now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [applause] mr. kalb: mr. mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, president carter's national security adviser, zbigniew brzezinski, said, "a nuclear freeze is a hoax." yet the basis of your arms proposals, as i understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. in your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not? mr. mondale: every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. i would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the soviet union that we couldn't verify every day. i would not agree to any agreement in which the united

states security interest was not fully recognized and supported. that's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes. now, why do i support the freeze? because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. it's more difficult to defend this nation. it's putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. this administration, by going into the star wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. we have to be tough on the soviet union, but i think the american people --- mr. newman: your time is up, mr. mondale. mr. mondale: -- and the people of the soviet union want it to stop. mr. newman: president reagan, your rebuttal? pres. reagan: yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how i would go about rolling over for the soviet union -- no, mr. mondale,

my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, "now, are you willing to join us? here's what we" -- give them a demonstration and then say "here's what we can do. now, if you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we'll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat, that we're both got something that if anyone tries to cheat." but when you keep star-warring it -- i never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind -- i'm not a scientist. i said, and the joint chiefs of staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. and suddenly somebody says, "oh, it's got to be up there, and it's star wars," and so forth. i don't know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, i think the world will be better off. mr. newman: mr. mondale, your rebuttal. mr. mondale: well, that's what a president's supposed to know -- where those weapons are going to

be. if they're space weapons, i assume they'll be in space. [laughter] if they're antisatellite weapons, i assume they're going to be aimed against satellites. now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. the soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. and to give them technology of this kind, i disagree with. you haven't just accepted research, mr. president. you've set up a strategic defense initiative, an agency, you're beginning to test, you're talking about deploying, you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. this is an arms escalation. and we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. if someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that's something else. but that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. why do we start things that we know the soviets will match and

make us all less secure? that's what a president's for. mr. newman: mr. kondracke, your question to mr. mondale. mr. kondracke: mr. mondale, you say that with respect to the soviet union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the mx missile and the b-1 bomber before the talks have even begun. and you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. now, aren't you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk? mr. mondale: no. as a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. and i support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the pershing missile, the trident submarine, the d-5 submarine, stealth technology, the midgetman -- we have a whole range of technology. why i disagree with the mx is that it's a sitting duck. it'll draw an attack. it puts a hair-trigger, and it

is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. and the b-1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the soviet union has been preparing to meet the b-1. the secretary of defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built. instead, i want to build the midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. that's why i'm for stealth technology, to build a stealth bomber -- which i've supported for years -- that can penetrate the soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. in other words, a president has to make choices. this makes us stronger. the final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. our conventional strength in

europe is under strength. we need to strengthen that in order to assure our western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. it's in this way, by making wise choices, that we're stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. every president until this one has been able to do it, and this nation -- or the world is more dangerous as a result. mr. kondracke: i want to follow up on mr. kalb's question. it seems to me on the question of verifiability, that you do have some problems with the extent of the freeze. it seems to me, for example, that testing would be very difficult to verify because the soviets encode their telemetry. research would be impossible to verify. numbers of warheads would be impossible to verify by satellite, except for with onsite inspection, and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen?

mr. mondale: i will not agree to any arms control agreement, including a freeze, that's not verifiable. let's take your warhead principle. the warhead principle -- there have been counting rules for years. whenever a weapon is tested we count the number of warheads on it, and whenever that warhead is used we count that number of warheads, whether they have that number or less on it, or not. these are standard rules. i will not agree to any production restrictions -- or agreements, unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. i don't trust the russians. i believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable, and i will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. in other words, we've got to be tough. but in order to stop this arms madness, we've got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement. mr. kondracke: mr. president, i want to ask you a question about

negotiating with friends. you severely criticized president carter for helping to undermine two friendly dictators who got into trouble with their own people -- the shah of iran and president somoza of nicaragua. now there are other such leaders heading for trouble, including president pinochet of chile and president marcos of the philippines. what should you do, and what can you do to prevent the philippines from becoming another nicaragua? pres. reagan: morton, i did criticize the president because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally -- the shah of iran. and i am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. the shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the middle east for quite some time, and i did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. have things gotten better? the shah, whatever he might have done, was building low-cost

housing, had taken land away from the mullahs and was distributing it to the peasants so they could be landowners -- things of that kind. but we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions. the matter of somoza -- no, i never defended somoza. and, as a matter of fact, the previous administration stood by and so did i -- not that i could have done anything in my position at that time -- but for this revolution to take place. and the promise of the revolution was democracy, human rights, free labor unions, free press. and then, just as castro had done in cuba, the sandinistas ousted the other parties to the revolution. many of them are now the contras. they exiled some, they jailed some, they murdered some. and they installed a marxist-leninist totalitarian government. and what i have to say about

this is, many times -- and this has to do with the philippines, also, i know there are things there in the philippines that do not look good to us from the standpoint right now of democratic rights, but what is the alternative? it is a large communist movement to take over the philippines. they have been our friend since their inception as a nation. and i think that we've had enough of a record of letting -- under the guise of revolution -- someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go, and then winding up with totalitarianism, pure and simple, as the alternative. and i think that we're better off, for example with the philippines, of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing a communist power in the pacific.

mr. kondracke: mr. president, since the united states has two strategically important bases in the philippines, would the overthrow of president marcos constitute a threat to vital american interests and, if so, what would you do about it? pres. reagan: well, as i say, we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government would be that would follow. and there is every evidence, every indication that that government would be hostile to the united states. and that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the pacific. mr. kondracke: and what would you do about it? mr. newman: sorry. i'm sorry, you've asked the followup question. mr. mondale, your rebuttal? mr. mondale: perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administration's policies on human rights. i went to the philippines as vice president, pressed for human rights, called for the release of aquino, and made progress that had been stalled on both the subic and the clark airfield bases. what explains this administration cozying up to the argentine dictators after they took over?

