tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN August 26, 2016 2:53pm-4:54pm EDT
they typically don't have concessions anyway. i think it is a cultural difference. if because a language barriers we didn't understand so it was frustrating. you think you are standing in one line and you get to the front like where is your ticket? the signage was very poor. and i must say from game start to the finish by the end great signage. unfortunately, it came a little late, but they continued to improve. that's what i think was the spirit of the brazilians. they didn't give up. they kept listening to suggestions. we need a sign here.
we need to speed up the line. what they did instead of having just one line with a cash register by day four of the games they actually had portable cash registers and they were going up and down the lines and skg people for their order, printing out their receipts and letting them go to the other line. so the spirit of the people working the games i thought was tremendous and they never gave up. they kept thinking how can we make this better? what can we do? we hear the feedback. let's change things up. they ended up having more people at the metro station explaining things. one of my big frustrations was swimming got over at 12:30 or 1:00. metro closed at 12:30. people were coming off the bus rapid transit system being dumped out and they were very strict like closed.
we didn't know there were buses waiting to take people into town because language and communication wasn't so great. we had to find ubers and taxis. it was great for those people. they made a bundle because all these tourists are dumped out on the streets at 1:00 in the morni morning having to get back to copacabana. then they started making announcements in english on buses going out saying everybody be aware. our transportation closes at 12:30. but there is other transportation that is available for you. they should have done that starting day one, but they learned. the empty seats was packed for the brazilian events. beach volleyball once brazil played, everybody left. so next match was pretty much empty. you can find any seat you wanted.
the brazilians were into when brazilians played and they weren't so interested when other people were playing. fortunately, the argentines were great. they had a whole contingent that fill up many seats and were very vocal. what the ioc and organizing committee, the ones who set the prices. i must say these prices in brazil were half of what london was. they made one mistake. they overpriced track and field. so the least expensive ticket they had for track and field was 100 and it was too much. they put half price it would have sold out the stadium. it was too much and then they tried to correct it but the government has very strict consumer policies and you can't change prices once you have set the price. so they were trying to think, can we do a sale and this and
that. nothing was working. and then volunteering, the people were lovely, really helpful, but there was a 40% attrition rate. the normal attrition rate for volunteers at a mega event are 10% to 20%. volunteering is just not in the culture of latin america, south america. and the hours are hard. i talked with a number of volunteers and they always made sure you knew they were not getting paid. now, what happened was ioc has cars. a whole series of cars that different people get access to like a car pool. they ended up having to pay drivers instead of use volunteers because the volunteers weren't showing up. that kind of did not go over well with the ioc members and
other people who had to work the games. so i know there is extra expense that went into paying for some of that. again, people who stuck it out, the volunteers were all wonderful. i think once they got their outfits and i don't think there was enough incentive programs. normally in salt like city there were huge incentive programs. at the end they got more prizes. i'm not sure. i'm trying to find out what exactly they gave the volunteers. so there is plenty of opportunities, but will rio win the gold after the games? and it's really up to the brazilians to be proactive now. and one will the economy support all of these opportunities? will the people have the right knowledge to plan accordingly.
so the tourism, they kept saying we are waiting and waiting. now is your time. they spent $3 million on campaigns during the game. i'm not sure if many of you saw that brazil is open meaning now the visas are free. but that's only free until september after the paralimpic games. they did this campaign i think starting august 1. if you haven't planned to go to olympics or paralympics by august 1 i don't think you are going to brazil. they spent this money making you think brazil is open when it is going to close again at the end of september. was that the right tourism plan to do? maybe they should have thought about it a little bit more. the olympic training center, as i said, the plans are in place
but it will cost money to convert some venues into a proper training center and then to staff it up. what i haven't seen is a budget for that. global attention i mentioned before about the environmental issues. i think because of the attention and more and more people focussed on this, i think the cleanup will continue. and as i said before there has already been some advances and need to continue those advances. so there is a video that i'm not sure i'm going to take the time to show you now, but overall i think i wouldn't say the brazil rio olympic games were the best ever, but i think for south america and for their first games it was the best ever. and they really showed the world
that they persevered under the situation and i'm sure you are attuned to what happened to rio. they decided to split the oil money across the states. that reduced the amount of money they were getting from oil. as we all know the oil price went down. they were doubly hit. the state of rio was doubly hit. and when they received the games in 2009 they were on this huge trajectory. brazil was going to be the next powerhouse and political situations, economic situation. so they persevered through it all and really showed the world what a great place brazil is and especially rio de janeiro. i hope i have the opportunity to go back and continue to see improvements. i now open it up for questions.
[ applause ] just a little infomercial with the rising power initiative and we issued an alert today with basically analysis of the different media reports from brazil, china, india, japan, some other large countries around the world, what common tourists and analysts thought about the performance of rio. invite everybody to go to the rising powers initiative website and take a look at that alert. let's open it up for questions. lisa will respond. maybe you can introduce yourself, as well. >> i was wondering if you can comment about political issues which you haven't discussed too
much. was there a consciousness? i'm wondering if there was a consciousness about what is going on in the political situation? >> he wasn't even there. what was really interesting at the opening ceremony how many brazilians made comments to me on the metro home, this whole discussion, many locals thought it was disappointing that there was no government official that opened the games. my response back was the olympics are supposed to be nongovernmental. their reaction was every other olympic games has had a leader open the games. there was mention that president of the rio organizing committee thanked the government at all levels. that is when they were booed. there was no representative at all. they weren't even in the stadium. he was there?
they didn't show him. it wasn't announced. >> he was there. which elicited the boos and went to the fireworks. >> that's interesting for those of us in the stadium -- >> that's the experience, the difference between those who watched on television. >> i can tell you i was sitting all around brazilians and they were like we didn't have a government representative here. this is interesting for me to hear. >> some brazilian commentary both for or against the interim president who made a few remarks at the opening was that it was nice not to have brazilian political officials always at the events and talking because it really allowed for the brazilian citizens, residents of rio to take the center stage. maybe that's another legacy of the olympic movement to embrace in the future, it might be
refreshing to just let the athletes and citizens and tourists have the day. how about another question? >> i'm a graduate student here. like all brazilians i have spoken with they had the negative opinion like the world cup and the olympics is a waste of money. spend it on school or health care. brazil won the gold and the opinion shifted. did you notice any of that? >> that is why ticket sales went up, sky rocketed. they actually ended up, ticket sales were sluggish and they ended up meeting and exceeding their ticket goals that they set way back in the beginning. they were selling 100,000 tickets a day all the way through. the tide turned completely. i'm not sure if you remember but in london most all londoners left. the first week was dead in london. and then everybody saw how great
it was and they all came back. so the city started getting a little more lively. the locals back in town, they cut their vacations and came back home. but the brazilians all of a sudden got into the games and took pride in what was happening. >> other questions? comments? >> so i'm thinking about the major issue here. particularly, the question about the relationship between not just the games and promises for addressing environmental of the bay and environmentalism in the city. going back to 1992 there was a major plan for the cleanup of the bay. 1992 plus 20 so 20 years later then with the world cup. you seem to be optimistic that the momentum captured at the olympic moment will continue. you look at the larger 30-year period there have been major mega events which have focussed
on depollution or addressing environmental concerns and have always fallen short. i wonder how you reconcile that about rio 2016 with a very specific rio mega event environmental history? >> it's a great point. i don't think the others had 3 billion people watching and following what was happening in rio. so the tv coverage, global tv coverage and media coverage i think raised people's attention a little more than i know the other environmental conferences were covered but not the extent that i think the olympic games were covered. >> maybe just -- >> other olympic games in other cities something that is sustainable, questions and concerns and global attention? >> i will use beijing. a lot of people say it's still overpolluted and it is but can
