25 Sep 1988

I think we've seen a deterioration of values. I think for a while as a nation we condoned those things we should have condemned. For a while, as I recall, it even seems to me that there was talk of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs, and I think that's all wrong. So we've seen a deterioration in values, and one of the things that I think we should do about it in terms of cause is to instill values into the young people in our schools. We got away, we got into this feeling that value- free education was the thing. And I don't believe that at all I do believe there are fundamental rights and wrongs as far as use. And, of course, as far as the how we make it better, yes, we can do better on interdiction. But we've got to do a lot better on education, and we have to do, be tougher on those who commit crimes. We've got to get after the users more. We have to change this whole culture. You know, I saw a movie - "Crocodile Dundee." And I saw the cocaine scene treated with humor, as though this was a humorous little incident. And it's bad. Everybody ought to be in this thing. Entertainment industry, people involved in the schools, education. And it isn't a Republican or a Democrat or a liberal problem. But we have got to instill values in these young people. And I have put forward a many-point drug program that includes what I would do as president of the United States; in terms of doing better on interdiction; and in terms of better in the neighborhoods. But I think we're all in this together, and my plea to the American people is values in the schools.

I agree with Mr. Bush that values are important. But it's important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that's been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We've been dealing with him; he's been dealing drugs to our kids. Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences. I remember being in a high school in my own state as we were organizing something we call the Governor's Alliance Against Drugs, and a young 16 year old girl coming up to me, desperate, addicted, dependent, saying, Governor, I need help. We're providing that young woman with help. But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989.

I'm saying that those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership, Jim, have a special responsibility, not only to come up with programs, and I have outlined in detail the very important, very strong program of enforcement as well as drug education prevention. And Mr. Bush is right - the two go hand in hand. But if our government itself is doing business with people who we know are engaged in drug profiteering and drug trafficking, if we don't understand that that sends out a very, very bad message to our young people, it's a little difficult for me to understand just how we can reach out to that youngster that I talked about and to young people like her all over the country, and say to them we want to help you. Now, I've outlined in great detail a program for being tough on enforcement at home and abroad, doubling the number of drug enforcement agents, having a hemispheric summit soon after the 20th of January when we bring our democratic neighbors and allies together here in this hemisphere and go to work together. But we also have to take demand seriously. You know, we have five percent of the world's population in this country. We're consuming 50 percent of the world's cocaine. Doing better in the neighborhoods. But I think we're all in this together, and my plea to the American people is values in the schools.

I agree with Mr. Bush that values are important. But it's important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that's been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We've been dealing with him; he's been dealing drugs to our kids. Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences. I remember being in a high school in my own state as we were organizing something we call the Governor's Alliance Against Drugs, and a young 16 year old girl coming up to me, desperate, addicted, dependent, saying, Governor, I need help. We're providing that young woman with help. But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989.

I'm saying that those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership, Jim, have a special responsibility, not only to come up with programs, and I have outlined in detail the very important, very strong program of enforcement as well as drug education prevention. And Mr. Bush is right - the two go hand in hand. But if our government itself is doing business with people who we know are engaged in drug profiteering and drug trafficking, if we don't understand that that sends out a very, very bad message to our young people, it's a little difficult for me to understand just how we can reach out to that youngster that I talked about and to young people like her all over the country, and say to them we want to help you. Now, I've outlined in great detail a program for being tough on enforcement at home and abroad, doubling the number of drug enforcement agents, having a hemispheric summit soon after the 20th of January when we bring our democratic neighbors and allies together here in this hemisphere and go to work together. But we also have to take demand seriously. You know, we have five percent of the world's population in this country. We're consuming 50 percent of the world's cocaine. And in my state I'm proud to say we've organized a drug education and prevention program which the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration says is a model for the country. We're helping youngsters; we're reaching out to them. And we're beginning with drug education and prevention beginning in the early elementary grades in every elementary school in our state, and that's the kind of effort we need in every elementary school in the United States of America. And we've got to begin early, in the first, second and third grade, before our youngsters begin to experiment with these very, very dangerous substances. I guess the question I would ask of Mr. Bush is how we instill those values, how we create this environment for the drug free schools that we want in this country. If he or representatives of the administration are either with or involving people like Noriega in our foreign policy, or don't pursue that connection in a way that makes it possible for us to cut it off and to be an example to our kids all over the country.