fortunately, a democracy took over, but this nation was embarrassed by this current administration's adoption of their policies. what happens in south africa, where, for example, the nobel prize winner, 2 days ago, said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of south africa. that hurts this nation. we need to stand for human rights. we need to make it clear we're for human liberty. national security and human rights must go together. but this administration time and time again has lost its way in this field. mr. newman: president reagan, your rebuttal. your rebuttal. pres. reagan: well, the invasion of afghanistan didn't take place on our watch. i have described what has happened in iran, and we weren't here then either.

i don't think that our record of human rights can be assailed. i think that we have observed, ourselves, and have done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world. mr. mondale has recently announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and to work with the whole world to turn to democracy. and i was glad to hear him say that, because that's what we've been doing ever since i announced to the british parliament that i thought we should do this. human rights are not advanced when, at the same time, you then stand back and say, "whoops, we didn't know the gun was loaded," and you have another totalitarian power on your hands. mr. newman: in this segment, because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. mr. trewhitt, your question to president reagan. mr. trewhitt: one question to each candidate? mr. newman: one question to each candidate. mr. trewhitt: mr. president, could i take you back to something you said earlier, and if i'm misquoting you, please correct me. but i understood you to say that if the development of space military technology was

successful, you might give the soviets a demonstration and say, "here it is," which sounds to me as if you might be trying to gain the sort of advantage that would enable you to dictate terms, and which i will then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of nuclear strategy called mutual deterrence in which we, in effect, hold each other hostage. is that your intention? pres. reagan: well, i can't say that i have roundtabled that and sat down with the chiefs of staff, but i have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal, my ultimate dream, and that is the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. and it seems to me that this could be an adjunct, or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. i am not going to roll over, as mr. mondale suggests, and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. but i think it's a very interesting proposal, to see if

we can find, first of all, something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission. but mr. mondale seems to approve mad -- mad is mutual assured destruction -- meaning, if you use nuclear weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is that we'll kill as many people of yours as you'll kill of ours. i think that to do everything we can to find, as i say, something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. mr. trewhitt: mr. mondale, could i ask you to address the question of nuclear strategy then? the formal doctrine is very arcane, but i'm going to ask you to deal with it anyway. do you believe in mad, mutual assured destruction, mutual deterrence as it has been practiced for the last generation? mr. mondale: i believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. i would like to see their elimination. and in the meantime, we have to be strong enough to make certain

that the soviet union never tempts us. now, here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. the president says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons. but, in fact, these last 4 years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. he says he wants a system that will make nuclear wars safe, so nobody's going to get hurt. well, maybe someday, somebody can dream of that. but why start an arms race now? why destabilize our relationship? why threaten our space satellites upon which we depend? why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war? a president, to defend this country and to get arms control, must master what's going on.

i accept his objective and his dream. we all do. but the hard reality is that we must know what we're doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. he's opposed every effort of every president to do so, and in the four years of his administration he's failed to do so. and if you want a tough president who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for walter mondale. mr. newman: we've arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. you have the full four minutes, each of you. mr. mondale, will you go first? mr. mondale: i want to thank the league of women voters, the good citizens of kansas city, and president reagan for agreeing to debate this evening. this evening we talked about national strength. i believe we need to be strong,

and i will keep us strong. but i think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. that's key to the strength of our nation. a president must know the essential facts essential to command. but a president must also have a vision of where this nation should go. tonight, as americans, you have a choice. and you're entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. as president, i would press for long-term, vigorous economic growth. that's why i want to get these debts down and these interest rates down, restore america's exports, help rural america, which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. i want this next generation to be the best educated in american history, to invest in the human mind and science again, so we're out front.

i want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land, and its public health. america is not temporary. we're forever. and as americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. i want a nation of fairness, where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against, and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. and, above all, i want a nation that's strong. since we debated two weeks ago, the united states and the soviet union have built 100 more warheads, enough to kill millions of americans and millions of soviet citizens. this doesn't strengthen us. this weakens the chances of civilization to survive. i remember the night before i became vice president. i was given the briefing and

told that any time, night or day, i might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on earth -- whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. that lesson tells us two things. one, pick a president that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know, because there'll be no time for staffing committees or advisers. a president must know right then. but above all, pick a president who will fight to avoid the day when that god-awful decision ever needs to be made. and that's why this election is so terribly important. america and americans decide not just what's happening in this country. we are the strongest and most powerful free society on earth.

when you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation. in a very profound respect, you're deciding the future of the world. we need to move on. it's time for america to find new leadership. please, join me in this cause to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. mr. newman: president reagan, your summation, please. pres. reagan: yes. my thanks to the league of women voters, to the panelists, the moderator, and to the people of kansas city for their warm hospitality and greeting. i think the american people tonight have much to be grateful for -- an economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom and, most of all, we are at

peace. i am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and, one day, to eliminate them entirely. the question before you comes down to this -- do you want to see america return to the policies of weakness of the last four years? or do we want to go forward, marching together, as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong? we shouldn't be dwelling on the past, or even the present. the meaning of this election is the future and whether we're going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all americans and that they need. several years ago, i was given an assignment to write a letter. it was to go into a time capsule