you imagine if the games didn't come. anybody know what happened in 2008 leading up? they put in a law that no more cars with lead fuel -- taxi cab drivers had to change out the cars. they put in more natural gas buses than we have in the united states just in beijing. so that was instituted based on the olympic games. so i really do believe that the spot light and the push can make a difference. it is up to the will of the people now to continue it and to go after opportunities and make it happen. i think people are aware and they are more willing to help but if nobody asks for the help and makes it happen it will stay status quo. >> maybe just returning to the
point made, what we have learned lisa indicated in her talk and learned from other scholars, activists and so forth is that the physical and political geography of rio has arrived at a stalemate with respect to what needs to take place to clean up the bay. that is the upstream activities to eliminate the dumping of waste into the streams that feed the bay. what we also know we learn this in the run up to the olympics is that now rio has a lot of activist groups that oppose the displacement of poor under privileged residents in the city. so it would be very difficult politically now. there has to be a new engagement, consensus on how to remove citizens from their residence in order to do the infrastructure work necessary to
clean the bay upstream up into the hills. and there simply is not the political consensus in a very open society, a vibrant democracy in the city of rio to get that job done right now. maybe with the international spot light the conditions, the political conditions may be created to renew an engagement on that questions? comments? >> leading up to it there is some hesitation, criticism, it is never going to happen whether athens or here in brazil. is the international olympic
committee trying to address it? this is a recurring pattern or are other entities trying to address this to help maybe address perseverance issues that brazil has had to face and also going forward? >> the international olympic committee would love for more positive reporting because it just drags their brand all the way through the mud. but it is interesting once the olympic flame hits the country and starts going through like this spirit comes over the host city and the host country. and i think they need to be more proactive. some of the research that we are doing with the international olympic committee is leaning that way where they are not going to let the organizing committees just stumble along for a while. in brazil what happened was one
of the slides showed the different levels. so you had rio 2016 and then apo which is a government arm that was overseeing the legacy work and some of the olympic venues. they were doing this right now with the paralympic games. they are playing poker. we have rio 2016, federal government, state government. we have the rio the state and the city. who is going to pony up? although they should have designated responsibilities early on, many times in rio they were all still shuffling cards. i don't want to pay for that. you pay for that. that's not my responsibility. that's your responsibility. and so nobody was doing anything because they were all still who is going to pay for this? and if you follow the news the
reason why rio state declared bankruptcy was that was the only way they could get federal money to pay for the finishing of the transportation. now, if it was clearly mandated in their responsibility who was paying for what seven years in advance this may not have happened. but they were all not stepping up to the plate. and so then they had to use different mechanisms, political mechanisms to get the money to finish things there is no way i could see them finishing in two weeks. i think it was probably almost ready to go but they were waiting for some additional money. they had to get the money to pay the police because you heard in the national news that the police and fire had not been paid leading up to the games so they were kind of boycotting and making disturbances saying they
were not going to work during the games so they were able to get the money to cover the police. interestingly enough, the national guard, their military was almost more publicized throughout the games than some of the olympic sponsors. we saw more posters saying security provided by national police. i thought that was interesting. they want to make sure everybody knew that it was military. and the way the security worked was there was armed guards with fingers on the trigger at different locations but then in the security as you walk through they were all dressed in like volunteer outfits. they had their own unique dress but it wasn't in military garb. it was in the look of the games. so you had two different forces.
>> other questions? comments? >> i lived in salt lake city during the olympics. i wonder if you notice the difference with a huge city like rio or smaller city like salt lake. >> salt lake was the largest city that hosted winter olympic games. the legacy continues on in salt lake. 40% of our winter athletes live or train in utah right now. so based upon those facilities and the money that was raised through the games continues to pay for those facilities. but rio is a very large and diverse host city. but london was, too. and, you know, it took a long time. people forget in sydney it took 30 minutes on the train to get to olympic park.
it took about 40 minutes depending on where you were in copa to get out to the park but then you had to walk another mile to get into the park and to your venues. the olympic games are for the healthy and wealthy. if you are not healthy you have to walk a long way to get where you drop off because there are three perimeters of security. they have to drop you off far enough in so when you have to go into the first security and show your ticket and then you get your bags and show your ticket again. that is what a lot of people say the paris attack the stadium was because of the three layers of security around most all sports event that prohibited the bomb from going off inside the stadium. >> i think i would be derlict if
i didn't communicate we are lucky here at the initiative because one of our alumni is really the founder of the brazil initiative, financed it. he is also the chair of the golf committee in rio. and over the last couple of years having great conversations with him, he told me that the rio olympic committee looked at sydney as kind of the model of restructuring the city to make it more user friendly, to make it more socially inclusive. while he is very cognizant because of his education here at the elliot school of difficul difficulties that rio face in terms of politics and geography and budgeting that they needed the opportunity to make a qualitative structural difference in the life of those that live in rio. i think he'll be excited to see your powerpoint, lisa, because this puts what he has worked
towards and seeing eye to eye in numbers that i think are very relevant at this point to put it in comparative perspective with sydney, london, athens. >> we are blessed with his presence at the alumni event. he attended the reception and spoke to the people there and also to our students and shared -- he was working about 20 hours a day at the first few days of the olympic games were rough. he was in the back trying to talk to politicians like -- in the united states if our ball game goes late what do we do? we keep metros open later and find the money and figure out a way to keep metros open. they have a policy that they have to rest four hours and they couldn't figure out -- they had to open up at 5:00 in the
morning and had to close down by 1:00 and takes an hour to circulate the buses or something like that. there was no way around that situation. every country has their own different policies and laws. you have to respect those. so that was one that he was also on the food situation. so he was hands on trying to solve some of the problems. i think, as i said before, slowly but surely by the end things were running pretty well. also, what i like about the olympic games is every games are different. and we can't expect them all to be perfect. this is a major event with multiple things going on. and the spectators also have to take it upon themselves to learn. maybe if we would have paid more attention we would have figured out there was another bus waiting for us to take us into
copacabana. we freaked out and jumped into a cab. maybe we should have followed some others who knew more about what was going on. i think the word of advice to any spectator going to a games in a different country is to be respectful and think about what the conditions are in the local environment and what we are dealing with and be appreciative of the fact that we have great venues. we had excellent sports competition and in the end it was a sports competition that will be remembered from these olympic games with bolt and phelps and ledecky and others. i was at the stadium when tiago won the pole vault. that was electric. that was like 12:00 in the morning that we hung in there. i'm so glad we did stay. that was something i will never forget.
i want to thank the brazilian people and rio 2016 for putting on excellent games. >> lisa, thanks so much. i know the brazil initiative we are working to bring a group of students back to rio in june of next year with a focus on energy and environment and water interesting to work with you to get a good briefing on the infrastructure projects in rio surrounding the olympic games. that's what we should be doing is opening up opportunities to the students so they understand the impact of the olympics on a city like rio de janeiro and open developing democratic society. very interesting. i want to thank you. this has been an excellent presentation. i hope to make it available more
broadly and continue to work with lisa to bring her knowledge and comparative perspective to students and faculty. thanks so much, lisa. >> i hope the brazil institute can continue to move things along so we don't have a stalemate that they take advantage of all opportunities that are there for them to jump on and continue. >> thanks so much.
coming up this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. the abraham lincoln presidential library foundation published a book celebrating or responding to lincoln's gettysburg address. the world responds, reads passages from the book saturday. >> his presence still resonates from the words he has written and the facts and documents that he has left behind for our posterity. he was a simple yet deeply complex man who looked at complex issues plainly and purely. he accepted and spoke the truth. many believe lincoln transcended
all other presidents who have served before him and since. his great american story has reached and continues to reach across borders and oceans, races and religions, politics and party lines. >> then at 10:00 p.m. on reel america, the march in washington. the u.s. information agency filmed the march on washington for jobs and freedom and produced a documentary for foreign audiences. sunday at 4:30 p.m. this year marks the 20th anniversary of nasa viking landing on mars at nasa's research center historians discuss the viking program which landed the first u.s. spacecraft on mars. >> the events surrounding were exciting. when the lander landed it was almost powered up and the team
had programmed in two photographs to be taken so that they could be delivered fairly quickly back to earth for nasa to be able to confirm that the landers had landed on mars. >> then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, historians look at president truman's leadership and how he interacted with three prominent politicians. then former secretary of state speaks with historian about harry truman's commitment to public service as vice president and president. >> this is someone who should have gone to college, graduate school. couldn't do it because of his family's economic circumstances. one thing he felt strongly was when he became president he wanted to help others. one way was to strengthen the community college system. >> for our complete schedule go
to c-span.org. we have more presidential debates tonight on american history tv here on c-span 3. beginning at 8:00 p.m. the first debate of the 2000 general election between texas governor george w. bush. we will show you the town hall debate from 2000 presidential election. later a 1996 debate between president clinton and republican nominee, former senator bob dole. each week during the 2016 election road to the white house rewind brings you archival coverage. up next the first debate between vice president al gore and george bush. from the university of massachusetts in boston topics include tax policy, medicare drug proposals and abortion. governor bush defeated vice
president gore. this is just over 90 minutes. >> 30 seconds. good evening from the clark athletic center. i welcome you to the first of three 90-minute debates between the democratic candidate for president, vice president al gore and republican candidate, governor george w. bush of texas. the debates are sponsored by the
commission on presidential debates and they will be conducted within formats and rules agreed to by the commission and the two campaigns. tonight we have the candidates at podiums. no answer can exceed two minutes. rebuttals are limited to one minute. as moderator i have the option to follow up and expand particular give and take another 3 1/2 minutes. no single answer can exceed two minutes. the candidates under their rules may not question each other directly. there will be no opening statements but each candidate may have up to two minutes for a closing statement. the questions and the subjects were chosen by me alone. i have told no one from the two campaigns or commission or anyone else involved what they are. there is a small audience in the hall tonight. they are not here to participate, only to listen. i have asked and they have agreed to remain silent for the
next 90 minutes except for right now when they applaud as we welcome the two candidates, governor bush and vice president gore. [ applause ] now the first question as determined by a flip of a coin goes to vice president gore. >> first of all, i would like to thank the sponsors of this debate and the people of boston for hosting the debate.
i would like to thank governor bush for participating. i would like to say i'm happy to be here. i have actually not questioned governor bush's experience. i have questioned his proposals. here's why. i think this is a very important moment for our country. we have achieved extraordinary prosperity. and in this election america has to make an important choice. will we use our prosperity to enrich not just the few, but all of our families? i believe we have to make the right and responsible choices. if i'm entrusted with the presidency here are the choices that i will make. i will balance the budget every year. i will pay down the national debt. i will put medicare and social security in a lock box and protect it. and i will cut taxes for middle class families. i believe it is important to
resist the temptation to squander our surplus. if we make the right choices we can have a prosperity that endures and enriches all of our people. if i am entrusted with the presidency i will help parents and strengthen families because, you know, if we have prosperity that grows and grows we still won't be successful unless we strengthen families. by, for example, insuring that children can always go to schools that are safe, by giving parents the tools to protect their children against cultural pollution. i will make sure that we invest in our country and our families. and i mean investing in education, health care, the environment and middle class tax cuts and retirement security. that's my agenda and that's why i think that it is not just a question of experience. >> governor bush, one minute
rebuttal. >> we do come from different places. i come from west texas. i have been a governor. governor is the chief executive officer and learns how to set agendas. i think you are going to find the difference reflecting in our budgets. i want to take one half of surplus and dedicate to social security. one quarter for important projects and one quarterback to people who pay the bills. i want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut. that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent's plan which will increase the size of government dramatically. his plan is three times larger than president clinton's proposed plan. it will have 200 expanded programs and 20,000 new bureaucrats. it empowers washington. tonight you hear my passion is to empower americans to make decisions for themselves in their own lives.
>> so i take it by your answer, then, mr. vice president, that in your interview with the "new york times" when you said you question whether or not governor bush was experienced enough to be president you were talking about strictly policy differences? >> yes, jim. i said that his tax cut plan, for example, raises the question of whether it is right choice for the country. let me give you an example of what i mean. under governor bush's tax cut proposal he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined. now, i think those are the wrong priorities. now, under my proposal for every dollar that i propose in spending for things like education and health care, i will put another dollar into
middle class tax cuts. and for every dollar that i spend in those two categories i will put $2 towards paying down the national debt it is important to keep the debt going down. it is important to go to the next stage of welfare reform. our country has cut welfare roles in half. i fought hard from my days in senate and as vice president to cut the welfare rolls. we moved millions of americans into good jobs. it is now time for the next stage and include fathers and not only mothers. >> let me just say that obviously tonight we will hear some phony numbers about what i think and what we ought to do. people need to know that over the next ten years there will be $25 trillion in revenue that comes in. my plan says why don't we pay
off 1.3 trillion back to the people who pay the bills? we can afford 5% of $25 trillion coming into treasury. there is a difference of opinion. opponent thinks the government -- surplus is the government's money. i think it is for hard working people of america's money. i want to share some of that money with you. you have more money to build and save and dream for the family. it is a difference between government making decisions for you and you are getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself. >> let me just follow up. one quick question. when you hear vice president gore question your experience, do you read it the same way that he is talking about policy differences only? >> yes. >> i take you for his word. i fully recognize i'm not of washington. i'm from texas. and he's got a lot of
experience, but so do i. i have been chief executive officer in the second biggest state in the union. i we need somebody to say let's forget the politics and get positive things done on medicare, prescription drugs and social security. and so i take him for his word. >> jim, if i can respond. i know that the governor used the phrase phony numbers. if you look at the plan and add the numbers up these numbers are correct. spending proposals for health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense all combined. i agree that the surplus is the american people's money. it's your money. i don't think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1%.
>> 3 1/2 minutes is up. new question. >> this is a companion question to the question i asked before. you have questioned whether vice president gore has demonstrated the leadership qualities necessary to be president of the united states. what do you mean? >> i have said that eight years ago the campaign on prescription drugs for seniors. and four years ago they campaigned on getting prescription drugs for seniors. now they are campaigning on getting prescription drugs for seniors. it seems like they can't get it done. they may blame other folks. it is time to get somebody in washington who will work with republicans and democrats to get some positive things done when it comes to our seniors. i have said there have been some missed opportunities.
they had a chance. they have had a chance to form consensus. i have a plan on medicare that is a two-stage plan that says we have immediate help for seniors in what i call immediate helping hand, $48 billion program. i want to say seniors if you are happy with medicare you can stay in the program but we will give you additional choices just like federal employees in the federal employee health plan. variety of choices from which to choose. my point has been as opposed to politicizing issue like medicare, in other words, holding it up is an issue, this year in the year 2000 it is time to say let's get it done. that is what i have been critical about the administration for. same with social security. i think it was a good opportunity to bring republicans and democrats together to reform the social security system. those on social security will have their promise made and give
younger workers the option to manage some of their own money in the private sectors to make sure there is a social security system around tomorrow. a lot of young workers at our rallies when they hear i am going to trust them to be able to manage under certain guidelines money to get a better rate of return so they have a retirement plan in the future they begin to nod their heads. they want a different attitude than washington. >> one minute rebuttal. >> under my plan all seniors will get prescription drugs under medicare. the governor described medicare as a government hmo. it's not. let me explain the difference. under medicare prescription drug proposal i'm making you go to your own doctor and your doctor chooses your prescription. no hmo or insurance company can take those choices away from you. then you go to your own pharmacy. you fill the prescription and medicare pays half the cost.
if you are in a very poor family or high costs medicare will pay all the costs. a $25 premium and much better benefits than you can possibly find in the private sector. here is the contrast. 95% of all seniors would get no help whatsoever under my opponent's plan for the first four or five years. one thing i don't understand, jim, is why is it that the wealthiest 1% get tax cuts the first year but 95% of seniors have to wait four to five years before they get a single penny? >> i guess my answer to that is the man is running on medscare, trying to frighten people in the voting booth. that is not my intentions and not my plan. i want all seniors to have prescription drugs in medicare. we need to reform medicare. this administration has failed to do it. so seniors are going to have not only a medicare plan where poor
seniors have prescription drugs paid for. the current system today has meant a lot for a lot of seniors and i appreciate the intentions of the current system. as i mentioned if you are happy with the system you can stay in it. there are procedures that have not kept up in medicare with the current times. there is no prescription drug benefits, no drug therapies, no vision care. we need to have a modern system to help seniors. and the idea of supporting a federally controlled 132,000 page document bureiocracy as compassionate way for seniors is just not in my vision. i believe we ought to make the system work better. i know it will require a different kind of leader to go to washington to say to both republicans and democrats let's come together. you have had your chance. you have been there for eight years and nothing has been done.
