do with anything except putting it together on the factory floor. It's our obligation to make sure that we give him the finest products in the world to put together and we don't break his legs in the process.

I really can't believe Mr. Bush is still trying to make trust an issue after "read my lips" and 15 million new jobs and embracing what he called voodoo economics and embracing an export enhancement program for farmers he threatened to veto and going all around the country giving out money in programs that he once opposed. But the main thing is he still didn't get it, from what he said the other night to that fine woman on our program, the 209 people in Richmond. They don't want us talking about each other. They want us to talk about the problems of this country. I don't think he'll be reelected because trickle down economics is a failure and he's offering more of it, and what he's saying about my program is just not true. Look at the Republicans that have endorsed me. High tech executives in Northern California. Look at the 24 generals and admirals, retired, that have endorsed me, including the deputy commander of Desert Storm. Look at Sarah Brady, Jim Brady's wife, President Reagan's press secretary, who endorsed me because he knuckled under to the NRA and wouldn't fight for the Brady Bill. We've got a broad-based coalition that goes beyond party because I am going to change this country and make it better, with the help of the American people. (APPLAUSE)

First, I'd like to thank the commission and my opponents for participating in these debates and making them possible. I think the real winners of the debates were the American people. I was especially moved in Richmond a few days ago when 209 of our fellow citizens got to ask us questions. They went a long way toward reclaiming this election for the American people and taking their country back. I want to say, since this is the last time I'll be on a platform with my opponents, that even though I disagree with Mr. Perot on how fast we can reduce the deficit and how much we can increase taxes on the middle class, I really respect what he's done in this campaign to bring the issue of deficit reduction to our attention. I'd like to say to Mr. Bush, even though I've got profound differences with him, I do honor his service to our country. I appreciate his efforts and I wish him well. I just believe it's time to change. I offer a new approach. It's not trickle down economics. It's been tried for 12 years and it's failed. More people are working harder for less, 100,000 people a month losing their health insurance, unemployment going up, our economy slowing down. We can do better. And it's not tax and spend economics. It's invest and grow, put our people first, control health care costs and provide basic health care to all Americans, have an education system 2nd to none and revitalize the private economy. That is my commitment to you. It is the kind of change that can open up a whole new world of opportunities to America as we enter the last decade of this century and move towards the 21st century. I want a country where people who work hard and play by the rules are rewarded, not punished. I want a country where people are coming together across the lines of race and region and income. I know we can do better. It won't take miracles and it won't happen overnight, but we can do much, much better if we have the courage to change. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE)

Three weeks from now -- 2 weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country to economic recovery. On jobs -- that's the number one priority, and I believe my program for stimulating investment, encouraging small business, brand-new approach to education, strengthening the American family, and, yes, creating more exports is the way to go. I don't believe in trickle-down government, I don't believe in larger taxes and larger government spending. On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world. The whole world is having economic difficulties. The US is doing better than a lot. But we've got to do even better. And if a crisis comes up, I ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision? And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word. And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your vote. And may God bless the US of America. (APPLAUSE)

To the millions of fine decent people who did the unthinkable and took their country back in their own hands and put me on the ballot, let me pledge to you that tonight is just the beginning. These next 2 weeks we will be going full steam ahead to make sure that you get a voice and that you get your country back. This Thursday night on ABC from 8:30 to 9, Friday night on NBC from 8 to 8:30, and Saturday night on CBS from 8 to 8:30, we'll be down in the trenches under the hood working on fixin' the old car to get it back on the road. Now, the question is, can we win? Absolutely we can win, because it's your country. Question really is who do you want in the White House. It's that simple. Now, you got to stop letting these people tell you who to vote for, you got to stop letting these folks in the press tell you you're throwing your vote away -- you got to start using your own head. (APPLAUSE) Then the question is, can we govern? I love that one. The "we" is you and me. You bet your hat we can govern because we will be in there together and we will figure out what to do, and you won't tolerate gridlock, you won't tolerate endless meandering and wandering around, and you won't tolerate non-performance. And, believe me, anybody that knows me understands I have a very low tolerance for non-performance also. Together we can get anything done. The president mentioned that you need the right person in a crisis. Well, folks, we got one, and that one is a financial crisis. Pretty simply, who's the best-qualified person up here on the stage to create jobs? Make your decision and vote on November the 3rd. I suggest you might consider somebody who's created jobs. Who's the best person to manage money? I suggest you pick a person who's successfully managed money. Who's the best person to get results and not talk? Look at the record and make your decision. And, finally, who would you give your pension fund and your savings account to manage? And, last one, who would you ask to be the trustee of your estate and take care of your children if something happened to you? Finally, to you students up there -- God bless you, I'm doing this for you: I want you to have the American dream. (APPLAUSE) To the American people, I'm doing this because I love you. That's it. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE)