Bush_term_one.txt

We do come from different places. I come from being a West Texas. The governor is the chief executive officer. We know how to set agendas as a governor. I think you'll find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security. One-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut. And 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 eight years ago. It is a plan that will have 200 new programs -- expanded programs and creates 20,000 new bureaucrats. It it empowers Washington. My vision is to empower Americans to be able to make decisions for themselves in their own lives.
 
Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our treasurey and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don't we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills. There is a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government -- the surplus is the government's money. That's not what I think. I think it's the hard-working people of America's money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. It's a difference of opinion. It's a difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself.

I take him for his word. Look, I fully recognize I'm not of Washington. I'm from Texas. And he's got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I've been the chief executive officer of the second biggest state in the union. I have a proud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats, which is what our nation needs. Somebody that can come to Washington and say let's forget all the finger pointing and get positive things done on Medicare, prescription drugs, Social Security, and so I take him for his word.
 
I've said that eight years ago they campaigned on prescription drugs for seniors. And four years ago they campaigned on getting prescription drugs for seniors. And now they're campaigning on getting prescription drugs for seniors. It seems like they can't get it done. Now, they may blame other folks, but it's time to get somebody in Washington who is going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get some positive things done when it comes to our seniors. And so what I've said is that there's been some missed opportunities. They've had a chance. They've had a chance to form consensus. I've go a plan on Medicare, for example, that's a two-stage plan that says we'll have immediate help for seniors and what I call immediately Helping Hand, a $48 billion program. But I also want to say to seniors, if you're happy with Medicare the way it is, fine, you can stay in the program. But we're going to give you additional choices like they give federal employees in the federal employee health plan. They have a variety of choices to choose, so should seniors. And my point has been, as opposed to politicizing an issue like Medicare, in other words, holding it up hoping somebody bites it and try to clobber them over the head for political purposes, this year it's time to get it done once and for all. That's what I've been critical about the administration for. Same with Social Security. I think there was a good opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to reform the Social Security system so seniors will never go without. Those on Social Security today will have their promise made, but also to give younger workers the option at their choice of being able to manage some of their own money in the private sector to make sure there's a Social Security system around tomorrow. There are a lot of young workers at our rallies we go to that when they hear I'll trust them at their option to be able to manage, under certain guidelines, some of their own money to get a better rate of return so that they'll have a retirement plan in the future, they begin to nod their heads and they want a different attitude in Washington.
 
I guess my answer to that is the man is running on Medi-scare. Trying to frighten people into the voting booth. It's not what I think and it's 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. Seniors will have not only a Medicare plan where the poor seniors will have prescription drugs paid for, but there will be a variety of options. The current system today has meant a lot for a lot of seniors, and I really appreciate the intent of the current system. If you're happy with the system you can stay in it. There are a lot of procedures that haven't kept up in Medicare with the current times. No prescription drug benefits, no drug therapy, no preventative medicines, 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 bureaucracy as being a compassionate way for seniors, and the only compassionate source of care for seniors is not my vision. We ought to give seniors more options. I believe we ought to make the system work better. I know this. 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've had your chance, Vice President, you've been there for eight years and nothing has been done. My point is, 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 requires a new approach in Washington, D.C. It's going to require somebody who can work across the partisan divide.
 
I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth. Under my plan the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It's called Immediate Helping Hand. Instead of squabbling and finger pointing, he gets immediate help. Let me say something.
 
This is a man who 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 a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan that he continues to criticize, I set one-third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check. But I also dropped the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. Because by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts, making $50,000, you get a 50% cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4000 to about $2000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you, and the vice president would like to be spending the $2,000 on your behalf.
 
That's totally false for him to stand up here and say that. Let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear. They have had their chance to get something done. I'm going to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the system. All seniors will be covered, all seniors will have their prescription drugs paid for, and in the meantime, we'll have a plan to help poor seniors and in the meantime it could be one year or two years.
 
All seniors are covered under prescription drugs in my plan.

If we can get it done in the first year, you bet.
 
I would first say he should have been tackling it for the last seven years. The difference is we need to explore at home. And the vice president doesn't believe in exploration, for example, in Alaska. There's a lot of shut-in gas that we need to be moving out of Alaska by pipeline. There's an interesting issue up in the northwest as well. Do we remove dams that produce hydroelectric energy? I'm against removing dams in the northwest. We need to keep that in line. I was in coal country in West Virginia. There is an abundant supply of coal in this country. I know we can do a better job of clean coal technologies. I'm going to ask the Congress for $2 billion to make sure we have the cleanest coal technologies in the world. 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 also need to have a hemispheric energy policy where Canada, Mexico and the United States come together. I brought this up recently with the newly elected president in Mexico, he's a man I know from Mexico. I talked to him about how best to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. It's a major problem facing America. The administration did not deal with it. It's time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem.
 
It's the right thing for the consumers. Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers. And we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.
 
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 and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will 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 value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that 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 its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.

I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.

I am pro-life.
 
The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and 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. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint. I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.
 
It sounds like he's not very right tonight. I just told you the criteria on which I'll appoint judges. I have 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 into my Medicare plan. I want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to say about it.
 
I'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on. He'll put liberal activists justices who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that's what he'll do.
 
I'm pleased with the results of the election. As the vice president said, it's time for the man to go. 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. Milosevic. But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well. Be a wonderful time for the Russians to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic that it's in his best interest and his country's best interest. The Russians have sway in that part of the world. We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. It's an encouraging election. It's time for the man to leave.
 
obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.

It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.
 
if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it 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. And 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've 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. So I would 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 the 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 women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
 
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 the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will 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. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If 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 going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
 
I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have 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 hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there's one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to -- because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who's shown the ability to get things done?
 
The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There's differences. Under Vice President Gore's plan, he 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. We're talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. Imagine how many IRS agents it is 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 a president to decide right and wrong. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won't pay any tax at all. It's a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants 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 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. A family in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day. They make $51,000 combined income, they pay about $3500 in taxes. Under my plan, they get $1800 of tax relief. Under Vice President Gore's plan, they get $145 of tax relief. Now you tell me who stands on the side of the fence. You ask whose plan makes more sense. There is a difference of opinion. He would rather spend the family's $1800 and I would rather the family spend that money.
 
Let me talk about tax cuts one more time. It excludes 50 million Americans.
 