and my point is that my plan not only trusts seniors with options, my plan sets aside $3.4 trillion for medicare over the next ten years. my plan also says it is going to require a new approach in washington, d.c. it's going to require somebody who can work across the partisan divide. >> if i can respond to that. under my plan i will put medicare in an iron clad lock box and prevent the money being used for anything other than medicare. the governor declined to endorse that idea even though republican and democratic leaders have endorsed it. i would be interested to see if he would say he would put medicare in the lock box. i don't think he would because under his plan $100 billion comes out just for wealthiest 1% in the tax cut. some people who say the word reform mean cuts.
under the plan if you kept the same fee for service that you have now your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47% and that is the study of the congressional plan that he has modelled his proposal on by the medicare actuaries. there is a man here tonight named george mckinny from milwaukee. he is 70 years old. he has high blood pressure. his wife has heart trouble. they have income of $25,000 a year. they cannot pay for prescription drugs. and so they go to canada regularly in order to get prescription drugs. under my plan half of their cost would be paid right away. under governor bush's plan they would get not one penny for four to five years and then they would be forced to go into an hmo or insurance company and ask for coverage but no limit on premiums or deductibles or terms and conditions. >> i cannot let this go by, the
old style washington politics. we are going to scare you in the voting booth. under my plan the man gets immediate help called immediate helping hand instead of squabbling and finger pointing he gets immediate help. let me say something. >> jim, can i make one other point? they get $25,000 a year income. that makes them ineligible. >> this man has great numbers. he talks about numbers. i'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. it's fuzzy math. it's trying to scare people in the voting booth. under my tax plan i set a third, no more than a third of anybody's check. but also drop the bottom rate from 15% to 10% because by far the vast majority of the help
goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. if you are a family of four you get a 50% cut in the federal income taxes you pay. the difference is i want that 2,000 to go to you and the vice president would like to be spending 2,000 on your behalf. >> one quick thing. these are your rules. we are way over the 3 1/2. i have no problems with it. you want to have a quick response and move on. almost five minutes on this. >> it's just clear you can go to the website and look. if you make more than $25,000 a year you don't get a penny of help under the bush prescription drug proposal for at least four to five years and then pushed into an hmo or insurance company plan and there is no limit on the premiums or deductibles or conditions and the insurance companies say it won't work and they won't offer these plans. >> let me ask you both this.
as a practical matter both of you want to bring prescription drugs to seniors, correct? >> the difference is i want to bring it to 100% and he brings it only to 5%. >> that is totally false for him to say that. let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear. i will work with republicans and democrats to reform the system. all seniors will be covered. all poor seniors will have prescription drugs paid for. in the meantime we will have a plan and could be one year or two years. >> let me call your attention to the key word. he said all poor seniors. >> all seniors are covered in my plan. >> in the first year? >> if we can get it done in the first year. >> it's a two phased plan. for the first four years. it takes a year to pass it. for the first four years only the poor are covered. middle class seniors like george
mckinny and his wife are not covered for four to five years. >> i have an idea. if you have more to say you can say it in your closing statement and move on. new question. vice president gore, how would you contrast your approach to preventing future oil price and supply problems like we have now to the approach of governor bush? >> excellent question. my plan has not only a short term component but also a long-term component. it focuses not only on increasing the supply which i think we have to do, but also on working on the consumption side. in the short term we have to free ourselves from the domination of the big oil companies that have the ability to manipulate the price from opec and in the long term we have to give new incentives for
development of domestic resources like deep gas in the western gulf but also renewable sources of energy. and domestic sources that are cleaner and better. i'm proposing a plan that will give tax credits and tax incentives for the rapid development of new kinds of cars and trucks and buses and factories and boilers and furnaces that don't have as much pollution, that don't burn as much energy and that help us get out on the cutting edge of the new technologies that will create millions of new jobs because when we sell the new products here we'll then be able to sell them overseas. there is a demand for them overseas. another big difference is governor bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures like arctic national wildlife refuge to big oil companies to produce oil there. i think that is the wrong choice. it would only give us a few
months of oil and the oil wouldn't start flowing for many years into the future. i don't think it is a fair price to pay to destroy precious parts of america's environment. we have to bet on the future and move beyond the current technologies to have a whole new generation of more efficient cleaner energy technologies. >> it's an issue i know a lot about. i was a small oil person for a while in west texas. this is an administration that has had no plan. all of a sudden the results of having no plan have caught up with america. we have to make sure we fully fund high fuel bills. we need an active exploration program. the only way to become less dependent on foreign crude oil is to explore at home. when the field is online it will produce a million barrels a day.
today we import a million barrels from saddam hussein. i would rather it come from our own hemisphere, our own country. i want to build more pipelines to move natural gas. i want to develop the coal resources in america and have clean coal technologies. we have abundant supplies of energy in america and better start getting after it and tart exploring it otherwise we'll be in deep trouble in the future. >> so, if somebody is watching tonight listening to what the two of you just said is it fair to say okay the differences between vice president gore and george w. bush, governor bush are follow. you are for doing something on the consumption end, you're for doing something on the production end -- >> let me clarify. i'm for doing something both on the supply side and production side. and on the consumption side. let me say that i found one thing in governor bush's answer that we certainly agree on and
that is the low-income heating assistance program and i commend you for supporting that. i worked to get $400 million a couple of weeks ago and to establish a permanent home heating oil reserve here in the northeast. now, as for the proposals that i've worked ron fournier renewables and conservation and efficiency and new technologies, the fact is for the last few years in the congress we faced a lot of opposition to them. eve only approved about 10% of the agenda that i helped to send up there. i think that we need to get serious about this energy crisis, both in the congress, in a in the white house, and if you entrust me with the presidency i will tackle this problem and focus on new technologies that will make us less dependent on big oil or foreign oil. >> how would you draw the difference? >> i would say you should have
been tackling it for the last seven years. the vice president doesn't believe in exploration in alaska. there's a lot of shut in gas we need to move out of alaska. there's an interesting issue in northwest and that's whether we remove dams that produce hydro electric energy. i'm against removing dams. that's a renewable source of energy we need to keep in line. i was in coal country yesterday in west virginia. there's an abundant supply of coal in america. i know we can do a better job of clean coal technologies. i'm is going to ask the congress for $2 billion to make sure we have the cleanest coal technologies in the world. my answer to you is that in the short term we need to get after it here in america. we need to explore our resources and we need to develop our reservoirs of domestic production. we need a hemispheric energy program where canada and mexico and the united states comes together. i brought this up with president fox, a man i know from mexico
and i asked about how best to experiod indict the exploration of gas in mexico and transport it up to united states so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. this is a major rob facing america. the administration did not deal with it. it's time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem. >> i found a couple of other things we agree on. he may not find that many. i strongly support new investments in clean coal technology. i made a proposal three months ago on this. and also domestic exploration, yes. but not in the environmental treasures of our country. we don't have to do that. that's the wrong choice. i know the oil companies have been itching to do that but it's not the right thing for the future. >> it's the right thing for the consumers. less dependency on foreign services of crude is good for consumers and we can do so in an environmentally friendly way. >> i can have the last word.
>> new question, new subject. governor bush, if elected president would you try to overturn the fda's approval last week of the abortion pill ru-486? >> i don't think a president can do that. i was disappointed in the ruling because i think abortions ought to be more rare in america. and i'm worried that that pill will create more abortions, cause more people to have abortions. this is a very important topic and a very sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. what the next president ought to do is promote a cultural life in america. life of the elderly and life of those living all across the country, life of the unborn. as a matter of fact, i think a noble goal for this country is every child born and unborn ought to be protect and welcomed to life. we have to change a lot of minds before we get there in america. what i do believe is we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or
consents. we need to ban partial birth abortions. i believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step torre ducing the number of abortions in america. this is an issue that's going to require a new attitude. we've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. surely this nation can come together to promote the valve life. surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to take the lives of our seniors. surely we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that's not the way america is meant to be. surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in america. as to the drug itself i mentioned i was disappointed. i hope the fda took it aside to
make sure american women will be safe who use this drug. >> vice president gore? >> jim, the fda took 12 years and i do support that decision. they've determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. now, this is, indeed, a very important issue. first of all, on the issue of partial birth or so-called late term aboring i would sign a law banning that procedure provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman's life or to help if her health is at risk. that's not the main issue. the main issue is whether the roe v wade decision will be overturned. i support a woman's right to choose. my opponent does not. governor bush has declared to the anti-choice groups that he will appoint justices in the mold of scalia and clarence thomas who are known for being
the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choice. i trust the government to order a woman what they taught do. i trauft woman to make decisions that affect their lives and destinies and bodies. a woman's right to chose ought to be protected and defended. >> we'll go the supreme court question in a moment. let me make sure i understand your position. if you're elected president, you won't support legislation to overturn this? >> i don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. the fda has made its decision. >> you wouldn't through appointments to the fda. >> i think once a decision has been made it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women. >> jim, the question you asked if i heard you correctly would he support legislation to overturn it. if i heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would
order his fda appointee to review the decision. that sounds to me a little bit different. i just think that we ought to support the decision. >> i said i would make sure that women would be safe who use that drug. >> on the supreme court question, should a voter assume, you're pro life. >> i am. >> should a voter assume all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court will also be pro life. >> voter should assume i have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. i'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the constitution and not use the bench to write social policy. that's the big difference between my opponent and me. i believe judges ought not to take the place of legislative branch of government. that they are appointed for life. that they ought to look at the constitution as sacred. they shouldn't misuse their bench. i don't believe in liberal
activist judges. i believe in strict constructionists and those are the kind of judges i would appoint. i would ask people to check out the ones i have named in texas. their deliberations. they are good solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of texas. >> what kind of appointment should they expect from you. >> we both reach the same to get a different outcome. i don't favor a litmus test. but there are ways to figure out how a justice interprets the constitution. the constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. and i believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the fourth amendment and when the phrase strict constructionist is used and names of scalia and thomas are used as benchmarks for who are
appointed those are code words and nobody should mistake this for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn roe v wade. it's very clear to me. i would appoint people who have a philosophy that i think would make it quite likely they would uphold roe v wade. >> is the vice president right? is that a code word for overturning roe v wade? >> sounds like the vice president is not right many times tonight. i just told you the criteria in which i would appoint judges. i've had a record of appointing judges in the state of texas. that's what a governor gets to do. a governor gets to name supreme court judges. he also reads all kinds of things into my tax plan and my medicare plan and at any point viewers out there to listen to what i have to say about that. >> reverse the question. what code phrases should we read by what you said about what kind of people you'll appoint >> very likely they would uphold roe v wade. it's wrong to use a litmus test. but if you look at the history
of a lower court judge's rulings you can get a pretty good idea of how they are going to interpret questions. now a lot of questions are first impression. and these questions that have been seen many time come up in a new context and so -- but this is a very important issue. because a lot of young women in this country take this right for granted and it could be lost. it is on the ballot in this election, make no mistake about it. >> i'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on there. he'll put liberal activist judges who will use their bench to subvert the legislature. >> that's not right. >> new subject, new question. vice president gore, if president mislovecih lost the
election? >> his opponent has won the election. it's overwhelming. misloveich refuses to release the vote count. they are demonstrating. i think we should support the people of serbia, and the yugoslavia as they call it serbia montenegro to recognize the lawful outcome of the election. people of serbia have acted bravely in kicking this guy out of office. now he's trying to not release the votes, and then go straight to a so-called runoff election without even announcing the results of the first vote. now we've made it clear along with our allies that when milosovich leaves serbia can have a more normal relationship with the rest of the world.
that's a strong incentive we've given them to do the right thing. bear in mind milosevich has been indicted as a war criminal. the sentiment within serbia for underable reasons is still against the united states because their nationalism has led, even if they don't like milosevich they have feelings lingering from the nato action there. so we have to be intelligent in the way we go about it. make no mistake about it. we should do everything we can to see that the will of the serbian people, expressed in this extraordinary election is done. and i hope that he'll be out of office very shortly. >> governor bush, one minute. >> i'm pleased with the results of the election. as the vice president is. it's time for the man to go. and it means that the united states must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends
in nato. that's why it's important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on mr. milosevich. this is an interesting moment for the russians to step up and lead as well. good time for russia to step into balkans and encourage mr. milosevich to leave office. russians have a lot of sway in that part of the world and we would like to see them use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. so it's encouraging election. it's time for the man to leave. >> what if he doesn't leave? what if all the things, all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure from the world he doesn't go, is this the kind of thing, be specific, that you as president would consider the use of u.s. military force to get him gone? >> in this particular situation, no. bear in mind that we have a lot of sanctions in force against serbia right now.
and the people of serbia know that they can escape all those sanctions if this guy is turned out of power. now i understand what the governor has said about asking the russians to be involved and under some circumstances that might be a good idea. but being as they have not yet been willing to recognize the lawful winner of the election, i'm not sure that it's right for us to invite the president of russia to mediate this dispute there, because we might not like the result that comes out of that. they currently favor going forward with a run off election. i think that's the wrong thing. i think the governor's instinct is not necessarily bad because we have worked with the russians in a constrouktive way in kosovo, kpram to end the conflict there. but i think we need be very careful in the present situation before we invite the russians to
play the lead role and mediate. >> obviously we wouldn't use the russians if they didn't agree with our answer, mr. vice president. >> well they don't. >> i wouldn't use force. >> you wouldn't use force? >> no. >> why not? >> it's not in our national interest. i would keep pressure, i would use diplomacy. there's a difference between what the president did in kosovo that i supported and this. >> new question, how would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use u.s. force? >> well if it's in our vital national interest and that means whether or not our territory, our territory is threatened. people could be harmed. our alliances are, defense alliances are threatened. whether or not our friend in the middle east are threatened. that would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. and secondly whether the mission
was clear. whether or not there was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. thirdly whether or not we were prepared and trained to win? whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well equipped. finally whether or not there was an exit strategy. i would take the use of force very seriously. i would be guarded in my approach. i don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. i think we got to be very careful when we commit our troops. the vice president and i have a disagreement about the use of troops. he believes in nation building. i would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. i believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. and so i take my -- i take my responsibility seriously and it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. morale in today's military is too low. we're having trouble meeting recruiting goals.
we met the goals this year but in previous years we have not met recruiting goals. some of our troops are not well equipped. i believe we're overextended in too many places. and, therefore, i want to rebuild the military power, it starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and whom wear the uniform. a billion more than the president signed into law. make sure our troops are well housed and well equipped. bonus plans to keep our high skills folks in the service and a commander-in-chief who clearly sets the mission and the mission is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. >> vice president go, one minute. >> let me tell you what i'll do. first of all i want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best trained, best equipped, best led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. nobody should have any doubt about that. least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries.
if you entrust me with the presidency i will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. in fact, in my ten year budget proposal i have set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as governor bush has in his proposal. now, i think we should be reluctant to get involved in some place in a foreign country. but if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits we should get involved. now just because we don't want to get involved every where doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. i disagree with the fact, with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. i think that there are situations like in bosnia or
kosovo where there's a genocide where our national security is at stake there. >> governor? >> i agree our military is the strongest in the world today. that's not the question. the question is will it be the strongest in years to come? the warning signs are real. every where i go around the campaign trail i see people who, moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform. and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. recent poll was taken amongst 1,000 enlisted personnel as well as officers over half of whom are going to leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. the captains are leaving the service. there is a problem and it's going to require a new commander-in-chief to rebuild the military power. the other day i was honored to are flanked by colin powell and general schwarzkopf who stood by my side and agreed with me. if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clear
vision of the military if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road and i'm going to prevent that. i'm is going rebuild our military power. one of the major priorities of my administration. >> vice president gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions? whether milosevich or whatever. in the military and foreign policy area. >> they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. when i was a young man i volunteered for the army. i served my country in vietnam. my father was a senator who strongly opposed the vietnam war. i went to college in this great city. and most of my peers felt against the war as i did. but i went anyway. because i knew if i didn't somebody else in the small town
of tennessee would have to go in my place. i served for eight years in the house of representatives and i served on the intelligence committee, specialized in looking at arms control. i served for eight years in the united states senate and served on the armed service committee. for the last eight years i served on the national security council. when the conflict came up in bosnia i saw a genocide in the heart of europe with the most violent war on the continent of europe since world war ii. look that's where world war i started in the balkans. my uncle was a victim of poison gas there. millions of americans saw the results of that conflict. we have to be willing to make good sound judgments. incidentally i know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology, the governor proposes skipping the next generation of weapons. i think that's a big mistake. i think we have to stay at the cutting-edge. >> governor, how would you advise the voters to make a
decision on this issue. >> i think you got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. whether or not -- domestic policy as well, whether you have the capacity to convince people to follow. whether or not one makes decisions based upon sound principles. whether or not you rely upon polls and focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. we got too much polling and focus groups going on in washington today. we need decisions made on sound principles. i've been the governor of a big state. i think one of the hall marks of my relationship in austin, texas is i have had the capacity to work with republicans and democrats. that's an important part of leadership. i think what it means to build consensus. i've shown i know how to do so. ing tonight in the audience there's one elected senator a democrat, a former state rep a democrat, one state wide officer a democrat. a lot of democrats are here in the debate -- >> go ahead.
>> -- because they want to show their support, to show i know how to lead. the answer to your question who can lead and who has shown the ability to get things done. >> we're way over the 3 1/2 minutes. go ahead. >> i think one of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to re-establish the old-fashioned policy that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. when i was in the united states congress i worked with president reagan to modernize our strategic weaponry and pursue arms control in a responsible way. when i was in the united states senate i worked with president bush, your father, and was one of only a few democrats in the senate to support the persian gulf war. i think bipartisanship is a national asset and we have to find ways to re-establish it in foreign policy and national security policy. >> do you have a problem with that >> why haven't they done it in seven years? >> new subject, new question. should the voters of this
election, vice president gore see this on domestic area and domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies >> absolutely. this is a very important moment in the history of our country. look, we've got to biggest surpluses in all of american history. the key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn't go just to the few. almost half of all the tax cut benefits as i said under governor bush's plan go to the wealthiest 1%. i think we have to make the right and responsible choices. i think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors not just to the poor, under medicare not relying on hmos and insurance companies. i think that we have to help
parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are heart sick that their children are exposed to. we need to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. we got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt would be completely eliminated by the year 2012. i think we need to put medicare and social security in a lock box. the governor will not put medicare in a lock box. i don't think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. i think it needs be moved out of the budget. i'm veto anything that takes money out of social security or medicare for anything other than social security or medicare. now, the priorities are just very different. i'll give you a couple of examples. for every new dollar that i propose for spending on health care, governor bush spend $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%.
now for every dollar that i propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. those are very clear differences. >> governor? >> man is practicing fuzzy math again. there's differences. under vice president gore's plan he's is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since lyndon baines johnson in 1965. we're talking about a massive government, folks opinion we're talking about adding to or increasing 200 new programs, 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. imagine how many irs agents it's going to take to be able to figure out his targeted tax cut for the middle class that excludes 50 million americans. there is a huge difference in this campaign. he says he's going to give you tax cuts, 50 million of you won't receive it. he said in his speech he wants to make sure the right people get tax relief. that's not the role of the president to decide right or
wrong. everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. after my plan the wealthiest americans will pay a high engineer percentage than they do today. the poorest won't pay any tax at all. it is a huge difference. it's a difference between big, exploding federal government thats to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own. >> let me just say, jim, you haven't heard the governor deny these numbers. he's called them phoney, called them fuzzy but the fact remains almost 30% of his proposed tax cut goes only to americans that make more than $1 million per year. more money goes to the -- can i have a rebuttal. >> i want to see if he buys that. >> let me tell you what the facts are. the facts are after my plan the wealthiest of americans pay more taxes of the percentage of the
whole than they do today. secondly if you're a family of four making $50,000 in massachusetts you get a 50% tax cut. let me give you one example. the strong family in allentown, pence, campaigned with them the other day. they make $51,000 combined income. they pay $3,500 in taxes. under my plan they get $1800 in tax relief. under vice president gore's they get $145 tax relief. tell me who stands on the side of the strongs. he would rather spend the strongs $1800 and i rather they spend their own money. >> you see it that way? >> no, i don't. i'm not going to go to calling names on his facts. i'll just tell you what the real facts are. the analysis that he's talking about leaves out more than half of the tax cuts that i have proposed. and if you just add the numbers up, he still vent denied it.
he spends more money on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% than all of his new proposals for prescription drugs, health care, education and national defense combined. now those are the wrong priorities. $665 billion over ten years for the wealthiest 1%. 30% of it goes to americans that make more than $1 million per year. every middle class family is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal. let me give you some specific examples. i believe that college tuition up to $10,000 a year ought to be tax deductible to middle class families can choose to send their children to college. i believe that all seniors should be able to choose their own doctors and get prescription drugs from their own pharmacist with medicare paying half the bill. i believe that parents ought to have more choices with charter
schools and public school choice to send their kids always to a safe school. i think we need to make education the number one priority in our country and treat teachers like the professionals they are and that's why i have made it the number one priority in my budget not a tax cut for the wealthiest. >> let me talk about tax cuts one more time. is that man whose plan exclude 50 million americans. >> not so. >> take the marriage penalty. if you itemize your tax return you get no marriage penalty relief. he picks and chooses. he decides whether who the right people are. it's a fundamental difference. people. i want my fellow americans to hear one more time. we'll spend $25 trillion, collect $25 trillion of revenue over the next ten years. and we're going to project to spend $21 trillion. surely we can send 5% of that back to you all who pay the bills. there's a problem. i want to say something, jim. this man has been disparaging my
plan. i want you to hear about a problem. if you're a single mother making $22,000 a year and you got two children under this tax code for every additional dollar you make you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than somebody making $200,000 a year and that's not right. it increases the child credit from $500 to $1,000 to make the code more fair for everybody. not just a few. not just, you know, a handful. everybody who pays taxes ought to get some relief. >> having cleared that up we're going to a new question. education. governor bush, both of you have promised dramatically to change dramatically public education in this country but of the public money spent on education only 6% of it is federal money. you want to change 100% of education with 6% of the money. >> we can make a huge difference by saying if you receive federal money we expect you to show
results. let me give you a story about pub ed if i might, jim. about an academy in houston, texas. it's a charter school run by some people who teach for america. young folks that say i'll do something good for my country. i want to tauch. a guy named michael runs the school. it's a school filled of at risk children. how we unfortunately label certain children. basically it means they can learn. a school of strong discipline and high standards. one of the best schools in houston. here are the key ingredients. high expectations. strong account jalktd. what michael says don't put rules on us, let us teach and hold us accountable for every grade and that's what we do. as a result these young, mainly hispanic youngsters are some of the best learners in houston, texas. that's my vision for public education. all around america. many of your viewers don't know we sent our girls to public school. many public schools are meeting
the call. but, unfortunately, a lot of schools are trapping children in schools that won't teach or change. here's the role of the federal government. one is to change head start into a reading program. two is to say if you want to access reading money you can do so because the goal is for every single child to learn to read. there must be k through 2 diagnostic tools. teacher training. three we have to consolidate federal programs to free the schools and encourage innovators and let schools reach out beyond the confine of the current structure to teach for children type teachers. four, we're going to say if you receive federal money measure. third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade and show us whether or not children are learning to read, write and add and subtract and if so there's a bonus plan. but if not, instead of continuing to subsidize failure, the money will go to the parents or the parent can choose a different public school. federal money attributed to the
child will go the parent for public school or charter school or tutorial or catholic school. what i care about is children and so does michael feinberg. it can happen in america. >> we agree on a couple of thing on education. i strongly support new accountability. so does governor bush. i strongly support local control. so does governor bush. i'm in favor of testing as a way of measuring performance every school, every school district, every state test the children. i've also proposed voluntary national test from fourth grade and eighth grade and a form of testing that the governor has not endorsed all new teachers ought to be tested included in the subjects that they teach. we got to recruit 100,000 new teachers and i have budgeted for that. we got to reduce the class size so that the student who walks in has more one on one time with the teacher. we ought to have universal
pre-school and make college tuition tax deductible up to $10,000 a year. i would like to tell you a quick story. i got a letter today as i left florida. i'm here with a group of 13 people from around the country who helped me prepare. two days ago we ate lunch at a restaurant and the guy who served us lunch got me a letter today. his name is randy ellis. he has a 15-year-old daughter who is in high school. her science class was supposed to be for 24 students. she is the 36th student in that classroom. scene me a picture of her in the classroom. they can't squeeze another desk in for her so she has to stand during class. i want the federal government consistent with local control and new accountability to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so kayla will have a desk and sit down in a classroom where she can learn. >> all right. so having heard the two of you,
voters just have heard the two of you what's the difference? what's the choice between the two of you on education. >> first the difference is there's no new accountability measures in vice president gore as plan. he says he's for voluntary testing. you can't have voluntary testing. you must have mandatory testing. you must say if you receive money you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. that's the difference. you may claim you got mandatory testing but you don't mr. vice president and that's a huge difference. testing is the corner stone. it's the corner stone of reform in the state of texas. republicans and democrats came together and asked the question what can we do to make our public education the best in the country? we've gone a long way working together. the corner stone is to have strong accountability and return for money. and in return for flexibility. we're going to ask you to show us whether or not -- we asked to post the results on the internet.
we encourage parents to look at the comparative results of schools. we got a strong charter school movement that i signed the legislation to get started in the state of texas. i believe if we find poor children trapped in schools that won't teach we need to free the parents. i think we need to expand education savings accounts. something the vice president supports. he won't support freeing local district from the strings of federal money. >> first of all i do have mandatory testing. the governor may not have heard what i said clearly. the voluntary national test is in addition to the mandatory testing that we require of state states. here a couple of differences, though, jim. governor bush is in favor of vouchers which take taxpayer money away from public schools and gives them to private
schools that are not accountable for how the someone used and don't have to take all applicants. private schools play a great role in our society. all of our children have gone to both public and private schools. but i don't think private schools should have a right to take taxpayer money away from public schools at a time when kayla is standing in that classroom. let me give you another example. i went to a school in decade county, florida where the facilities are so overcrowd the children have to eat lunch in shifts with the first shift for lunch starting at 9:30 in the morning. look this is a funding crisis all around the country. there are fewer parents of school-age children as a percentage of the voting population and largest generation of students ever. we're in an information age when learning is more important than ever. 90% of our kids go to public schools. we have to make titanium one priority. modernize our schools, reduce the class size, recruit new teachers, give every child a
chance to learn with one on one time in a quality, high quality safe school. if it's a failing school shut it down. and reopen it under a new principal with a turn around team of specialists the way governor jim hunt does in north carolina. another difference. the governor if it's a failing school would leave the children in that failing school for three years and then give a little bit of money to the parents, a down appointment on a down payment for private school tuition and pretend that that would be enough for them to go out and go to a private school. >> wait a minute. >> 30 seconds, governor. >> first of all, most good governs is at the state level. i'm saying if you spend money show us results and test every year which you do not do mr. vice president. you don't test every year. can you say you do in the cameras you don't unless you changed your plan here on the stage. you need to test every year
because that's where you determine whether children are progressing to excellence. secondly one of the things we got to be careful about in politics is throwing money at a system that has not yet been reformed. more money is need and i spend more money. step one is to make sure we reform the system, to have the system in place that leaves no child behind. stop this business asking how old your. you're ten we put you here. start asking the question what do you know and if you don't know what you're supposed to know we make sure you do early and before it's too late. >> new question. we've been talking about a lot of specific issues. it's often said in the final analysis about 90% of being the president of united states is dealing with the unexpected. not with issues that came up in the campaign. . vice president gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken that illustrates your ability to hand tell unexpected, the crisis under
fire, et cetera? >> when the action in kosovo was dragging on and we were searching for a solution to the problem, our country had defeated the adversary on the battlefield without a single american life being lost in combat, but the dictator milosevich was hanging on, i invited the former prime minister of russia to my house and took a risk in asking him to get personally involved along with the head of finland to go to belgrade and to take a set of proposals from the united states that would constitute basically a surrender by serbia, but it was a calculated risk that paid off. now i could probably give you some other examples of decisions
over the last 24 years. i have been in public service for 24 years, jim. and throughout all that time, the people i have fought for have been the middle class families. and i have been willing to stand up to powerful interests like the big insurance companies, the drug companies, the hmos, the oil companies. they have good people and they play constructive roles sometimes but sometimes they get too much power. i cast my lot with the people even when it means that you have to stand up to some powerful interests who are trying to turn the policies and the laws to their advantage. you can see it in this campaign. the big drug companies support governor bush's prescription drug proposal. they oppose mine because they don't want to get medicare involved because they are afraid that medicare will negotiate lower prices for seniors who currently pay the highest prices
of all. >> governor bush? >> i've been standing up to big hollywood, big trial lawyers -- what was the question. it was about emergencies, wasn't it? >> it was about -- well, okay. >> you know as governor one of the things you have to deal with catastrophes. i can remember the fires that swept parker county, texas. i remember the floods that swept our state. i remember going down to del rio, texas. i got to pay the administration a compliment, fema has done a really good job of working with governors during time of crisis. but that's the time when you're tested not only -- it test your mettle, test your heart when you see people's lives who have been turned upside down. broke i had heart to go to the flood scene in del rio where a fellow and his family got completely uproad.
all i knew was to get aid as quickly as possible which we did with state and federal help. put my arms around the man and his family and cry with them. that's what governor dose. governors are often on front line of catastrophic situations. >> if you question, there can be all kinds of crises, there could be a crisis, for instance in the financial area. stock market could take a tumble. there could be a failure of a major financial institution. what is your general attitude towards government intervention in such events? >> well, it depends, obviously. but what i would do first and foremost is i would get in touch with the french chairman alan greenspan to find out all the facts and all the circumstances. i would have my secretary of treasury be in touch with financial centers not only here but at home. i would make sure that key
members of congress were called in to discuss the gravity of the situation. and i would come up with a game plan to deal with it. that's what governors end up doing. we end up being problem solvers. we come up with practical common sense solutions for problems that we're confronted with and in this case, in the case of a financial crisis i would gather all the facts before i made the decision as to what the government ought or ought not to do. >> vice president gore? >> first i want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in texas. i accompanied james lee witt down to texas when those fires broke out and anyway has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. i agree it works extremely well now. on the international financial crises that come up my friend bill rubin former secretary of treasury is here. he's a close adviser to me and a great friend in all respects. i have had a chance network with him and alan greenspan and
others on the crisis following the collapse of the mexican peso when the asian financial crisis raised the risk of worldwide recession that could affect our economy and now, of course, the euro's value has been dropping but seems to be under control. but it start forward me in the last eight years when i had the honor of casting the tiebreaking vote to end the old economic plan here at home and put into place a new economic plan that has helped us to make some progress, 22 million new jobs and the greatest prosperity ever but it's not good enough and my attitude is you ain't seen nothing yet, we need to do more and better. >> so, governor, would you agree there's no basic difference here on intervening -- the federal government intervening in what might be seen by teeshs private financial crisis? >> there's no difference on
that. there's a difference as to the economy. the economy has meant more for the gore and clinton folks than the gore and clinic folks have meant for the economy. most of the economic growth that's taken place is as a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship and that's the role of government to encourage that. in term of the response to the question, no. >> okay. >> i can comment on that. >> you may. >> i think that the american people deserve credit for the great economy we have and it's their ingenuity. i agree with that. they were working pretty hard eight years ago and they had ingenuity eight years ago. the difference is we've got a new policy and instead of concentrating on tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, we want -- i want tax cuts for the middle class families and i want to continue the prosperity and make sure that it enriches not just the few but all of our families. look, we have gone from the
biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses. we've gone from a triple dip recession during the previous 12 years to a tripling of the stock market. inste it's not good enough. too many people have been left behind. we have got to do much more and the key is job training, education, investments in health care and education, the environment, retirement security. and incidentally we got to preserve social security and i am totally opposed to diverting one out of every $6 from the social securitys is trust fund as the governor pros posed into the stock market. i want new incentives for savings and investment for the young couples who are working hard so they can save and invest on their own on top of social security not at the expense of social security as the governor
proposes. >> a lot of folks are stale waiting for that 1992 middle class tax cut. i remember vice president saying just give us a chance to get up there. we'll make sure you get tax cuts. it didn't happen. now he's having to say it again. they had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you. secondly, the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal government. the senate budget committee did a study of the vice president's expenditures. they projected, conceivable bust the budget by $900 billion. that means he's either going to have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the social securitys is surplus for 900 billion. this is a plan that will increase the bureaucracy by 20,000 people. his targeted tax cut is so detailed, so much fine print that it's going require numerous irs agents. we need somebody to simplify the
code, be fair, continue prosperity by sharing some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills particularly those at the bottom end of the economic ladder. >> if i could respond, jim. what he's quoting is not the senate budget committee it's a partisan press release by the republicans on the senate budget committee that's not worth the government, the taxpayer paid paper that it's printed on. now as for 20,000 new bureaucrats as you call them, you know, the size of the federal government will go down in a gore administration. in the re-inventing government program you just look at the numbers it's 300,000 people smaller today than it was eight years ago. now, the fact is you're going to have a hard time convincing folks that we were a whole lot better off eight years ago than we are today. but that's not the question. the question is will we be better off four years from now than we are today and as for the
surest way to threaten our prosperity, having a $1.9 trillion tax cut which goes to the wealthy and a social security privatization proposal is the surest way to put our budget into deficit, raise interest rates and put our prosperity -- >> i can't let the man continue with fuzzy math. $1.3 trillion mr. vice president. it will go tomb who pays taxes. i'm not one much these presidents that say you get tax relief and you don't. i'm not a pick and chooser. everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief. >> i thought we cleared this up a while ago. new question on social security. both of you have social security reform plans. we could spend the rest of the evening and two or three other evenings talking about them in detail. >> fine with me. >> we aren't going to do that. laughter
>> many experts say it will be impossible for either of you, essentially to keep the system viable on its own during the coming baby boomer retirement onslaught without either reducing benefits or increasing taxes. do you disagree? >> i do disagree. if we can keep our prosperity going. if we can continue balancing the budget and paying down the debt then the strong economy keeps generating surpluses and here's what i would dope. here's my plan. i will keep social security in a lock box and that pays down the national debt and the interest savings. i would put right back into social security. that extends the life of social security for 55 years. now, i think that it's very important to understand that cutting benefits under social security means that people like
winfred skinner from des moines, iowa who is here would have a much harder time because there are millions of seniors who are living almost hand to mouth and you talk about cutting benefits, i don't go along with it. i am opposed to it. i'm also opposed to a plan that diverts one out of every $6 away from the social securitys is trust fund. social security pays the checks this year. the governor wants to divert one out of every $6 into the stock market which means he would drain a trillion dollars out of the social security trust fund over -- in this generation over the next ten years and social security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. his leading adviser on this plan actually said that would be okay because then the social
securitys securit security trust fund could start borrowing. social security has never done that and i don't think it should do that. i think it should stain locked box. i will veto anything that takes money out of social security for private zaization or anything e other than social security. >> governor? >> it's interesting in the two minutes he spent minute-and-a-half on my plan what he doesn't want you know he's loading up ious for future generations. the ref news exceed the expenses in social security to the year 2015 which means all retirees will get the promises made. for those of you who wants to stair in the voting booth. a promise made will be a promise kept. you bet i want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money. that's a difference. of opinion. the vice president thinks it's the government's money. the payroll taxes is your money.
1 trillion over the next ten years grows to 3 trillion. the money stays twin social security system. it's a part of the social security system. he keeps claiming it's going to be out of social security. it's your money. it's a fundamental difference between what we believe. i want to you have your own asset you can call your own. i want you to have an asset you can pass on from one generation to the next. i want to get a better rate of return for your money than the pal try 2% that the current social security trust gets today. mr. greenspan, i thought missed an opportunity to say there's a third way and that's to get a better rate of return on the social securitys is monies coming into the trust. there's $2.3 trillion of surplus that we can use to make sure younger workers have a social security plan in the future. if we're smart, if we trust workers and if we understand the power of the compounding rate of interest. >> here's the difference. i give a new incentive for
younger workers to save their own money and invest their own money but not at the expense of social security. on top of social security. my plan is social security plus. the governor's plan is social security minus. your future benefits would be cut by the amount that's diverted into the stock market and if you make bad investments, that's too bad. but even before then the problem hits because the money contributed to social security this year is an entitlement. that's how it works. the money is used to pay the benefits for seniors this year. if you cut the amount going in one out of every $6 then you have to cut the value of each check by one out of every $6 unless you come up with the money from somewhere else. i would like to know from the governor, i know we're not supposed to ask each other questions but i would be interested in knowing does that trillion dollars come from the
trust fund or does it come from the rest of the budget? >> there's enough money to pay seniors today in the current affairs of social security. the trillion comes from the surplus. surplus is money, more money than need. let me tell you what your plan is. it's not social security plus. it's social security -- you leave future generations with tremendous ious. it's time to have a leader. don't put off tomorrow what we should do today. let's let younger workers take their own money and one certain guidelines invest it in private markets. safest of federal investments yields 4%. that's twice the amount of rate of return in the current social security trust. it's a fundamental difference of opinion here, folks, younger worker after younger worker. here's my call that says i trust you. you know what? the issue is changing because seniors now understand that the promise made will be a promise kept. but younger workers now
understand we better have a government that trusts them and that's exactly what i'm going to do. >> it's a big issue. can we do another round on it. >> we're almost out of time. >> just briefly. when fdr established social security they didn't call them ious they called it the full faith and credit of the united states. if you don't have trust in that, i do. and if you take it out of the surplus and the trust fund, that means the trust fund goes bankrupt in this generation within 20 years. >> go ahead. >> this is a government that think as 2% rate of return on your money is satisfactory. it's not. this is a government that says younger workers can't possibly have their own asset. we need to think differently about tissue. need make sure our seniors get the promise made. but i want to tell you if we don't trust younger workers to manage some of their own money with the social securitys is
surplus to grow from 1 trillion to 3 trillion it will be point to bridge the gap out what mr. gore as plan will do to cause huge payroll taxes. >> governor bush are bush, are there issues of character that distinguish you from vice president. >> a man loves his wife and i love mine. a man loves their family a lot and i appreciate that because i love my family. the thing that discourage me about the vice president was uttering those words of no controlling legal authority. i felt like there needs to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the white house. i believe that they -- they moved that sign from the oval office dead to the lincoln's bedroom, that's not good for the country. we need to have a new look how we conduct ourselves in office.
there is a huge trust. we see it all the time and people come up to me and saying i don't want you to let me down again. it is time for our trust and a new look. i don't know the manu well. i have been disappointed of his conducting of fund raisiing affairs. going to a buddhist temple and claiming it is not a fundraiser is not my bill of responsibility. >> i think we should attack our country's problem and not attacking each other. i want to spend my time making this country better than it is and not trying to make you out to be a bad person. you may want to focus on scandals. i want to focus on results. as i said a couple months ago, i stand here as my own man. i want you to see me for who i
really am. i have been married for 30 years. we have became grandparents and we got four children. i have devoted 24 years of my life to public service and i have said this before and i will say it again. if you entrust me with the presidency, i may not be the most exciting politician, but i will work hard for you everyday, i will fight for middle class families and working men and women. i will never let you down. governor, what are you saying when you mentioned the fund raising scandals and charges. >> we'll factor it in. we make the decision in the voting booth and do a better job. >> in what way? i think people need to be held
speedomet responsibility for the actions they take in live. that's part of the need for a cultural change. each of us need to be responsible for what we are doing. people in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. that's the way i have conducted myself as governor of texas and that's the way i conduct myself as president of the united states. should i be fortunate enough to earn my votes. >> are you saying this is irrelevant? >> i think we should take our responsibilities. i am asking you to see me for who i really am. i offering my own vision and experience and proposals. one of them is this. the campaign finance system has not reflected credit on anything in either party. that's one of the reasons i have said before and i will pledge here tonight. if i am president, the very first bill that joe and i will send to the united states