Well, the other day my opponent was given a briefing by the CIA. I asked for and received the same briefing. I am very careful in public life about dealing with classified information. And what I'm about to say is unclassified. Seven administrations were dealing with Mr. Noriega. It was the Reagan-Bush administration that brought this man to justice. And as the governor of Massachusetts knows, there was no evidence that governor - that Mr. Noriega was involved in drugs, no hard evidence until we indicted him. And so I think it's about time we get this Noriega matter in perspective. Panama is a friendly country. I went down there and talked to the president of Panama about cleaning up their money laundering, and Mr. Noriega was there, but there was no evidence at that time, and when the evidence was there, we indicted him. And we want to bring him to justice. And so call off all those pickets out there that are trying to tear down seven different administrations.

Governor Dukakis, another troublesome issue for voters this year is the bulging federal deficit. In a Dukakis administration, you say taxes will be raised only as a last resort. Would you identify for us then please three specific programs that you are willing to cut to bring that deficit down?

Your two minutes is up, Governor.

You have a minute to rebut.

Your time is up, too. A follow-up, John.

I think it's the Republican Party and my concern to bring it down. And presidential leadership that I want to provide in this area will bring it down, but we've got to get the Democrats - Congress under control. They do all the spending, they appropriate every dime and tell us how to spend every dime. I'd like to ask the Governor to join in getting for the president what 43 governors have, the line-item veto. He has to operate in Massachusetts under a balanced budget proviso. I would like a balanced budget amendment. But the dynamics of the economy - we cut the taxes and revenues are up by 25 percent in three years. So the problem is - it's not that the working is being taxed too little or the person working out - the woman working in some factory being taxed too little. It is that we are continuing to spend too much. So, my formula says grow at the rate of inflation. Permit the president to set the priorities on where we do the spending. And remember the Federal deficit has come down $70 billion in one year, in 1987. And if we - and the - actually this year Congress is doing a little better in controlling the growth of spending. Spending was only up something like 4 percent. So, it isn't that we're taking too little - from taxpayer - we're spending too much still. And the formula I've given you works, we've put it through a good economic model, we've got good economists on the West Coast, Michael Boskin and Marty Feldstein up there who's a very respected economist in the - Massachusetts. And they agree, that if we can do what I've said, we can get it down without going and socking the American taxpayer once again. Capital gains, one more point on that, please let's learn from history. A capital gains differential will increase jobs, increase risk taking, increase revenues to the Federal Government.

Well, I hope all of those Americans out there who are watching us, listening to us and trying to make up their mind about which one of us ought to be president of the United States listen to the Vice President very carefully. What he's proposing after over a trillion in new debt which has been added in the Federal debt in the course of the past eight years, an IOU our children and grandchildren will be paying for years, is a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country, an average of about $30,000 that we're going to give to people making $200,000 a year. Why that's more than the average teacher makes. We've had enough of that, ladies and gentlemen. We've run up more debt in the last eight years than under all the presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. It's time for a chief executive who can make tough choices, can work with the Congress, can get that deficit down and begin to build a strong fiscal foundation under this country.

Mr. Vice President, you've said you want a kinder, gentler presidency, one that helps the less fortunate. Today, 37 million Americans including many working families with aging parents and young children cannot afford any health insurance, but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. What will you do to provide protection for them and how will you pay for it?

A rebuttal, Governor?

You don't like the answer, but it's an answer.

Follow-up, Anne?

Well, Anne, let me just say before I answer your question that I didn't know that the Vice President attacked our program in Massachusetts. I hope he hasn't. Because has won the support of a great many people all over the state and I think it's a model for what I hope we can do across the country. But when I proposed my plan this past Tuesday, he or one of his spokesmen called it socialized medicine. The last time the Vice President used that phrase, I suspect he remembers it, don't you? It was in 1964 and that's what he called Medicare. Well, he was wrong then and he's wrong now. (Applause)

Let me say this about AIDS. It's the single most important public health crisis, single most important public health emergency we've had in our lifetimes and I think there are a number of things we have to do including supporting legislation which is now moving through the Congress, which will commit this nation to the resources to find a cure which will provide broad education and prevention, which will provide sensitive and caring treatment for the victims of AIDS. I think we have to demonstrate some flexibility and I think the FDA is attempting to do so now in trying to make it possible for new and experimental drugs to be available to people who are at risk at AIDS and I would hope that we could bring that kind of a policy to bear beginning in January. And I would encourage the current administration to proceed with that kind of flexibility where it's appropriate and where it's done carefully and responsibly. But we have not had the kind of leadership we should have had. In this particular area, I think the Vice President and I are in general agreement on what we have to do. The special Federal commission made good solid recommendations. I think we're both supportive of them and I would strongly lead in that area as I have in my state as Governor.

Well, we're on the right track. The NIH is doing a good job in research. The Surgeon General is doing a good job in encouraging the proper kind of education. I notice that the Governor did not mention any testing. But we got to have a knowledge base. Testing should be confidential, but we have to have a knowledge. We can't simply stick our heads in the sands in terms of testing. I'm Chairman of the President's Task Force on Regulatory Relief and we are working with the FDA and they have sped up bringing drugs to market that can help. And you got to be careful here, because there's a safety factor, but I think these things - and then also I am one who believes we've got to go the extra mile in clean - being sure that that blood supply is pure. We cannot have a lack of confidence in the blood supply when it comes to operations and surgery and things of this nature. So, research, speeding the drugs to market, testing, blood supply are very important elements of this.

Good evening, Mr. Vice President, Governor. Governor, one theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern - you've both mentioned leadership tonight, so I'd like to stay with that for a second. The theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern is passionless, technocratic -

Passionless, technocratic, the smartest clerk in the world. Your critics maintain that in the 1960's your public passion was not the war in Vietnam or civil rights, but no fault auto insurance. And they say in the 1970's you played virtually no role in the painful busing crisis in Boston. Given the fact that a president must sometimes lead by sheer inspiration and passion. We need to know if this is a fair portrait of your governing or if it is a stereotype. And if it isn't fair, give us an example of where you have had that passion and leadership that sometimes a president needs?

Well, I don't question his passion. I question - and I don't question his concern about the war in Vietnam. He introduced or supported legislation back then that suggested that kids of Massachusetts should be exempt from going overseas in that war. Now, that's a certain passion that in my view it's misguided passion. He - we have a big difference on issues. You see, last year in the primary, he expressed his passion. He said, "I am a strong liberal Democrat" - August, '87. Then he said, "I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was what he said. He is out there on out of the mainstream. He is very passionate. My argument with the governor is, do we want this country to go that far left. And I wish we had time to let me explain. But I salute him for his passion. We just have a big difference on where this country should be led, and in what direction it ought to go. (Applause)

I'd actually like to follow up if I may on this mention you've made of his card carrying membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. You've used the phrase "card carrying" so many times since Governor Dukakis first acknowledged that he was a card carrying member of the ACLU that some people have come to believe that you've used it to brand him in some way, to identify him as people were identified in the 1950's as less than patriotic. I'd like to know why you keep repeating the phrase, and what's the important issue here? What is so wrong with the governor being a member of an organization which has come to the defense of, among other people, Colonel Oliver North?

Governor, a response.

The time is up, governor. Let's go now to John Mashek, again. A question for the vice president.

I want to see the McKinney Act fully funded. I believe that that would help in terms of shelter. I want to see - when I talked at our convention about a thousand points of light, I was talking about the enormous numbers of shelters and organizations that help. The governor's wife has been very active in the homeless. My campaign chairman, Secretary Jim Baker's wife. This isn't government. These are people that care, that are trying to give of themselves. The government has a role. It is to fully fund the McKinney Act. There are certain army bases that the act calls for that can be used in certain cases to shelter people when it's rough. And so I think that we're on the right track. I don't see this, incidentally, as a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or conservative idea. I see an involvement by a thousand points of light. I see the funding that is required, and I hope the Congress will fully fund this bill. They gave it a great deal of conscience and a great deal of work. And we're on the track on this one. But - and I, look, mental - that was a little overstated it. I'd say around 30 percent. And I think maybe we could look back over our shoulders and wonder whether it was right to let all those mental patients out. Maybe we need to do a better job in mental clinics to help them. Because there is a major problem there. A lot of them are mentally sick. And we've got to attend to them. But fully, my short range answer is fully fund that McKinney Act.

Well, this is another fundamental difference that I have with the vice president, just as I do in the case of health care for 37 million members of working families in this country who don't have health insurance. The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you've cut back by 90 percent on our commitment to affordable housing for families of low and moderate income. And when you do that, you've have homeless families. We didn't have two and a half million, or three million homeless people living on streets and in doorways in this country ten years ago. We've got to begin to get back to the business of building and rehabilitating housing for families of low and moderate income in this country; housing for young families that they can look forward some day to buy. We've got communities in this country increasingly where our own kids can't afford to live in the communities that they grew up in. That's an essential commitment. And I think the housing community is ready. But it's going to take a president who's committed to housing, who's had experience in building and rehabilitating housing who understands that affordable housing for families of low and moderate income, for young families, first time home buyers, is an essential part of the American dream. And while I'm all for the McKinney bill, that, by itself, simply won't do. We've got to have a president that can lead on this issue, that can work with the Congress, and I'm prepared to do so. This is one of the most important priorities that faces this country.

Governor, you've mentioned the American dream of home ownership, and it's certainly become an impossible one for many of the young people of our nation who are caught up in this economic squeeze of the middle class, as you've said so frequently during the campaign. And yet in spite of your answer just a few minutes ago, what promise can you realistically hold out to these people that with the costs of housing going up, and with limited help available from Washington, are we destined to become a nation of renters?

A response, Mr. Vice President.

All right, the next question is to the governor. Ann Groer will ask it.

No, I don't think there is. There are two very different issues here, and they've got to be dealt with separately. I'm opposed to the death penalty. I think everybody knows that. I'm also very tough on violent crime. And that's one of the reasons why my state has cut crime by more than any other industrial state in America. It's one of the reasons why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in the country. It's one of the reasons why we have a drug education and prevention program that is reaching out and helping youngsters all over our state, the kind of thing I want to do as president of the United States. You know, the vice president says he wants to impose the death penalty on drug traffickers, and yet his administration has a federal furlough program which is one of the most permissive in the country, which gave last year 7,000 furloughs to drug traffickers and drug pushers, the same people that he says he now wants to execute. The issue of abortion is a very difficult issue, one that I think that we all have to wrestle with, we have to come to terms with. I don't favor abortion. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think most people do. The question is who makes the decision. And I think it has to be the woman, in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs, that makes that decision.

Well, the Massachusetts furlough program was unique. It was the only one in the nation that furloughed murderers who had not served enough time to be eligible for parole. The federal program doesn't do that. No other state programs do that. And I favor the death penalty. I know it's tough and honest people can disagree. But when a narcotics wrapped up guy goes in and murders a police officer, I think they ought to pay with their life. And I do believe it would be inhibiting. And so I am not going to furlough men like Willie Horton, and I would meet with their, the victims of his last escapade, the rape and the brutalization of the family down there in Maryland. Maryland would not extradite Willie Horton, the man who was furloughed, the murderer, because they didn't want him to be furloughed again. And so we have a fundamental difference on this one. And I think most people know my position on the sanctity of life. I favor adoption. I do not favor abortion.

Yes. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might. Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it. You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother's life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions. But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail?

Governor.

I just -

Peter Jennings, a question for the vice president.

One of the reasons, and I first would like to know which programs you're talking about, and then we could talk on the merits of the programs. But, you see, my fundamental philosophy is give local and state government as much control as possible. That might be the explanation, if you tell me the program. I do strongly support the WIC program. I think it is good. I think part of the answer to this haunting of these children that are out there and suffering lies in extension of Medicaid, to challenge the states, and maybe we're going to have to enforce more on the states in terms of Medicaid taking care of these. But, Peter, so much of it is, gets into a whole other phase of things. The neighborhood, the kind of environment people are growing up in, and that leads me to the programs I'm talking about in terms of education. I think that part of it is the crime infested neighborhoods, and that's why I'm a strong believer in trying to control crimes in the neighborhood, why I was so pleased to be endorsed by the policemen on the beat, the Boston Police Department the other day. I think they understand my commitment to helping them in the neighborhoods. And so it's a combination of these things. But do not erode out of the system the thousand points of light. The people that are out there trying to help these kids, the programs like cities and schools, the work that Barbara Bush is doing so people can learn to read in this country and then go on and break this cycle of poverty. I'm for Head Start and moving that up. And I've already made a proposal - and yes, it will cost some money. But I favor that. So these are the combination of things I want, and the fact that I don't think the federal government can endorse a $35 billion program does not mean I have less compassion than the person who endorses such a program.

Well, I must have been living through a different eight years then the ones the vice president's been living through, because this administration has cut and slashed and cut and slashed programs for children, for nutrition, for the kinds of things that can help these youngsters to live better lives. It's cut federal aid to education; it's cut Pell grants and loans to close the door to college opportunity on youngsters all over this country. And that, too, is a major difference between the vice president and me. Let me just give you one other example. We have a great many people, hundreds of thousands of people living on public assistance in this country. The 50 governors of this nation have proposed to the Congress that we help those families to get off of welfare, help those youngsters, help their mothers to become independent and self-sufficient. It's taken months and months and months to get Mr. Bush and the administration to support that legislation, and they're still resisting. That's the way you help people. Being haunted, a thousand points of light - I don't know what that means. I know what strong political leadership is. I know what's happened over the course of the past eight years. These programs have been cut and slashed and butchered, and they've hurt kids all over this country.

Governor, the crisis is no less a crisis for you if you are elected president. Where would you get the money to devote to the inner cities which is clearly needed. And can you be specific about the programs not only you'd reinstate, but the more imaginative ones that you'd begin.

Mr. Vice President.

All right, let's move now to some questions on foreign and national security policy. John Mashek will ask the first question of the governor.

Of course not. Of course that's a charge that's always made against any governor who runs for the presidency. I think it was one of the things that Mr. Bush said about Mr. Reagan back in 1980. Remember that, George? And yet some of our finest presidents, some of our strongest international leaders were governors-Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt. Its not the amount of time you spend in Washington. It's not the length of your resume. It's your strength, it's your values, it's the quality of the people you pick. It's your understanding of the forces of change that are sweeping the world, and whether or not you're in a position to provide leadership to make those forces of change work for us and not against us. The vice president has a long resume. But it didn't stop him from endorsing the sale of arms to the Ayatollah. And we now know that he was not out of the loop; he was in meeting after meeting listening to Secretary Shultz and Secretary Weinberger opposing that, and yet he supported it. His experience didn't prevent him from participating or involving or in some way being involved in the relationship between this government and Mr. Noriega and drug trafficking in Panama. He went to Philippines in the early 80Ï€s and commended Ferdinand Macros for his commitment to democracy. And he continues to support a failed policy in Central America which is getting worse and worse, and which has in fact increased Cuban and Soviet influence in that region. So I don't believe that the fact you've got that long resume or had that experience is the real question. The question is values; the question is strength, the question is your willingness to provide the kind of leadership that must be provided. I'm ready to provide that leadership. I want to be the commander in chief of this country. I think it take fresh leadership now, and an understanding of those forces of change to provide the kind of strength that we need, and perhaps the vice president can explain what he was doing when he supported the trading of arms to terrorist nation, and his involvement in Panama and that endorsement of Mr. Macros. But I don't think it's just experience that makes the difference. It's strength; it's values.