and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. i remember driving down the california coast one day. my mind was full of what i was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. but i couldn't completely neglect the beauty around me -- the pacific out there on one side of the highway, shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. and i found myself wondering what it would be like for someone -- wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway, and if they would see the same thing. and with that thought, i realized what a job i had with that letter. i would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. we know nothing about them. they would know all about our problems. they would know how we solved

them, and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. they would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power, aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. and then i thought to myself, what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think? they will know whether we used those weapons or not. well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day, down in history 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say, "thank god for those

people back in the 1980's for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called earth, with all its grandeur and its beauty." you know, i am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these four years, and i seek reelection because i want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago. george bush, who i think is one of the finest vice presidents this country has ever had -- george bush and i have crisscrossed the country, and we've had, in these last few months, a wonderful experience. we have met young america. we have met your sons and daughters. mr. newman: mr. president, i'm obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. i'm sorry. pres. reagan: all right. i was just going to --- [applause]

mr. newman: perhaps i should point out that the rules under which i did that were agreed two campaigns -- mr. newman: -- with the league, as you know, sir. pres. reagan: i know, yes. mr. newman: thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. mondale. our thanks also to the panel, finally, to our audience. we thank you, and the league of women voters asks me to say to you, don't forget to vote on november 6. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: watcher c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. preview starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate

studio audiences at 8:30 p.m. and the 90-minute debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. watch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at www.c-span.org. listen to live coverage on your phone with this -- with the free c-span radio app. were two presidential debates in 1998 between george h.w. bush and michael to cap this. the second and final debate was held at pauly pavilion in los angeles. this is one hour and a half. >> good evening. on behalf of the commission on presidential debates, i am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate. i am bernard

i am bernard shaw of cnn news network. from abc news, -- margaret warner of newsweek magazine and andrea mitchell of nbc news. the candidates are vice theident george bush, republican nominee, and governor michael dukakis. [applause] bernard: for the next 90 minutes we will question the candidates in a format agreed to by the two campaigns. however there are no

restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and i can ask this evening, and the candidates have no prior knowledge of our questions. agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to governor dukakis. you have to minutes to respond. governor, if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor in irrevocable death penalty for the killer? gov. dukakis: no i don't bernard. you know that i opposed the death penalty all of my life. i don't see evidence that it is a deterrent. i think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. we have done so in my own state. we have had the biggest drop in crime and industrial state america. but we have work to do in this nation. we have to fight a real war, not

a phony war against drugs. that's something i want to lead. something we have not had in the past couple years, although the vice president has been allegedly in charge of that war. we have much to do tunable double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both your and abroad, worked with our neighbors. i want to call a hemispheric summit after january as soon as possible. we also have to deal with drug education prevention at home. that is what i hope i can lead personally as president. we have had great success in my own state, we have reached out to young people in their families and began drug education prevention in the early elementary grades. so we can fight this war and when it. -- and win it. we can provide will support for state enforcement officers that have nothing getting that support, and do it anyway that

will bring down -- -- we can provide support for our state enforcement officers that have not been getting the support. we will do it in a way that brings down violence and allows our families to grow in decent and safe neighborhoods. v.p. bush: a lot of what this campaign is about is the question of values. on this particular question i have a big difference with my account. i do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so little, -- so and those outrageous, that result in the death of a police officer. for those real brutal crimes, i do believe in the death penalty. i think it is a determined. i believe that we need it. i'm glad that congress moved on this drug bill and finally called for that related to these

drug narcotics kingpin's. we haven't honest -- we have an honest difference of opinion. i support it and he doesn't. [applause] quote to you this from article 3 the 20th amendment of the constitution, fixed for thee beginning of the president, the president elect shall have died, the vice president elect shall become president. meaning if you are elected and die before inauguration day-- v.p. bush: bernie-- [laughter] bernard: automatically dan quayle would become the 34th president of the united states. what have you to say about that possibility? v.p. bush: i have confidence in him. i have made a good selection.

i have never seen such an unfair pounding on a young senator in my entire life. i have never seen a presidential the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee. never seen one before. [applause] bentsen jumped on dan quayle. dan quayle has had roughly the same amount of experience. 2 terms in the congress and senate. he founded the job training partnership act that says to american working men and women filled out of work for no fault of their own, that they will have jobs moving into a new competitive age. we need that kind of thing. he, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense, help amend the imf treaty so that we got a good sound treaty when these people were talking about

a freeze. ifwe listened to then we would have never had a treaty. i have great confidence in him. it is turning around. the american people are fair. they don't like it when there is an unfair hunting of people. they want to judge it on the record itself. i am proud of my choice. i don't think age is the only criteria. i will tell you something -- i am proud that people 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the united states. i made a good selection. the american people are seeing it and i am proud of it. bernard: governor dukakis, your one minute rebuttal. gov. dukakis: this was the first presidential decision we have been called upon to make. that is why people are so concerned. it was an opportunity to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate.

more than that, it is the first national security decision we had to make. the vice president talks about national security. 3 times since world war ii the vice president has suddenly had to become commander-in-chief. i would think lloyd bentsen. i thought he was the best qualified person for the job. [applause] mr. bush? gov. dukakis: before he picked inkwell, he said watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all. it sure did. [applause] >> mr. vice president, yes we read your lips -- no new taxes. despite that same pledge from president reagan after income tax rates were cut in each of the last five years, some federal taxes have gone up. on social security, liquor, even

long-distance telephones. that is money straight out of people's wallace. is the phrase "no new taxes" misleading the voters? v.p. bush: no, because i am pledged to that. yes some taxes have gone up. the main point is that taxes have been cut, in your income is up to the federal government by 25% in the last three years. and so i want to keep this expansion going. i don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. more americans at work today than at any time in the history of this country, and a greater percentage of the workforce. the way that you kill expansions is to raise taxes. i don't want to do that, and i want to that. -- i won't do that. what i have proposed will take discipline of the executive branch, of the congressional branch. that is what i call eight

flexible freeze that allows growth, about 4% for the rate of inflation, but does not permit congress to add on spending. i hear this talk about a blank check. the american people are pretty smart. they know who writes out the checks. they know who appropriates the money. it is the u.s. congress. by two to one, congress is blamed for these deficits. the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. i am pledged to do that. those pessimists who say it can't be done, i'm sorry. i just have a fundamental disagreement with them. gov. dukakis: not vice president has broken the pledge three times, so it's not worth the paper it is printed on. if continue with the policies that esther bush is talking

about in a flexible freeze, it is a kind of economic slippery ---- economic slurpee. [laughter] he wants to spend billions on virtually every system around. he says he doesn't want to raise taxes, although he has broken that from us repeatedly. he wants to give the top 1% in this country a $40 billion tax break, and we are going to pay for it. he has been proposing new programs for spending causing billions. we continue with these policies this chilean and a half dollars of debt at it on the backs of -- the trillion and a half dollars of debt will continue on the backs of the american people. i will worry if we can ever turn this situation around. we need a leader that will not play in the congress who will bring down the deficit and make tough choices. who will go out and do the job we expect. [applause] dukakis.and governor

>> let me follow that up by saying that you have balanced 10 budget in massachusetts. are you promising the american people tonight that within a four-year presidential term, you will balance the federal budget? i'm not sure no, either one of us can promise that. there is no way of anticipating what can happen. i will say this that we will set as our goal a steady gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require health choices on spending. it will require a good strong rate of economic growth, a plan that the president works out with the congress. does not blame them, works it out with them. it would require us to go out and collect billions of dollars in taxes not being paid in this country. that is grossly unfair to the average american pays his taxes on time and doesn't have any alternative. as bush says, we are can with the irs on every taxpayer.

that is not what we are going to do. i am for the taxpayer bill of rights. we shoulduld not -- not be thinking about imposing new taxes when there are already 100 billion taxes owed that are not being paid. if you have a president that will work with the american people and congress, we can bring the deficit down steadily, build economic growth, build a strong future for america, invest in the things we must invest in -- economic development, jobs, education opportunities, decent health care and affordable housing -- we can do all those things and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good fiscal foundation. in the benson said debate with senator quayle that if you give any of us to hundred billion dollars in checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. sooner or later that credit card

mentality is not going to work. i want to bring to the white house the sense of strength and fiscal responsibility that will build a good strong foundation under which this country can invest, and build the best feature for its kids and grandkids. [applause] v.p. bush: the governor is required to balance the budget in his state by law. he has raised taxes several times. asish he would join me repealing the amendment for the federal budget. [applause] i would like to have that line-item veto for the president. i think that would be extraordinarily helpful. i want to do the other thing he has had to do, took $29 million out of his state pension fund. cuts equivalent of taking out of the social security trust fund at the federal level. i am not going to do that. [applause]

i am still unclear as to whether he is for or against tax increase. i have been for the taxpayer's bill of rights all along. this idea of unleashing a can forst army of irs agents into sverybody's attention -- ir agents into everybody's kitchen. i suppose that. -- oppose that. [applause] i am going to say this-- gov. dukakis: i'm going to say this once to every person in the auditorium. what this candidates are about are of utmost seriousness to the american voters. they should be heard, and you should be quiet. if you are not quiet, i will implore the candidates to do something about quieting their own partisans. we cannot get through this program with these outbursts.

mr. vice president, governor. you won the first debate on intellect and yet you lost it on heart. [laughter] the american public admired your performance, but did not seem to like you much. ronald reagan has found his personal warmth to be examined as political asset. do you think that a president has to be likable to be an effective leader? gov. dukakis: may i go back and say i did not rate the pension fund in massachusetts? -- raid the pension fund in massachusetts? you are dead wrong. i am the first person in my state to fund that. we did not. [applause] i have been in politics for 25 years. i have won a club of elections.

i won the democratic nomination in 50 separate contests. i think i am a reasonably likable guy. [laughter] i am serious, but i think i am more lovable than i used to be in my youth in the state legislature. i am also a serious guy. i think the presidency is a very serious office. i think we have to address these issues in a very serious way. i hope and expect that i will be like by the people of this country as president of the united states. i certainly hope i will be liked by the eighth of november. [laughter] but i think it's important to be somebody willing to make those tough choices. we just heard 2-3 times for the vice president he will not raise taxes. within days after you made that pledge, you broke it. you said maybe as a last resort we will do it. but he supported legislation that increased taxes not want but twice. -- not once but twice.

i think the people of this country know that is not realistic. the next president will have to go to the white house seriously, .orked with congress seriously we cannot blame them that we have billions of dollars in red ink. i want to be a president that is serious. i hope and expect to be liked by the american people, but more than that, to do the job i am elected to do to do with as much good humor is again, that in a way that will achieve the goals that we want for ourselves and our people. i think we know what they are. a strong future for all of our citizens. [applause] bernard: one minutes from the vice president. v.p. bush: i don't think it's a question whether people like you are not to be an effective leader. it is whether you share the broad dreams of the american people. whether you have confidence in the people's ability to get things done. or whether you think it should

be turned over, like liberals do, to washington dc. it is a question of values, not orability or liability -- lovability. it is knowing how to build on a superb administration. you have to learn from experience that making unilateral cuts in defense is not the way that you enhance peace. you have to understand that it is only the united states that can stand for freedom and democracy around the world. we can't turn it over to the united nations or other multilateral organizations. it is trying to understand the heartbeat of the country. i know these campaigns get knocked a lot. i think i would be a better president now from having traveled to these communities and having understood the family values. [applause]

margaret: i would like to follow-up on that. the tenor of the campaign you have been running has surprised even some of your friends. senator marquette, who has known your family a long time, and the late senator prescott bush said "if his father were alive today, i'm sure his father would see it as a shocking transformation." he was referring to your performance on the campaign. v.p. bush: i think my dad would be pretty proud of me. i think we have come a long long way. i remember some of the great publications in this country had written me off. what i had to do is define not just my position, but divine his. i hope i have done that fairly. the reason is that he ran on the left in the democratic primary, ran firmly and with conviction, record.on his

and then at that democratic convention they make a determination. they said ideology does not matter, just competence. and in the process, the negatives begin. it was not me at that convention. thank out it was me with jimmy baker camping out, and i didn't have to hear all the personal attacks on me. it was wonderful not to have to listen to it. i'm not the one that compared the president of the united states rotting like a dead fish from the head down. but i have defined the issues. i am not going to let governor dukakis go through this election without explaining some of these very liberal positions. he is the one that said i am a traditional progressive liberal democrat. he is is the one that brought up to garner primary votes the whole question of the aclu. i have enormous difference with the aclu on their political

agenda. not on their defending some minority opinion on the right or the left. i support that. but what i don't like is this left-wing political agenda. therefore i have to help define that. if he is unwilling to do it and says ideology doesn't matter, i don't agree with him. [applause] bernard: one minute from governor dukakis. gov. dukakis: we have heard again the labels. the vice president called me a liberal two or three times. in 1980 president reagan called you a liberal promoting for federal gun control. this is something republicans have used for a long time. eric truman and john kennedy -- it is not labels. it is our vision of america. we have to fundamentally different visions. the vice president is complicit with the status quo and does not think we ought to move ahead. i don't. i this is a great country because we have always wanted to

do better, make our country better, make our lives better. we have been a nation that is ambitious for america. that is the kind of america i want to provide. i don't think these labels mean anything. i would hope for the rest of this campaign, we can have a good solid disagreement on issues. let's stop labeling each other and let's get to the heart of the matter which is future of this country. [applause] >> mr. vice president, governor. let me return for a moment to the issue of the budget. so much has already been put off limits in your campaign that most people do not believe the flexible freeze alone will solve the problem. let's turn to defense for a moment. pentagon officials tell us there is not enough money in the budget to handle military

as wells, preparedness, as new weapon systems proposed, as well as those already in the pipeline. you were asked at the first debate what new weapon systems you would cut. you mentioned 3 that have already been canceled. can you tonight share with us 3 new weapon systems that you would cut? 11. bush: i knew of 3 systems that i thought were purely waste that would not be in the budget. they would not be in the budget. but you want one now? i can give you one. that truck that cost $850 million in the pentagon did not requested, yet a powerful member of congress put it in the budget. i think we can save money through this sophisticated concept that i know you do understand of competitive strategy. it is new and very different from what has happened. it is very important.

i think we can say to the packard commission report, and i am proud that david packard, the originator of that report, is strongly supporting me. it's not a question of saying that our budget is full of a lot of waste. i do think this. dear in the series stages of negotiation with the soviet union in a strategic arms control talks. we're protecting a cup of options in terms of modernizing our strategic forces. my secretary of defense will have to make it difficult to system in which system to go forward with. we are moving forward with the negotiation. i think it would be done negotiating -- it would be dumb negotiating policies with the soviets to cut out one of the two other options. the soviets continue to modernize. we can't say, we've got enough nuclear weapons, let's freeze. we can't do that. we have to have modernization,

especially if we achieve the 50% reduction in strategic weapons that our president is taking the leadership to came. -- to attain. i believe we can have a strongest and best defense possible if we modernize, go forward with competitive strategies, and follow through on the packard commission report. bernard: governor dukakis, one minute. gov. dukakis: we had another example why the vice president's mathematics do not add up. you've covered these issues. there is no way we can build these weapon systems the vice president wants to build within the existing defense budget. everybody knows that, including the pentagon. my defense secretary have a lot to do with those decisions. the president will ultimately decide before it goes to congress what weapons systems will go and what will stay. the billionspend

and trillions that he wants on star wars. they weapons system that we don't need, cannot afford, and one of our defense posture at all. we are not going to spend hundreds of millions on a spaceplane from washington to tokyo. yes, we are can have a strong and effective nuclear deterrent. we are going to go advanced with the five cruise missile. but the next president will have to make some tough difficult decisions. i am prepared to make them, the vice president is not. [applause] bernard: andrea has a question. andrea: continuing on that subject, we say we have to do something about conventional forces. you supported the d5 submarine mission like you mentioned. but from jimmy carter to rake in their have been a bipartisan consensus in favor of modernizing the land-based missiles. you have ruled out the mx and the midget men.

some of your aides have ended at flexibility that you might show about new form of missiles. can you tell us why have you rejected the collected wisdom of people as rare diverse as henry kissinger, al gore -- people in both parties? what type of land-based missile would you consider? today we have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads on land, air, and sea. that is an incredibly powerful nuclear deterrent. there are discussions about a less expensive modernized land-based leg of the triad. there are limits to what we can spend. there are limits to this nation's ability to finance these weapons systems. the one thing the vice president ignores or will not address is that you can't divorce our military security from economic security. how can we build a military that

is teeter tottering on a mountain of debt? if we go forward with these policies, that debt is going to grow bigger and bigger. military security and economic security go hand in hand. we will have a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. clear can i have well named, well supported forces. we have serious problems with our conventional force at the present time. these will get worse if we don't have a president willing to make these decisions. we have important domestic priorities. things will have to be addressed. that is why i say again to all of you who have to deal with your household budgets. you know how difficult it is that the next president has to do the same. i want the men and women of our armed forces to have the support they need when they risk their

lives to keep us free and keep this country free. we cannot live on a credit card. we cannot continue to tell the american people we will build the systems and at the same time invested home and be serious about building a strong and good america that is the kind of .merica i want to build [applause] v.p. bush: i held off for the applause. can we start the clock over? i think the foremost responsibility of a president gets down to the national security of this country. the governor talks about limits, poses these two modernization systems. talks about, well we will develop some new type of missile. it takes 8-10 years to do that. he talked about a nuclear freeze at the time i was in europe

trying to convince european public opinion that we ought to go forward with deployment of inf weapons. thank god the freeze people were not hurt. they were wrong. we would devoid and the soviets floyd and we negotiated --we de ployed and the soviets deploayed and so we negotiated to ban weapons. you don't naively cut to hope that soviets will behave themselves. we have enhanced peace and then proud to have been part of an ministers and that has done exactly that. peace through strength works. [applause] governor, today they may call them role models. pleased to be called heroes. the kind of public figure that could inspire a generation. my question is not who your heroes were.

my question is instead is who are the heroes in american life today? who are the ones you would point out to young americans as figures that should inspire this country? gov. dukakis: when i think of eroes, ithink back -- h think back. but some are in present life in the senate and congress. some of my fellow governors are real heroes to me. those young athletes at the olympics are tremendously impressive. we are proud of them. we feel strongly of them and they did so well by us. i can think of doctors and scientists. one who discovered relaxing for one of the most threatening diseases we have ever had. he is a hero. i have classroom teachers that i have had, that youngsters have had today that are real heroes

to our young people because they inspire them. they teach them, but more than that they are role models. members of the clergy, drug counselors on the street providing help to youngsters that asked for help and want health. doing the hard heroic work it takes to provide that kind of leadership and counseling. i think of people in the law enforcement community who are taking their lives in their hands every day. taking a door down and trying to stop this flow of drugs into our communities. so there are many heroes in this country today. these are people that give of themselves every week, every month. there are people in the community that are examples and role models. i think one of the things we can do as president is to recognize and give them the kind of recognition that we need and

deserve so that more and more young people can become the heroes of young tomorrow. they can go into teaching or drug counseling and the heroes themselves to generations yet to come. [applause] v.p. bush: i think of a teacher right here, artfully hispanic school. teaching calculus to young kids, 80% of them going on to college. i think of a young man now in this country who was released from a cuban jail. he came out and told the truth in this brilliant book "against all hope" about what is happening in cuba. i think about those who took us into space again. i agree with the governor on athletics. there is nothing corny about having sports heroes, young people that are clean and honorable setting a case. i think of this dr. -- you have

heard of him. is a top researcher at the institute of health working hard on this research on this disease aids. i think we should give some credit to the president of the united states. he is the one that got us that first arms-control agreement. [applause] he is leaving office with the popularity at an all-time high. he is our hero. [applause] bit.t's change the pace a in this campaign and some hard and bitter things have been spoken by each side. governorconsider dukakis and his years of public service, is there anything nice you can say about him? v.p. bush: you are stealing my close. i have something nice to say. [laughter] let me tell you something about that. barb and i were sitting there

before the democratic convention. we saw the governor and his son on television than it before, and his family and mother. i am saying to barbara, we've always kept finley as a bit of an oasis. you all know me, we have held it back a little. we use that as a role model the way that he took understandable pride in his heritage. and we have a strong family. we said hey, we have to unleash the bush kids. [laughter] kids all over this country and their spouses. i would say the concept of finley has my great respect -- dukakis family has my great respect. i don't know if that is kind or not, it is just an objective

statement. whoever gets into the political arena and faces you guys every day is brave. it's not much fun sometimes. i would cite ben quayle -- i have been in politics a long time and don't remember that kind of piling on. the kind of ugly rumors true. some of that is unfair. teddy roosevelt used to talk about the arena. daring to fail greatly or succeed -- doesn't matter. i salute those who participate in the blizzard -- in the political process. intellectuals complaining of negative coverage. raburn says, jack i never ran for sure if either. governor dukakis ran for sheriff, and so has george bush. [applause] gov. dukakis: i didn't hear the word liberal or left one time.

i thank you for that. [laughter] doesn't that prove the point? that families like finley in education, community. decent homes for young people like a family in long island that i visited on monday. house for $19,000 and had 17 children. they can't live in the community in which they grew up in. those are basic american values. they are not left or right. they are decent american values. the one thing that concerns me about this is this attempt to label things which all of us believe in. it may have different approaches. you may think you do with them in different ways, but they are basically american. i think the best majority of

americans believe in the. hasi hope the tone that we for the rest of the campaign. i think the american people would appreciate it. [applause] margaret: abortion remains as a troubling issue. i'd like to explore that for a minute with you. you said you regard abortion as murder, yet you would make exception in the case of rape and insist. -- and incest. my question is, why should a woman that discovers through amniocentesis that her baby will be born with a disease, that will live at most 2 years being incredible pain, to be forced to carry the fetus to term, and yet a woman that becomes pregnant through incest is allowed to board? v.p. bush: you left out the important thing, the health of the mother.