The marriage penalty. If you itemize your tax return, you get no marriage penalty relief. He picks and chooses. He decides who the right people are. It's a fundamental difference of opinion. I want my fellow Americans to hear one more time. We'll spend $25 trillion -- we'll collect $25 trillion in revenue in the next 10 years and spend $21 trillion. We need to send 5% back to you that pay the bills. I want to say something. This man has been disparaging my plan with all this Washington fuzzy math. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year and you have two children, under this tax code, for every additional dollar you make, you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making more than $200,000 a year, and that is not right. My plan drops the rate from 15% to 10% and increases the child credit from $500 to $1,000 to make the code more fair for everybody, not just a few, not just a handful. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get some relief.
 
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 public education, if I might. It's about Kipp Academy in Houston, Texas. A charter school run by some people from Teach For America. Young folks saying I'm going to do something good for my country. I want to teach. A guy named Michael runs the school. It is a school full of so-called at-risk children. It's how wer unfortunately label certain children. Basically it means they can't learn. It's a school of strong discipline and high standards. It's one of the best schools in Houston. Here are the key ingredients. High expectations, strong accountabily. What Michael says, don't put all these rules on us, just let us teach and hold us accountable for every grade. That's what we do. And as a result, these mainly Hispanic youngsters are some of the best learners in Houston, Texas. That's my vision for public education all around America. Many of you viewers don't know, but Laura and I sent our girls to public school. They went to Austin High School. And many of the public schools are meeting the call. But, unfortunately, a lot of schools are trapping children in schools that just won't teach and won't change. Here is the role of the federal government. One is to change Head Start to a reading program. Two is to say if you want to access reading money, you can do so. The goal is for every single child to learn to Read. there must by K-2 diagnostic teaching tools available. We have to consolidate the system to free the schools and encourage innovators. Let them reach out beyond the confines of the current structure to recruit teach-for-the-children type teachers. Four, we're going to say if you receive federal money, measure third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade. Show us if they are learning to read, write, add and subtract there will be bonus plans. If not, instead of continuing to subsidize failure, the money will go to -- the federal money will go to the parents for public school or charter school or tutorial or Catholic school. What I care about is children. And so does Michael Feinberg. And you know what? It can happen in America with the right kind of leadership.
 
The first is, the difference is there is no new accountability measures in Vice President Gore's plan. He says he's for voluntary testing. You can't have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that 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've got mandatory testing but you don't, Mr. Vice President. That's a huge difference. Testing is the cornerstone of reform. You know how I know? Because it's the cornerstone of reform in the State of Texas. Republicans and Democrats came together and said what can we do to make our public education the best in the country? We've done a long way working together to do so. The cornerstone is to have strong accountability in return for money and in return for flexibility. We're going to ask you to show us whether or not -- we ask you to post the results on the Internet. We encourage parents to take a look at the comparative results of schools. We have 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. We need to expand education savings accounts. Something that my vice presidential running mate supports. There's big differences. He won't support freeing local districts from the strings of federal money.
 
First of all, most of this is at the state level. See, here is the mentality. I'm going to make the state do this and make the state do that. All I'm saying is 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. You can say you do to the cameras but you don't, unless you've changed your plan.
 
You need to test every year. That's why you determine if children are progressing to excellence. Secondly, one of the things that we have to be careful about in politics is throwing money at a system that has not yet been reformed. More money is needed and I spend more money, but step one is to make sure we reform the system to have the system in place that leaves no child behind. Stop this business about asking gosh, how old are you? If you're 10 we'll put you here, 12 you put here. Start asking the question, what do you know? If you don't know what you're supposed to know, we'll make sure you do early before it's too late.
 
I've been standing up to big business, Hollywood, big trial lawyers.

As governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe. 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 have to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when you're tested not only -- it's the time to test your metal, a time to test your heart when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down. It broke my heart to go to the flood scene in Del Rio where a fellow and his family got completely uprooted. The only thing I knew was to got aid as quickly as possible with state and federal help, and to put my arms around the man and his family and cry with them. That's what governors do. They are often on the front line of catastrophic situations.
 
But what I would do first and foremost, is I would get in touch with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Allen Greenspan, to find out all the facts and all the circumstances. I would have my Secretary of the Treasury be in touch with the 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. 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.
 
There is a difference, though, as to what the economy has meant. I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks have meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship and that's the role of goverment to encourage that. In terms of in response to the question, no.
 
One, a lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, "Just give us a chance to get up there, we're going to make sure you get tax cuts." It didn't happen. Now he's having to say that again. They've 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 budget. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president's expenditures. It's been projected that they could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion. That means he'll either have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion. This is a plan that is going to increase the bureaucracy by 20,000 people. His targeted tax cut is so detailed, so much fine print that it is going to require numerous IRS agents. We need somebody to simplify the code, to be fair, to 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.
 
I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math. It is 1.3 trillion. It will go to everybody who pays taxes. I'm not going to be the kind of president that says you get tax relief and you don't. I'm not going to be a picker and chooser. What is fair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief.
 
I thought it was interesting that on the two minutes he spent about a million-and-a-half on my plan, which means he doesn't want you to know what he's doing is loading up IOUs for future generations. He puts no real assets into the Social Security system. The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security until the year 2015 which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. For those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear. A promise made will be a promise kept. You bet we want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money. That's the difference of opinion. The vice president thinks it's the government's money. The payroll taxes are your money. You ought to put it in prudent, safe investments so that $1 trillion over the next ten years grows to be $3 trillion. The money stays within the Social Security system. It's a part of the Social Security system. He claims it will be out of Social Security. It's your money, it's a part of your retirement benefit. It's a fundamental difference between what we believe. I want you to have your own asset that you can call your own. That you can pass on from one generation to the next. I want to get a better rate of return for your own money than the paltry 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 is to get a better rate of return on the Social Security monies coming into the trust. There is $2.3 trillion of surplus that we can use to make sure that younger workers have a Social Security plan in the future. If we're smart and if we trust workers and if we understand the power of the compounding rate of interest.
 
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 needed. Let me tell you what your plan is. It's not Social Security plus, it's Social Security plus huge debt. That is what it is. You leave future generations with tremendous IOUs. It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off tomorrow what we should do today. It's time to have somebody to step up and say look, let's let younger workers take some of their own money and under certain guidelines invest it in the private markets. The safest of federal investments yields 4%. That's twice the amount of rate of return than the current Social Security Trust. It's a fundamental difference of opinion here, folks. Younger worker after younger worker hears my call that says I trust you. And you know what, the issue is changeing. 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.
 
This is a government that thinks a 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 assets. We need to think differently about the issue. We need to make sure our seniors get the promise made. If we don't trust younger workers to manage some of their own money with the Social Security surplus, to grow from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, it will be impossible to bridge the gap without it. What Mr. Gore's plan will do causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.
 
The man loves his wife and I appreciate that a lot. And I love mine. The man loves his family a lot, and I appreciate that, because I love my family. I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, "No controlling legal authority." I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that -- I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here" from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln bedroom. It's not good for the country and it's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don't want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It's time for a fresh start. It's time for a new look. It's time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism. And so I don't know the man well, but I've been disappointed about how he and his administration have conducted the fundraising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn't a fundraiser isn't my view of responsibility.
 
They ought to factor in it when they go to the voting booth.
 
I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote.
 
This man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the "New York Times" where he said he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fundraising Bill. But he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold. And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.
 
I would support an effort to ban corporate soft money and labor union soft money so long as there was dues check-off. I've campaigned on this since the primaries. I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who. I think we need to fully enforce the law. I think we need to have an attorney general that says if a law is broken, we'll enforce it. Be strict and firm about it.
 
I want people to hear what he just said. He is for full public financing of Congressional elections. I'm absolutely, adamently opposed to that. I don't want the government financing congressional elections.

There is a huge difference of opinion. Mine is I want to empower people in their own lives. I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation. It will require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, let's come together to do what is right for America. It's been my record as Governor of Texas, it will be how I conduct myself if I'm fortunate enough to earn your vote as President of the United States. I want to finally get something done on Medicare. I want to make sure prescription drugs are available for all seniors. And I want seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plans. I want to finally get something done on Social Security. I want to make sure the seniors have the promise made will be a promise kept, but I want younger workers to be able to manage some of their own money, some of their own payroll taxes in the private sector under certain guidelines to get a better rate of return on your own money. I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the United States in world affairs. I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. I want anti-ballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail our allies and friends. I want to make sure the education system fulfills its hope and promise. I've had a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no child is left behind. I understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability systems. My intentions are to earn your vote and earn your confidence. I'm asking for your vote. I want you to be on my team. And for those of you working, thanks from the bottom of my heart. For those of you making up your mind, I would be honored to have your support.
 
First question is what's in the best interests of the United States? What's in the best interests of our people? When it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation's interests? Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest. I've thought a lot about what it means to be the president. I also understand that an administration is not one person, but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the president to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self, and so I've thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy. I haven't started naming names except for one person, and that's Mr. Richard Cheney who I thought did a great job the other night. He's a vice presidential nominee who represents -- I think people got to see why I picked him. He's man of solid judgment and he's going to be a person to stand by my side. One of the things I've done in Texas is I've been able to put together a good team of people. I've been able to set clear goals. The goals ought to be an education system that leaves no child behind, Medicare for our seniors, a Social Security system that's safe and secure, foreign policy that's in our nation's interest, and a strong military, and then bring people together to achieve those goals. That's what a Chief Executive Officer does. So I've thought long and hard about the honor of being the President of the United States.
 
I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.
 
Take, for example, Third World debt. I think we ought to be forgiving Third World debt under certain conditions. I think, for example, if we're convinced that a Third World country that's got a lot of debt would reform itself, that the money wouldn't go into the hands of a few but would go to help people, I think it makes sense for us to use our wealth in that way, or to trade debt for valuable rain forest lands, makes that much sense, yes. We do have an obligation, but we can't be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world. We can lend money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials. So we have to be guarded in our generosity.
 
I think during the campaign, particularly now during this difficult period, we ought to be speaking with one voice, and I appreciate the way the administration has worked hard to calm the tensions. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace. I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the Middle East. I want everybody to know should I be the president Israel's going to be our friend. I'm going to stand by Israel. Secondly, that I think it's important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends. It's also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we're now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing. I hope to get a sense of should I be fortunate to be the president how my administration will react to the Middle East.
 
When it comes to timetables it can't be the United States timetable as to how discussions take place. It's got to be a timetable that all parties can agree to, like the Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, any lasting peace is going to have to be a peace that's good for both sides. And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration's worked hard to keep the parties at the table. I will try to do the same thing. But it won't be on my timetable, it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East.

I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
 
I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom to go in that part of the world, and where there's a lot of work left to be done, however.
 
I don't think he would have fallen had we not used the force. And I know there are some in our party that disagree with that sentiment. I supported the president. I thought he made the right decision to do so. I didn't think he necessarily made the right decision to take land troops off the table right before we committed ourselves offensively, but nevertheless, it worked. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. It is important for NATO to have it work. It's important for NATO to be strong and confident and to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO, and NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future. Now, there's more work to do. Remains to be seen, however, whether or not there's going to be a political settlement in Kosovo, and I certainly hope there is one. Also on record as saying at some point in time I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.
 
If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.
 
Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
 
I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seem like we're having a great love for us tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.

Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. That's an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But --

I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.
 
That's a place where we can use our generosity to influence in a positive way, influence nations. I believe we ought to have foreign aid, but I don't think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of foreign aid. I think foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform. I think a lot of times we just spend aid and say we feel better about it and it ends up being spent the wrong way, and there's some pretty egregious examples recently. One being Russia, where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn't help the nation. I think the IMF has got a role in the world, but I don't want to see the IMF out there as a way to say to world bankers, if you make a bad loan, we'll bail you out. It needs to be available for emergency situations. I thought the President did the right thing with Mexico and was very strongly supportive of the administration in Mexico. But I don't think the IMF ought to be a stop loss for people who ought to be able to evaluate risks themselves. So I'll look at every place where we're investing money. I just want to make sure the return is good.
 
I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. I think we can help. I know we've got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces. But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said here is some IMF money, and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin's pocket, and others, and yet we played like there was reform. The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves. Mr. Putin is going to have to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of law and normal accounting practices so that if countries and/or entities invest capital, there's a reasonable rate of return, a way to get the money out of the economy. But Russia has to make the decision. We can work with them on security matters, for example, but it's their call to make. So I'm not exactly sure where the vice president is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.
 
I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That's just flat wrong, and that's not what America is all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces. I want to -- obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don't there needs to be a consequence at the federal level. But it's very important that we not overstep our bounds and I think most people -- most police officers are good, dedicated, honorable citizens who are doing their job, putting their lives at risk who aren't bigoted or aren't prejudiced. I don't think they ought to be held guilty. But I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it and say to the local folks, get it done. And if you can't, there will be a federal consequence.

No. We've got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it's the right cause. It's the right decision. Secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more. I believe, though -- I believe, as sure as I'm sitting here, that most Americans really care. They're tolerant people. They're good, tolerant people. It's the very few that create most of the crises, and we just have to find them and deal with them.
 
Let me tell you where the biggest discrimination comes. In public education when we just move children through the schools. My friend, Phyllis Hunter, is here. She had one of the greatest lines of all lines. She said, reading is the new civil right. She's right. And to make sure our society is as hopeful as it possibly can be, every single child in America must be educated. I mean every child. It starts with making sure every child learns to read. K-2 diagnostic testing so we know whether or not there's a deficiency. Curriculum that works and phonics needs to be an integral part of our reading curriculum. Intensive reading laboratories, teacher retraining. I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. We can do better in our public schools. We can close an achievement gap, and it starts with making sure we have strong accountability, Jim. One of the cornerstones of reform, and good reform, is to measure. Because when you measure you can ask the question, do they know? Is anybody being profiled? Is anybody being discriminated against? It becomes a tool, a corrective tool. And I believe the federal government must say that if you receive any money, any money from the federal government for disadvantaged children, for example, you must show us whether or not the children are learning. And if they are, fine. And if they're not, there has to be a consequence. And so to make sure we end up getting rid of basic structural prejudice is education. There is nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child.
 
You don't realize we have a hate crimes statute? We do.

What the Vice President must not understand is we've got a hate crimes bill in Texas. And secondly, the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment. The death penalty.
 
In this case when you murder somebody it's hate, Jim. The crime is hate. And they got the ultimate punishment. I'm not exactly sure how you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty. We happen to have a statute on the books that's a hate crimes statute in Texas.
 
I would support the Orrin Hatch version of it, not the Senator Kennedy version. But let me say to you, Mr. Vice President, we're happy with our laws on our books. That bill did -- there was another bill that did die in committee. But I want to repeat, if you have a state that fully supports the law like we do in Texas, we're going to go after all crime. And we're going to make sure people get punished for the crime. And in this case we can't enhance the penalty any more than putting those three thugs to deaths. And that's what's gonna happen in the State of Texas.
 
I'm not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the Vice President supported it when the President signed that bill and supports it now. But I think marriage is a sacred institution. I'm going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so in the State of Texas. I've been a person that had been called a uniter, not a divider, because I accept other people's points of view. But I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
 
I'm not sure what kind of view he's describing to me. I can just tell you, I'm a person who respects other people. I respect their -- I respect -- on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he doesn't. I'm not sure where he's coming from. But I will be a tolerant person. I've been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.
 
I have no idea. I mean, he can throw out all kinds -- I don't know the particulars of this law. I will tell you I'm the kind of person, I don't hire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, I would like to take the issue a little further. I don't really think it's any of my -- you know, any of my concerns what -- how you conduct your sex life. And I think that's a private matter. And I think that's the way it ought to be. But I'm going to be respectful for people, I'll tolerate people, and I support equal rights but not special rights for people.
 
It would be if they're given special protective status. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fully enforce laws and fully protect people and fully honor people, which I will do as the President of the United States.
 
It starts with enforcing law. When you say loud and clear to somebody if you're going to carry a gun illegally, we're going to arrest you. If you're going to sell a gun illegally, you need to be arrested. If you commit a crime with a gun, there needs to be absolute certainty in the law. And that means that the local law enforcement officials need help at the federal level. Programs like Project Exile where the federal government intensifies arresting people who illegally use guns. And we haven't done a very good job of that at the federal level recently. And I'm going to make it a priority. Secondly, I don't think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. That's why I support instant background checks at gun shows. One of the reasons we have an instant background check is so that we instantly know whether or not somebody should have a gun or not. In Texas I tried to do something innovative. There's a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in the future. I support that. But I said if you want a trigger lock to make your gun safe, come and get one for free. So we're distributing in our State of Texas for free. I think we ought to raise the age at which a juvenile can carry a handgun from 18 to 21. I disagree with the vice president on this issue. He is for registration of guns. I think the only people that are going to show up to register or get a license -- I guess licensing like a driver's license for a gun, the only people that are going to show up are law-abiding citizens. The criminal is not going to show up and say hey, give me my I.D. card. It's the law-abiding citizens who will do that. An I don't think that is going to be an effective tool to make the -- keep our society safe.
 
I'm not for photo licensing. Let me say something about Columbine. Listen, we've got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I'm sure every state in the union has got them. You can't carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school. But Columbine spoke to a larger issue. It's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we've begun to disrespect life. Where a child can walk in and have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life? So gun laws are important, no question about it, but so is loving children, and character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, we love you. So there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours that's got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong. And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on -- not certainly only in this debate, but just in general on law. But there's a larger law. Love your neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. And that's where our society must head if we're going to be a peaceful and prosperous society.
 
No question about that, but there also needs to be strong enforcement of the law. Some kid who feels like -- doesn't matter where the gun comes from, it could be a cheap gun, expensive gun. What matters is something in this person's head says there is not going to be a consequence. So in my state we toughen up the juvenile justice laws. We added beds. We're tough. We believe in tough love. We say, if you get caught carrying a gun, you're automatically detained. And that's what needs to happen. We've got laws. If laws need to be strengthened, like instant background checks, that's important.
 
I've got a plan to do something about that. It's to make health care affordable and available this way. First, there's some who should be buying health care who choose not to. There's some --
 
Some of the healthy folks, healthy young kids say I'll never get sick, therefore I don't need health care right now. For those what I think we need to do is to develop an investment-type vehicle that would be an incentive for them to invest, like medical savings accounts with rollover capacity. In other words, you say to a youngster, it will be in your financial interest to start saving for future illness, but for the working folks that do want to have health care that can't afford it, a couple of things we need to do. One, we need more community health centers. I've developed -- put out money in my budget to expand community health centers all around the country. These are places where people can get primary care. Secondly -- and they're good. They're very important parts of the safety net of health care. Secondly, that you get a $2,000 rebate from the government if you're a family of $30,000 or less -- it scales down as you get higher -- that you can use to purchase health care in the private markets. It will be a huge down payment for a pretty darn good system. If you allow -- also allow -- convince states to -- allow states to allow the mother to match some of the children's health insurance money with it, the pool purchasing power. And to make health care more affordable, allow business associations like the National Federal of Independent Business or the Chamber of Commerce or the National Restaurant Association to write association plans across jurisdictional lines so that small businesses have got the capacity to have national pooling to drive the cost of insurance down. I think that's the very best way to go. It empowers people, it trusts people, it makes -- and it's a practical way to encourage people to purchase health care insurance.
 
First of all, let me say he's not for a government-run health care system? I thought that's exactly what he and Mrs. Clinton and them fought for in 1993 was a government-run health care system. It was fortunately stopped in its tracks. Secondly, we spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the State of Texas. Our rate of uninsured, the percentage of uninsured in Texas has gone down, while the percentage of uninsured in America has gone up. Our CHIPS program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. It may come as a shock for somebody who has been in Washington for so long. But actually limited government can work in the second largest state in the union. And therefore Congress passes the bill after our session in 1997 ended, we passed an enabling legislation in 1999. We've signed up over 110,000 children to the CHIPS program. For comparable states our size, we're signing them up as fast as any other state. You can quote all the numbers you want, but I'm telling you we care about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get health care in the State of Texas, and we're doing a better job than they are at the national level for reducing uninsured.
 
If he's trying to allege that I'm a hard-hearted person and I don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong. We've spent $4.7 billion a year in the State of Texas for uninsured people. And they get health care. Now, it's not the most efficient way to get people health care. But I want to remind you, the number of uninsured in America during their watch has increased. He can make any excuse he wants, but the facts are that we're reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our population. And as the percentage of the population is increasing nationally, somehow the allegation that we don't care and we're going to give money for this interest or that interest and not for children in the State of Texas is totally absurd. Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me. And I was able to do so with a lot of Democrat votes, nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote, about 27% of the African-American vote, because people know I'm a conservative person and a compassionate person. So he can throw all the kinds of numbers around. I'm just telling you our state comes together to do what is right. We come together both Republicans and Democrats.
 
That we spent the top 1% receive 223 as opposed to 445 billion in new spending. The top -- let's talk about my tax plan. The top 1% will pay one-third of all the federal income taxes. And in return, get one-fifth of the benefits, because most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. That stands in stark contrast, by the way, to a man who is going to leave 50 million -- 50 million Americans out of tax relief. We just have a different point of view. It's a totally different point of view. He believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I believe everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. Let me go back to Texas, for example, for a minute. We pay 4.7 billion. I can't emphasize to you how much. I signed a bill that puts CHIPS in place. The bill finally came out at the end of the 1999 session. We're working hard to sign up children. We're doing it faster than any other state our size, comparable state. We're making really good progress. And our state cares a lot about our children. My priority is going to be the health of our citizens. These folks have had eight years to get something done in Washington, D.C. on the uninsured. They have not done it. They've had eight years to get something done on Medicare. And they have not got it done. And my case to the American people is, if you're happy with inactivity, stay with the horse. The horse is up there now. But if you want change, you need to get somebody that knows how to bring Republicans and Democrats together to get positive things done for American.
 
let me start with Texas. We are a big industrial state. We reduced our industrial waste by 11%. We cleaned up more brown fields than any other administration in my state's history, 450 of them. Our water is cleaner now.
 
A brown field is an abandoned industrial site that just sits idle in some of our urban centers. And people are willing to invest capital in the brown fields don't want to do so for fear of lawsuit. I think we ought to have federal liability protection, depending upon whether or not standards have been met. The book you mentioned that Vice President Gore wrote, he also called for taxing -- big energy taxes in order to clean up the environment. And now that the energy prices are high, I guess he's not advocating those big energy taxes right now. I believe we ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund to -- with half the money going to states so states can make the right decisions for environmental quality. I think we need to have clean coal technologies. I propose $2 billion worth. By the way, I just found out the other day an interesting fact, that there is a national petroleum reserve right next to -- in Prudhoe Bay that your administration opened up for exploration in that pristine area. And it was a smart move because there's gas reserves up there. We need gas pipelines to bring the gas down. Gas is a clean fuel that we can burn to -- we need to make sure that if we decontrol our plants that there's mandatory -- that the plants must conform to clean air standards, the grandfathered plants, that's what we did in Texas. No excuses. You must conform. In other words, there are practical things we can do. But it starts with working in a collaborative effort with states and local folks. If you own the land, every day is Earth Day. People care a lot about their land and care about their environment. Not all wisdom is in Washington, D.C. on this issue.
 
I don't believe in command and control out of Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels and I think we ought to work with people at the local levels. And by the way, I just want to make sure -- I can't let him just say something and not correct it. The electric decontrol bill that I fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards, Mr. Vice President. That's what we ought to do at the federal level when it comes to grandfathered plants for utilities. I think there's a difference. I think, for example, take -- when they took 40 million acres of land out of circulation without consulting local officials, I thought that was --

Out in the west, yeah. And so on the logging issue. That's not the way I would have done it. Perhaps some of that land needs to be set aside. But I certainly would have consulted with governors and elected officials before I would have acted unilaterally.

Sure, absolutely, so long as they're based upon science and they're reasonable. So long as people have input.
 
I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air. Like Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as evidently 99 senators -- I think it was 99 senators supported that position.
 
I think there has been some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound scientist recently made a different --
 
What the heck. Global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place. And I think to answer your question, I think both of us care a lot about the environment. We may have different approaches. We may have different approaches in terms of how we deal with local folks. I just cited an example of the administration just unilaterally acting without any input. And I remember you gave a very good answer to New Hampshire about the White Mountains, about how it was important to keep that collaborative effort in place. I feel very strongly the same place. It certainly wasn't the attitude that took place out west, however.
 
We all make mistakes. I've been known to mangle a syllable or two myself, you know, if you know what I mean. I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations. And yes, I think it's something that people need to consider. This isn't something new. I read a report, or a memo, from somebody in his 1988 campaign -- I forgot the fellow's name -- warning then Senator Gore to be careful about exaggerating claims. I thought during his debate with Senator Bradley saying he authored the EITC when it didn't happen. I mention the last debate --
 
A lot of initials from a guy who's not from Washington, isn't it? Anyway, he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and yet he didn't. And so I think this is an issue. I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. I thought there was some exaggerations about the numbers. But the people are going to have to make up their mind on this issue. And I am going to continue to defend my record and defend my propositions against what I think are exaggerations. Exaggerations like, for example, only 5% of seniors receive benefits under my Medicare reform package. That's what he said the other day, and that's simply not the case. And I have every right in the world to defend my record and positions. That's what debates are about and that's what campaigns are about.

I'm running to get some things done for America. There's too many issues left unresolved. There's been too much finger pointing and too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future. I want to have an education system that sets high standards, local control of schools and strong accountability. No child should be left behind in America. I want to make sure we rebuild our military to keep the peace. I worry about morale in today's military. The warning signs are clear. It is time to have a new commander in chief who will rebuild the military, pay our men and women more, make sure they're housed better and have a focused mission for our military. Once and for all, I want to do something about Medicare. This issue has been too long on the table because it's been a political issue. It's time to bring folks together to say that all seniors will get prescription drug coverage. I want to do something about Social Security. It's an important priority, because now is the time to act and we're going to say to our seniors, our promises we've made to you will be promises kept. But younger workers, in order to make sure the system exists tomorrow, younger workers ought to be able to take some of your own money and invest it in safe securities to get a better rate of return on that money. And finally, I do believe in tax relief. I believe we can set our priorities. I don't believe, like the vice president does, in huge government. I believe in limited government. By having a limited government and a focused government, we can send some of the money back to the people who pay the bills. I want to have tax relief for all people who pay the bills in America, because I think you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government can. Thank you for listening. I'm asking for your vote, and God bless.

I, too, want to extend my prayers and blessings, God's blessings on the families whose lives were overturned yes -- tod -- last night. It's a tragic moment. Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true. I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that's what we did in my state. We have one of the most advanced patient's bill of rights. It says, for example, that a woman doesn't have to go through a gate keeper to go to her gynecologist. It says that you can't gag a doctor, doctor can advise you. The HMO, the insurance company, can't gag that doctor from giving you full advice. And this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. But we did something else that was interesting. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage. Now there's what's called an Independent Review Organization that you have to go through first. It says you have a complaint with your insurance company, you can take your complaint to an objective body. If the objective body rules on your behalf, the insurance company must follow those rules. However, if the insurance company doesn't follow the findings of the IRO, then that becomes a cause of action in a court of law. It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people, and I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patient's bill of rights, Mr. Vice President, and I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas. I think --
 
The difference is that I can get it done. That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That's what the question in this campaign is about. It's not only what's your philosophy and what's your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can.
 
I talked about the principles and the issues that I think are important in a patient's bill of rights. It's kind of Washington, D.C. focus. Well, it's in this committee or it's got this sponsor. If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going have gag orders, we're going to have direct access to OB/GYN. People will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington.
 
I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there is no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. And therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs they do so on their own, there's no kind of collective bargaining, no power of purchasing among seniors. So I think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have precipitation drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all. The problem we have today is like the patient's bill of rights, particularly with health care, there's a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C. It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue. So what I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to forget all the arguing and finger pointing, and come together and take care of our seniors' prescription drug program, that says we'll pay for the poor seniors, we'll help all seniors with prescription drugs. In the meantime, I think it's important to have what's called Immediate Helping Hand, which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors, don't have to choose between food and medicine. That's part of an overall overhaul. The purchasing powers. And I'm against price controls. I think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it. One of the most important things is to continue the research and development component. And so I'm against price controls. Expediting drugs through the FDA makes sense, of course. Allowing the new bill that was passed in the Congress made sense to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back and other countries to come back into the United States. That makes sense. But the best thing to do is to reform Medicare.
 
I'm absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don't want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan. And fortunately, it failed. I trust people, I don't trust the federal government. It's going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. I don't want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. There is an issue with the uninsured, there sure is. And we have uninsured people in my state. Ours is a big state, a fast-growing state. We share a common border with another nation. But we're providing health care for our people. One thing about insurance, that's a Washington term. The question is, are people getting health care, and we have a strong safety net, and there needs to be a safety net in America. There needs to be more community health clinics where the poor can go get health care. We need a program for the uninsured. They've been talking about it in Washington, D.C. The number of uninsured has now gone up for the past seven years. We need a $2,000 credit, rebate for people, working people that don't have insurance, they can get in the marketplace and start purchasing insurance. We need to have -- allow small businesses to write insurance across jurisdictional lines so small business can afford health care, small restaurants can afford health care. So health care needs to be affordable and available. We have to trust people to make decisions with their lives. In the Medicare reform I talk about it says if you are a senior, you can stay in Medicare if you like it, and that's fine, but we're going to give you other choices to choose if you want to do so, just like they do the federal employees. The people that work in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. Congress or the United States senate. Get a variety of choices to make in their lives. And that's what we ought to do for all people in America.
 
It's hard to make people love one another. I wish I knew the law because I would darn sure sign it. I wish I knew the law that said all of us would be good parents. One of the things the next president must do is to remind people that if we are going to have a responsible period in America, that each of us must love our children with all our heart and all our soul. I happened to believe strong accountability encourages parental involvement, though. I think when you measure and post results on the Internet or in the town newspapers, most parents say wait a minute, my child's school isn't doing what I want it to do and, therefore, become involved in education. I recognize there are some who just don't seem to care. But there are a lot of parents who feel like everything is going well in their child's school, and all of a sudden they wake up and realize that wait a minute, standards aren't being met. That's why I'm so strong for accountability. I believe we ought to measure a lot, three, four, five, six, seven, eighth grade. We do so in my state of Texas. One of the good things we've gone in Texas is we have strong accountability because you can't cure unless you know. You can't solve a problem unless you diagnose it. I strongly believe that one of the best things to encourage parental involvement also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure. That's why I support a teacher liability act at the federal level, that says if a teacher or principal upholds reasonable standards of classroom discipline they can't be sued. They can't be sued. I think parents will be more involved with education when they know their children's classrooms are safe and secure as well. I also believe that we need to say to people that if you cannot meet standards, there has to be a consequence. Instead of just comes the soft bigotry of low expectations, that there has to be a consequence. We can't continue to shuffle children through school. And one of the consequences to allow parents to have different choices.
 
I think any time we end with one of these attacks, it's appropriate to respond. Here's what I think. First of all, vouchers are up to states. If you want to do a voucher program in Missouri, fine. I strongly believe in local control of schools. I'm a governor of state and I don't like it when the federal government tells us what to do. I believe in local control of schools. But here's what I said. I've said to the extent we send federal money on disadvantaged children, we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are learning. What's unreasonable about that? We expect there to be standards met and we expect there to be measurement. And if we find success we'll praise it. But when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach, instead of saying oh, this is okay in America just to shuffle poor kids through schools, there has to be a consequence. And the consequence is that federal portion or federal money will go to the parent, so the parent can go to a tutoring program or another public school or another private school. You see, there has to be a consequence. We've got a society that says hey, the status quo is fine, just move them through. And guess who suffers.
 
When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years. And there's just not going to be enough money. I have been a governor of a big state, I have made education my number one priority. That's what governors ought to do. They ought to say this is the most important thing we do as a state. The federal government puts about 6% of the money up. They put about, you know, 60% of the strings where you have to fill out the paperwork. I don't know if you have to be a paperwork filler-outer, but most of it's because of the federal government. What I want to do is to send flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose what to do with the money. One size does not fit all. I worry about federalizing education if I were you. I believe strongly that the federal government can help, need the funds, Headstart. We need to have accountability. The Vice President's plan does not have annual accountability, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade. We need to demand on results. I believe strongly in a teacher protection act like I mentioned. I hear from teachers all the time about the lawsuits and the threats, respect in the classroom. Part of it's because you can't -- you can't control the classroom. You can't have a consequence for somebody without fear of getting sued under federal law. So I'm going to ask the Congress to pass a teacher protection act. So I believe in flexibility, I believe in a national reading initiative for local districts to access with K through 2 diagnostic testing, curriculum that works, phonics works, by the way, it needs to be a part of our curriculum. There needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. The federal government can be a part, but don't fall prey to all this stuff about money here and money there because education is really funded at the local level. 94% comes from the local level.
 
Forget the journalists. He proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combined. This is a big spender. And you ought to be proud of it, it's part of his record. We just have a different philosophy. Let me talk about tax relief. If you pay taxes, you ought to get tax relief. The Vice President believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I don't think that's the role of the president to pick you're right and you're not right. I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody ought to get it. And therefore, wealthy people are going to get it. But the top 1% will end up paying one-third of the taxes in America and they get one-fifth of the benefits. And that's because we structured the plan so that six million additional American families pay no taxes. If you're a family of four making $50,000 in Missouri, you get a 50% cut in your federal income taxes. What I've done is set priorities and funded them. And there's extra money. And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to get some money back. It's a difference of opinion. He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. It's just the right position to take.
 
If you pay taxes, you are going to get a benefit. People who pay taxes will get tax relief.

Under my plan, if you make the top the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today. Afterwards they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year today and you're trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000, and that's not right. So I want to do something about that.

50 million Americans get no tax relief under his plan.
 
You may not be one of them, you're just not one of the right people. And secondly, we've had enough fighting. It's time to unite. You talk about eight years? In eight years they haven't gotten anything done on Medicare, on Social Security, a patient's bill of rights. It's time to get something done.
 
I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well. To build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.
 
If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world.

I don't think the National Rifle Association ran that ad. But let me just tell you my position on guns in general, sir, if you don't mind.
 
Well, I don't think I ran the ad. I think somebody who doesn't want me to be president might have run that ad. That wasn't my ad. I think it might have been one of my opponent's ads. Here is what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. That's why I'm for instant background checks at gun shows, I'm for trigger locks, I think that makes sense. Matter of fact, we distributed free trigger locks in the State of Texas so that people can get them and put them on their guns to make their guns more safe. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. If we keep somebody -- you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence. Enforcement of law, and the federal government can help. There is a great program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, where we focused federal taxpayers' money and federal prosecutors and went after people who were illegally using guns. To me that's how you make society the safest it can be. And so, yeah, sometimes I agree with some of these groups in Washington and sometimes I don't. I'm a pretty independent thinker. The one thing I'm for is a safe society. And I'm for enforcing laws on the books. And that's what is going to happen should I earn your confidence.
 
I would like our farmers feeding the world. We're the best producers in the world, and I want -- I want the farmers feeding the world. We need to open up markets. Exports are down, and every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. I want the next president to have fast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world with the best and the most efficient farmers. I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. It's not the right thing to do. I'm for value-added processing. We need more work on value-added processing. You take the raw product you produce, I presume you're a farmer, off your farm, and you convert it. Value-added processing is important. I'm for research and development. Spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. I'm for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The President shouldn't have vetoed that bill. It's a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer. So should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote, I also understand -- I want to open up markets, but I also understand that farming is a part of our national security. I'm from a big farm state. We're the second biggest state -- farming state in the country. And I hear from my farmers and friends all the time. The Vice President is right, by the way. Every day is earth day if you own the land. I like the policies that will encourage farmers to put -- set aside land as well for conservation purposes. Thank you.
 
Eliminating the death tax.

Because people shouldn't be taxed twice on their assets. It's either unfair for some or unfair for all. Again, this is just a difference of opinion. If you're from Washington, you want to pick and choose winners. I don't think that's the role of the president. I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody benefits. Secondly, I think your plan -- a lot of fine print in your plan, Mr. Vice President, with all due respect. It is -- I'm not so sure 80% of the people get the death tax. I know this, 100% will get it if I'm the president. I just don't think it's fair to tax people's assets twice regardless of your status. It's a fairness issue. It's an issue of principle, not politics.
 
Laura and I are proud parents of teenage girls, twin daughters, and I know what you're saying. Government ought to stand on the side of parents. Parents are teaching their children right from wrong, and the message oftentimes gets undermined by the popular culture. You bet there's things that government can do. We can work with the entertainment industry to provide family hour. We can have filters on Internets where public money is spent. There ought to be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so if kids get on the Internet, there is not going to be pornography or violence coming in. I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn't directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. Greatly expand character education funding so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time. There's afterschool money available. I think that afterschool money ought to be available for faith-based programs and charitable programs that exist because somebody has heard the call to love a neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. That will help reinforce the values that parents teach at home as well. Ours is a great land, and one of the reasons why is because we're free. And so I don't support censorship. But I do believe that we ought to talk plainly to the Hollywood moguls and people who produce this stuff and explain the consequences. I think we need to have rating systems that are clear. I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use so you can tune out these programs you don't want in your house. I'll remind mothers and dads the best weapon is the off/on button, and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them and being -- I'm sorry.
 
Tell you what I hear. A lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington, D.C. and therefore they don't want any part of politics. They look at Washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another. There's a lot of young folks saying, you know, why do I want to be involved with this mess? And what I think needs to happen in order to encourage the young to become involved is to shoot straight, is to set aside the partisan differences, and set an agenda that will make sense. Medicare, I know you talked about it, but Medicare is relevant for all of us, young and old alike. We better get it right now. Tax reform is relevant for old and young alike. I don't think it's the issues that turn kids off. I think it's the tone. I think it's the attitude. I think it's a cynicism in Washington and it doesn't have to be that way. Before I decided to run, I had to resolve two issues in my mind. One, could our family endure all this business. And I came to the conclusion that our love was strong enough to be able to do it. The other was could an administration change the tone in Washington, D.C. And I believe the answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn't be asking for your vote. That's what happened in Texas. We worked together. There is a man here in this audience named Hugo Berlanga. He is the chairman of the health committee. He came here for a reason, to tout our record on health in Texas. He's a Democrat. I didn't care whether he was a Republican or Democrat. What I cared about is could we work together. That's what Washington, D.C. needs. And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who will tell the truth. That's the best way to get people back in the system.
 
I've had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in Texas. I'm going to find people that want to serve their country. But I want a diverse administration, I think it's important. I've worked hard in the State of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. Policy that rejects quotas. I don't like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about. But policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves. For example, in our State of Texas I worked with the legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you're automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning, college. And as a result, our universities are now more diverse. It was a smart thing to do. What I called it, I labeled it affirmative access. I think the contracting business in government can help. Not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller, the agencies need to be -- need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. I think we can do that in a way that represents what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. So to answer your question, I support, I guess the way to put it, is affirmative access. I'll have an administration that will make you proud. Thank you.
 
If affirmative action means quotas, I'm against it. If affirmative action means what I just described what I'm for, then I'm for it. You heard what I was for. The vice president keeps saying I'm against things. You heard what I was for, and that's what I support.

Let me just say the first -- this business about the entitlement he tried to describe about savings, you know, matching savings here and matching savings there, fully-funded it's gonna cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we have. You're going to get a tax refund in my plan. You're not going to be targeted in or targeted out. Everybody that pays taxes is going to get tax relief. If you take care of an elderly in your home, you're going to get the personal exemption increased. I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don't get the new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways. So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. A mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people. A judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace. You'll live in a world, hopefully, that is more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. See, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. You'll be in a world in which fits into my philosophy. The harder you work, the more you can keep. It's the American way. Government shouldn't be a heavy hand. It's what the federal government does to you. It should be a helping hand, and tax relief and the proposals I just described should be a good helping hand.
 
No, I'm not proud of that. The death penalty is a very serious business, Leo. It's an issue that good people obviously disagree on. I take my job seriously. And if you think I was proud of it, I think you misread me, I do. I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. During the course of the campaign in 1994 I was asked do you support the death penalty. I said I did if administered fairly and justly. Because I believe it saves lives, Leo, I do. If it's administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. One of the things that happens when you're a governor, at least oftentimes you have to make tough decisions. You can't let public persuasion sway you, because the job is to enforce the law. And that's what I did, sir. There have been some tough cases come across my desk. Some of the hardest moments since I've been the governor of the State of Texas is to deal with those cases. But my job is to ask two questions, sir. Is the person guilty of the crime? And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I can tell you looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative. I'm not proud of any record. I'm proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the State of Texas. I'm proud of the fact that we hold people accountable. But I'm not proud of any record, sir, I'm not.
 
I do. It's the only reason to be for it. Let me finish, sir. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives.
 
There's an old high school debating trick, which is to answer something and then attack your opponent at the end. You asked about promises. You were promised that Medicare would be reformed, and that Social Security would be reformed. You were promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. It didn't happen. There's too much bitterness in Washington. There's too much wrangling. It's time to have a fresh start. One of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn't try to be all things to all people. When I campaigned in a race, a lot of folks didn't think I could win including, by the way, my mother. (LAUGHTER) I said I'd do four things; tort reform, education reform, welfare reform and juvenile justice reform. And I won. And I had the will of the people in my state behind me. And then I brought folks together to get it done. And that's what we need, I think, in this election. To me that's what it's all about. I'm sure your 6th grade kids are listening and saying, these guys will say anything to get elected. But there's a record, and that's what I hope people look at. One of my promises is going to be Social Security reform, and you bet, we need to take a trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus. Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you're a younger worker, if you're younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise you're gonna be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we're gonna take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines so you get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2% that the federal government gets for you today. That's one of my promises. But it's gonna require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it done. That's what it requires. There was a chance to get this done. It was a bipartisan approach, but it's been rejected. I'm going to bring them together.
 
One reason people are skeptical is because people don't answer the questions they've been asked. The trillion dollars comes out of the surplus so that you can invest some of your own money. There's just a difference of opinion. I want workers to have their own assets. It's who you trust, government or people.
 
I think after three debates the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between big federal government and somebody who is coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals. I've got an agenda that I want to get done for the country. It's an agenda that says we're going to reform Medicare to make sure seniors have got prescription drugs and to give seniors different options from which they can choose. It's an agenda that says we're listen to the young voices in Social Security and say we're going to think differently about making sure we have a system, but also fulfill the promise to the seniors in America. A promise made will be a promise kept should I be fortunate enough to become your president. I want to have the military keeping the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America keeps its promise so not one child is left behind. After setting priorities, I want to give some of your money back. I don't think the surplus is the government's money. I think it's the people's money. I don't think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government, I think in exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people. And you ought to have some of this surplus so you can save and dream and build. I look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. I'm asking for your vote. For those of you for me, thanks for your help. For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. (LAUGHTER) But for those who have not made up their mind, I would like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate enough to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God. Thank you very much.