Well, I thought the question was about defense. The governor was for a nuclear freeze that would have locked in a thousand Soviet intermediate nuclear force weapons and zero for the West. And because we didn't listen to the freeze advocates, and strengthen the defense of this country, we now have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age. Now, we're sitting down and talking to the Soviets about strategic arms, and he wants to do away with the Midgetman and the MX, the modernization or our nuclear capability. That is not the way you deal with the Soviets. I've met Mr. Gorbachev. Met Mr. Shevardnadze and talked substance with him the other day. These people are tough. But now we have a chance. I few have experience and now how to handle it, but please do not go back to the days when the military was as weak as they could be, when the morale was down, and when we were the laughing stock around the world. And now we are back, because we have strengthened the defenses of this country, and believe me, I don't want to see us return to those days. As to Ferdinand Marcos, he isn't there any more. It was under our administration that Mrs. Aquino came in. But I'll tell you what I was thinking of. I flew a combat mission, my last one was over Manila. And he was down there fighting against imperialism. And he had just-

And he just lifted martial law. And he just called for new elections. And all of those things happened because the Philippines do crave democracy. And out he goes.

Mr. Vice President, the governor has suggested that you've never met a weapons system that you didn't like or want. Are you prepared to tell the voters one system in this time of tight budgetary restraints and problems at the Pentagon that you'd be willing to cut or even eliminate that wouldn't endanger national security?

I hope it isn't Christmas when you make that decision.

Governor?

Anne Groer, a question for the Vice President.

What I think we ought to do is take a look at perestroika and glasnost, welcome them, but keep our eyes open. Be cautious. Because the Soviet change is not fully established yet. Yes, I think it's fine to do business with them. And, so, I'm encouraged with what I see when I talk to Mr. -- what I hear when I talk to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, but can they pull it off. And when they have a --they a --deals that are good for us, as China started to do--the changes in China since Barbara and I lived there is absolutely amazing, in terms of incentive, in partnership and things of this nature. And now the Soviet Union seems to be walking down that same path. We should encourage that. We ought to say this is good. But where I differ with my opponent is I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defend systems or support some freeze when they have superiority. I'm not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment. And the interesting place-one of the things that fascinates me about this perestroika and glasnost is wheats going to happen in Eastern Europe. You see the turmoil in Poland today. And I think we have enormous opportunity for trade. I don't want to go back to the Carter grain embargo on the Soviets. We are once again reliable suppliers and I would never use food as a political tool like our predecessors did. But this is an exciting time. But all I'm suggesting is let's not be naïve in dealing with the Soviets and make a lot of unilateral cuts hoping against hope that they will match our bid. Look at the INF treaty. And if we haven't learned from the negotiating history on that, we'll never learn. The freeze people were wrong. The Reagan-Bush administration was right.

It was a very different George Bush who was talking much more sympathetically about the freeze in the spring of 1982 than he is today. And you were right then, George, when you said it was no time for partisan demagoguery. Nobody is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm or somehow reduce our strength, of course not. What we're talking about is a combination of a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. Strong, well-equipped, well-trained, well-maintained conventional forces. And at the same time a willingness to move forward steadily, thoughtfully cautiously. We have serious differences with the Soviet Union. We have very fundamental differences about human rights, democracy and our basic system, our basic view of human beings and of what life is all about. But there are opportunities there now. Senator Bentsen and I have a plan for the 1990Ï€s and beyond. Mr. Bush and Mr. Quayle do not. And we want to pursue that plan in a way which will bring down the level of nuclear armament, will build a more stable and more peaceful world while making choices here at home. Let's not forget that our national security and our economic security go hand in hand. We cannot be strong militarily when we're teeter-tottering on top of a mountain of debt which has been created in the past eight years. That's why we need a Democratic administration in Washington in 1989. (Applause)

Yes. Governor Dukakis, speaking of seeming changes of position, you have gone from calling the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, a fantasy and a fraud, to saying recently that you would continue SDI research and might even deploy the system if Congress supported such a move. Why the change of heart?

Mr. Vice President.

Peter Jennings, a question for Governor Dukakis.

Peter, it's one of the most agonizing decisions a president has to make. These are American citizens, we care deeply about them. Their families care deeply about them, want them back and understandably so and we want to do everything we can to bring them back. But if there's one thing we also understand it is that you cannot make concessions to terrorists, ever, ever. Because if you do, it's an open invitation to other terrorists to take hostages and to blackmail us. And that's the tragedy of the Iran/Contra scandal. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bush was the Chairman of a task force on international terrorism which issued a report shortly before that decision was made and said, and rightly so, that we never ever can make concessions to terrorists and hostage takers. And, yet, after sitting through meeting after meeting, he endorsed that decision, endorsed the sale of arms to the Ayatollah in exchange for hostages, one of the most tragic, one of the most mistaken foreign policy decisions we've ever made in this country and I dare say encouraged others to take hostages as we now know. So, there can be no concessions under any circumstances, because if we do it's an open invitation to others to do the same. We've got to be tough on international terrorism. We've got to treat it as international crime. We've got to attack at all points, we've go to use undercover operations. We have to be prepared to use military force against terrorist base camps, we have to work closely with our allies to make sure that they're working with us and we with them and we can give no quarter when it comes to breaking the back of international terrorism. Yes, we should make every effort to try to help those hostages come home, but it can never be because we make concessions. That was a tragic mistake that we made, a mistake that Mr. Bush made and others made and it should never ever be made again.

I wrote the anti-terrorist report for this government. It is the best anti-terrorist report written. Yes, we shouldn't trade arms for hostages. But we have made vast improvements in our anti-terrorism. Now, it's fine to say that sometimes you have to hit base camps, but when the president saw this state sponsored-fingerprints of Muammar Khadaffi on the loss of American life, he hit Libya. And my opponent was unwilling to support that action.

And since that action, terrorist action against the United States citizens have gone down.

And I have long ago said I supported the president on this other matter. And I've said mistakes were made. Clearly nobody's going to think the president started out thinking he was going to trade arms for hostages. That is a very serious charge against the president. The matter has been thoroughly looked into. But the point is sometimes the action- (Laughter)

- has to be taken by the Federal Government and when we took action, it had a favorable response.

It seems perhaps a good subject, Mr. Vice President, on which to make the point that you've campaigned vigorously as part of a leadership team. But so far you won't tell the American people in considerable measure what advice you gave the president, including the sale of arms to Iran and what should have been done about the hostages. To the best of my knowledge there's no Constitutional requirement which prevents you from doing so. Jimmy Carter urged his Vice President, Walter Mondale, to tell the American people. Would you now ask President Reagan for permission to tell the American people what advice you did give him? And if you don't, how do we judge your judgment in the Oval Office in the last eight years?

Sorry, Mr. Vice President.

I'm wrong. Go ahead. My apologies.

You said nobody's perfect.

25th of December, Mr. Vice President. (Laughter)

He can have another ten seconds if he wants, Jim.

Well, the matter of judgment is very important. And I think it's important to understand what happened here. A report on international terrorism chaired by the Vice President was released and made some very specific recommendations about how to deal with terrorism. They were ignored. The Vice President ignored them. He says mistakes were made. Very serious mistakes in judgment were made. He says, ≥Well, let's concede that the administration has been doing business with Noriega. Has made him a part of our foreign policy and has been funneling aid to Contras through convicted drug dealers.≤ I think those are very very serious questions of judgment, which those of you who are watching us here tonight have a right to judge and review. We're not going to make those kinds of mistakes. You cannot make concessions to terrorists. If you do, you invite the taking of more hostages. That's a basic principle. It was ignored in that case and it was a very very serious mistake in judgment.

Mr. Vice President, Democrats and even some Republicans are still expressing reservations about the qualifications and credentials of Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, your chosen running mate, to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What do you see in him that others do not? (Laughter)

Well, when it comes to ridicule, George, you win a gold medal. I think we can agree on that in the course of this campaign. (Applause)

But did I-did I sense a desire that maybe Lloyd Bentsen ought to be your running mate when you said there are three people on your ticket?