barb and i lost a child. you know that. i was out running records and west texas and i got a call from her to come home. i went to the doctor. the doctor said, beautiful child. your child has a few weeks to live. i said, what can we do about it? she has a cute leukemia. we took the child to new york. thanks to the miraculous sacrifice of doctors and nurses, the child stayed alive for 6 months and then died. if that child where your today, and i was told the same thing, if that child could stay alive for 10 or 15 years, that you could have survived for the rest of her life. i don't think you make an exception based on medical knowledge at the time. i think human life is very precious. this hasn't been an easy decision to meet.

i know others disagree with it. when i was in that church across the river from washington and so i child -- and saw our grandchild christened in our faith, i was pleased indeed that aborted childd not and put it up for adoption. this is where i am coming from. i don't assail him on that issue or others. that is the way i, george bush feel on it. [applause] bernard: gov. dukakis: kitty and i had the same experience that the bushes had. had a childut -- that lived about 20 minutes after he was born. the vice president himself is prepared to make exceptions. babies who makes the decisions -- it is who makes the decision.

who makes this difficult heart wrenching decision. [applause] i think it has to be the woman. in the exercise of her unconscious and religious beliefs that makes that decision. who are we to say understood from circumstances, it is all right, but under -- but other unders, it isn't? that is only a position that a woman can make. after consulting her conscious and religious principles. i would hope that we would give to women in this country a right to make that decision, and to make it in the exercise of their just -- their conscious. margaret: i like to turn to the defense budget. you have said in this campaign you would maintain a stable defense budget. yet you are on the advisory board -- gov. dukakis: may i say that the decision of the congress, that the president has concurred?

margaret you are on a board which: "jumps with peace" advocates a 25% cut in the defense budget and a transfer to the domestic economy. do you share that as a long-range goal? and if not, are you aware of, or why do you permit this group to use on his letterhead for fundraising? gov. dukakis: i was on the advisory committee. no i don't share that goal. we are associated with organizations, all of whose particular positions we don't support, even though we support in general that overtime if we strategicreduction in options, bring down the level of forces and the soviet union -- estimated possible to reduce defense. and use it for important things at home like jobs and job training. health and housing and the

environment. president, even within a relatively stable budget -- and that what we will have -- will have to make those tough choices that mr. bush does not seem to want to make. that will be a challenge for the next president. also see a german this opportunity to negotiate with the soviet union to make the progress we have made with the inf treaty to get those reductions in strategic weapons. thereally make progress on production of conventional forces in europe. that can do that and a way gets deeper cuts on the soviet side, then i think we have an opportunity over the long run to begin to move some of our resources from the military to important domestic priorities that can provide college

opportunity for that young woman . a woman wrote me from texas, two teachers. they have a child in college as an electrical engineering major, bright student. they can't afford to have that child in college. i hope we can begin to move those resources. it will have to happen on a step by step basis. certainly is the long-term goal of all americans. v.p. bush: the defense budget takes far less percentage of the gross national product than it did in president kennedy's kind for example. it tremendously. facing a real opportunity for world peace. this is a big question, whether the u.s. will continue to lead for peace. i don't believe any other country can pick up the mantle. i served in the u.n..

i don't think we can turn these decisions over to the united nations or anyone else. we have to make choices. i said he will make the secretary of defense sit down, but while the soviet union, i simply do not want to make these unilateral cuts. those that advocated the phrase missed the point. that has resulted in an asymmetrical cut. the soviets take out more than we do. the principle of intrusive verification. those two principles can be applied to national forces and strategic forces provided we don't give our hand away before we set down at the table. >> you are facing that dreaded last resort, increased taxes. which tax to you site is the least onerous? gov. dukakis: may i disagree with the premise of your question? >> for the sake of argument, no.

[laughter] [applause] gov. dukakis: as a matter of reality, i'm going to have to. as a matter of one we have had tell storieswo that indicates there are billions of dollars to be collected that are not being paid in. these are not taxes owed by average americans. we lose it when we even get it. it is the internal revenue service which estimates we're not collecting $100 billion or more in taxes owed. that is unfair to the vast majority of americans who paid on time. the task force which included 2 revenue commissioners was a bipartisan commission studied by 2 expected economist which indicated we could collect 45 and $50 billion of those funds. you have to have a president

prepared to do this, and to begin right away. republican governors and democratic governors have done it. we have had great success in revenue enforcement. the vice president would tell you it will take an army of virus collectors to get it. his campaign manager used the secretary of the treasury and was taking great credit a year ago in asking for congress substantial additional funds to hire internal revenue agents to collect these funds. i'm happy to join jim baker in saying that we agree. this is something that we must begin. it will take at least the first year of a new administration. the bipartisan task force estimates we could collect about $35 billion over five years. here the study, even more than that. that is where you begin.

bernard: one minute response. v.p. bush: you did not predicate that lack of economists support for what i call inflexible freeze. some very good economist do support that concept. where i differ with the governor of massachusetts is that i am optimistic. they jumped on me about being optimistic about the u.s. i believe we can keep this longest expansion going. i was not out when the stock market dropped, wringing my hands and saying this is the end of the world, as some political leaders were. what we have to do is restrain the growth of spending. we are doing a better job of it. work, but theys don't work if you go raise taxes and the congress spends it. the american working men and

women are not taxed too little. the federal government continues to spend too much. [applause] mr. vice president, you have ruled out any change in social security benefits, even for the wealthy. can you stand here tonight and look at a whole generation of 18-34-year-olds in the eye, the very people that will have to be financing that retirement, and told them they should be financing the retirement of people like yourself and governor dukakis, or for that matter, people such as yourself pure on this panel? v.p. bush: more so you than me. >> we could argue about that. v.p. bush: go back to what social security was. it was a welfare program. -- wasn't a welfare problem. this was a supplement to retirement program. it wasn't a welfare program.

we came into office and the social security trust fund was in great jeopardy. president took the leadership working with republicans in congress. the social security trust fund was put back into sound solid condition. i don't want to fool around with it. there is a good political reason. it is just about this time of year the democrats start saying, the republicans are going to take away your social security. it always works that way. i've seen that in precinct politics in texas and that the national level. we have made the trust fund sound. it will be operating at surplus. i don't want the liberal democratic congress to spend out of that social security trust fund or take the money out for some other purpose. i don't want that. i will not go in and suggest

changes in social security. i that the hardware. -- learned that the hard way. the governor supported it international governance conference. i supported it in breaking a tie in a major compromised package. -- we got sailed by the democrats. i will keep that sound and keep our commitment to the elderly. and maybe down the line, when you get two decades or one into the next century, you will take another look at it. but not now. we don't have to do it. keep the trust with the older men and women of this country. gov. dukakis: i don't know which george bush i am listening to. george bush a few years ago said social security was basically a welfare program. in 1985 he flew back to the west coast to cut that cold.

i voted against that at the national governors association. we did not win the two thirds necessary to pass that resolution. but everybody knew what we were doing. concerns notraised just in election years but every year is because republicans, in and start go cutting. the ministers dated repeatedly. i am sure you will try to do it again. there is no way you can finance what you want to spend, that five-year $40 billion tax cut for the rich and still buy all this was to systems you want to buy unless you raid the social security fund. ann: there are three justices of the supreme court in their 80's. it is likely the next president will get a chance to put a lasting mark on the supreme court. for the record, would your

nominees have to pass something that has been called a kind of survey of ideological litmus test? would you give us an idea of to-three people on your shortlist? -- two or three people on your shortlist? v.p. bush: i don't have a list. secondly i don't have any litmus test. but i would appoint people to the federal bench that will not legislate from the bench, who will interpret the constitution. to anot want to see us go liberal majority that is going to legislate from the bench. they don't like the use of the word. may i remind his strong supporters that only lester in the primary to capture that democratic nomination, he said i am a progressive liberal democrat. i support judges like that. -- i won't support judges like

that. i will find many women to interpret. i think -- i will find men and women to interpret. i think the president has made outstanding appointments. [applause] have onegovernor, you minute response. gov. dukakis: if the vice president thinks that robert bork is an outstanding appointment, that is a good reason for voting for mike dukakis on the eighth of november. [applause] supported thesh bork nomination. mr. bush has appointed over it to. i pointed over 130, so i have a record. i don't ask people whether they are republicans or democrats. i have appointed prosecutors and defenders. i don't appoint people that i think are liberal or that i think are conservative. i appoint people of independence

and integrity and intelligence who will give credit to the bench. and those of the standards i will use in nominating those in the supreme court. these appointments are for life. these of women's are for life. -- i wonder who he is talking about liberals. the republican oral warren? i think chief justice warren was an outstanding chief justice. >> governor, millions of americans are entitled to some of the protections and benefits the government provides, including social security, pensions, medicare, medicaid. in fact there are so many millions of americans who are eligible, the government can't continue to pay for all of his problems. a blue-ribbon panel shortly after the election is likely to

recommend that you go where the money is when you make budget cuts. before the election, would you commit yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements on to be withdrawn? gov. dukakis: why do people who want to balance budget always go to those programs which tend to benefit people of very modest means? 2/3 of the people in this country who receive social security checks live entirely on that check. they have no other income. and yet mr. bush tried to cut the cost of living increase. medicare is not getting less expensive. medical care for the elderly is getting more expensive. with greater deductibles, fewer benefits, the kinds of things we can't in this demonstration that have cut, chopped, and reduced the kind of benefits one gets under medicare. we have catastrophic health insurance.

that will be in additional burden on elderly citizens. should have had bipartisan support. i suggest that we understand that those will be additional cost on senior citizens across this country. i am not going to begin with entitlements as a means for cutting that deficit. we are spending billions on something like star wars, when we are spending billions on other weapon systems that the vice president wants to keep in his back pocket or someplace, but if we continue to spend billions on, it will force us to cut social security and medicare. i talked in her first debate about the possibilities of helping millions of where fair welfare.to get off of

i am proud to say we have a welfare reform bill. hundreds of thousands of welfare mothers in this country who today are working and earning are examples of what happened when you provide training, day care. that is the way you bring a deficit down and help to improve policy of life for people at the same time. [applause] v.p. bush: let me say for the .ecord, i did not vote to cut i voted the same way that he did three months before international governance conference. he said at that time, a paraphrase "a freeze? that's easy." i am going to keep the social security trust fund sound. but i do think there are flexible ways to solve some of the pressing problems that affect our children. i have made some good sound

proposals. again, we have a big difference on childcare. i want families to have the choice. i don't want to see the federal government licensing grandmothers. i don't want to see the guttural government saying to communities, you can't do this anymore. i want flexibility. about thele laugh 1000 points -- you want to go out and see what is happening in the volunteer sector. americans helping americans. i want to keep it alive in childcare and in other entitlements. [applause] i will has on the question i originally planned to ask you to follow up on a rebuttal involved in social security. it is true that originally you sought an exemption in the news -- and the governors association vote.