I think the American people have a right to judge us on this question, on how we picked a running mate, a person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, distinguished, strong, mature, a leader in the Senate, somebody whose qualifications nobody has questioned. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle. I doubt very much that Dan Quayle was the best qualified person for that job. And as a matter of fact, I think for most people the notion of President Quayle is a very very troubling thought.

Well, Governor, you did select Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

And you have a lot of disagreement with him on fundamental issues, including the Reagan tax cuts, aid to the rebels in Nicaragua, the death penalty, gun control. Who's right? (Laughter)

Mr. Vice President?

Gentlemen, I was given some bad word a moment ago. There is time for one more question. Getting it in my ear and Ann Groer will ask it. Ann? To the Governor.

Well, I think we have to go to work on the problem of Third World debt and we've got to assist those Third World countries in dealing with this massive debt which they currently-which they have incurred and which is burdening them and which if we don't do something about it and assist them along with other nations around the world, we'll destroy their economies, destroy their future. And at the same time will destroy markets that are important to our farmers. But I also believe we need an agricultural policy which doesn't cost us 15 to 20 to 25 billion dollars a year that it's been costing us over the course of the past three or four years under this administration. I think it's going to require good, solid credit policies. And thanks to the Congress we now have an agricultural credit bill which is helping and improving the situation with at least some of our farmers. I think it's going to require a combination of supply management and reasonable price supports to make sure that our farmers get a decent price and I think it also is going to require an administration that understand that there are tremendous opportunities out there for the development of new uses for agricultural products, new uses which can help us to clean up our environment at the same time. Bio-degradable plastics-plastic-gasohol, which the Vice President has been involved in, road de-icers made from corn products. I mean, there are enormous opportunities out there to expand markets and to build a strong future for our farmers. But I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive or contradictory about building a strong farm economy in this country and assisting our family farms and providing a good strong future for rural communities and for rural America and at the same time working on Third World debt. As a matter of fact, Mexico, itself, is one of our biggest agricultural customers, so in the sense that we can work to help Mexico rebuild and expand and deal with these very serious economic problems we help our farmers at the same time.

I oppose supply management and production controls. I support the farm bill, the 1985 farm bill and spending is moving in the right direction. I want to expand our markets abroad and that's why I've called for that first economic summit to be on agriculture. I will not go back to the way the Democrats did it and used food as a political weapon and throw a grain embargo on the farmers in this country. I want to see rural redevelopment and I have been out front in favor of alternate sources of energy and one of them is gasohol and comes from using your corn and I think we can do better in terms of biodegradable for a lot of product, so I'm optimistic about the agricultural economy. In terms of the Third World, I support the Baker plan. I want to see market economies spring up all around the world and to the degree they do, we are succeeding. And I don't want to see the banks let off the hook. I would oppose that, but I think were on the right track in agriculture and I am very very encouraged. But let's not go back to that-what they call supply management and production control, that'll simply price us out of the international market. Let's try to expand our markets abroad.

I talked in New Orleans about a gentler and kinder nation and I have made specific proposals on education and the environment and on ethics and energy and how we do better in battling crime in our country. But there are two main focal points of this election. Opportunity and peace. I want to keep this expansion going. Yes, we want change but we are the change. I am the change. I don't want to go back to malaise and misery index. And, so, opportunity. Keep America at work. The best poverty program is a job with dignity in the private sector. And in terms of peace, we are on the right track. We've achieved an arms control agreement that our critics thought was never possible and I want to build on it. I want to see us finalize that START agreement and I want it to be the one to finally lead the world to banishing chemical and biological weapons. I want to see asymmetrical reductions in conventional forces. And then it gets down to a question of values. We've had a chance to spell out our differences on the Pledge of Allegiance here tonight and on tough sentencing of drug king pins and this kind of thing. And I do favor the death penalty. And we've got a wide array of differences on those. But in the final analysis-in the final analysis, the person goes into that voting booth, they're going to say, ≥Who has the values I believe in? Who has the experience that we trust? Who has the integrity and stability to get the job done?≤ My fellow Americans, I am that man and I ask for your support. Thank you very much. (Applause)