All language subtitles for The.West.Wing.S07E07.WEBRip.x264-FGT

Previously on The West Wing...

Vinick is
a terrific debater.

He doesn't need a debate;
we do.

We're gonna get a deal
on debates soon enough

and on our terms.

It's a negotiating session
for presidential debates.

Vinick'd Santos's abortion-
loving ass all over the stage.

Game over.
Check, please.

He wants us to get
into a mud-wrestling match

with Matt Santos?

You'd better hope
this works.

Vinick can live
without debates.

We don't get him, we're toast.

If we can have a real debate
on the issues--

just you and me.

How's Sunday night?

FORREST SAWYER:
Hey, good evening.

( applause )

( Sawyer clears throat )

SAWYER:
Ha, ha.

( applause continues )

SAWYER:
Well, we've got a good audience.

( knock at door )

SHEILA:
Three minutes, Senator.

SAWYER:
Oh, I know that, uh...

I have to go downstairs

for the last-minute
pre-game press spin.

Bruno's gonna walk you
to the stage, okay?

Yup.

Don't worry about getting
everything in every answer.

We can fill in the blanks

with the press
in the spin room afterwards.

Remember,
two-minute answers,

followed by one-minute
rebuttals, moderator's option

to allow a 30-second rebuttal
to the rebuttal,

or you can move on.
Stupid rules.

Two minutes,
one minute, 30 seconds.

What... what can you say
in 30 seconds?

Santos' people negotiated them
to protect him.

Why the hell
did we agree to them?

Because they
protect you, too.

No, they don't.
They screw me up.

They make me feel stiff.

Just... be yourself.

Don't forget to smile.

I'm telling you,
Santos is terrified

to go out on that stage
tonight.

You have no idea
what this feels like.

"Terrified" doesn't
begin to describe it.

LOU:
Worst thing you could do is
struggle with the moderator.

SANTOS:
No, no, the worst thing I can do
is forget about everything

I've come here to say, every
debate point I ever memorized,

every word of my opening
statement, every...

You are gonna
be great.

I don't feel great.

You've been
through tougher
stuff than this.

Like?

Combat.

Flashing yellow light means
you've got 15 seconds.

Red light means...
Let me guess.

Vinick's gonna hide
behind the rules.

He's got no answer to how
he's gonna pay for his tax cuts.

He's gonna run the clock
out on that one.

You can do that, too.

If you get in a jam,
use a paragraph

from your stump speech
to get you to the red light.

The rules are your friend.

Use them to make sure
so this doesn't become

A debate.
a debate.
Exactly.

SAWYER:
Good evening, and welcome to
the first presidential debate

with the Republican Party's
nominee,

California Senator
Arnold Vinick,

and the Democratic Party's
nominee,

Texas Congressman
Matthew Santos.

( applause )

I'm Forrest Sawyer, and I will
moderate tonight's debate,

following rules worked out

by representatives
of the candidates.

Now, I've agreed
to enforce their rules.

Each candidate will have
a two-minute opening statement.

I will then ask a series
of questions,

all of them chosen by me alone.

I have told no one

what the subjects
or the questions will be.

For each question, there will be
a two-minute answer, followed by

a one-minute rebuttal with
the possibility of a 30-second

extension of the discussion
at my discretion.

A yellow light...

( audience murmurs, chuckles)

A yellow light will come on

when there are 15 seconds left
in an answer.

A flashing red means time's up.

And if we need it,
we have a backup buzzer.

I think time's up on the rules,
Forrest.

Well... there's a little more,
Congressman.

Candidates may not direct
questions

or statements to each other,

and they will have two-minute
closing statements.

The last rule is for our
audience here in the hall.

Now that you've had your fun,

they will remain silent

until the end of the debate

when we can all give democracy
a big round of applause.

And now, as determined
by the flip of a coin,

the first opening statement
will be from Senator Vinick.

Thank you.

It is truly an honor
to be here tonight.

I would...

You know, I've watched every
televised presidential debate

this country has ever had.

And every time I heard them
recite the rules, I always

thought that means they're not
going to have a real debate.

When the greatest...

the greatest hero
in the history of my party,

Abraham Lincoln,
when he debated,

he didn't need any rules.

He wasn't afraid
of a real debate.

Now, I could do a two-minute

version of my "sensible
solutions" stump speech,

and I'm sure
Congressman Santos

has a memorized opening
statement ready to go,

and then we could go on
with this ritual

and let the rules control
how much you're going to learn

about the next President
of the United States.

Or we could have a debate
Lincoln would've been proud of.

We could junk the rules.

We could let our able
and judicious moderator

ask his questions, and we could
forget about whether or not

each of us gets exactly the same
number of seconds to speak.

We could have a real debate,

if that's all right
with you, Matt.

SAWYER:
Um, Senator,
according to the rules,

the candidates may not direct...

SANTOS:
No, no, please.

You mean like a senate debate?

You gonna filibuster me?

Grab the microphone
for the whole hour?

No.

( audience laughs )

No, we tell the American people
what they need to hear--

no more, no less.

I suspect the audience
will reward brevity.

( audience laughs )

( applause )

Okay.

Let's have a real debate.

SAWYER:
Gentlemen,
I just want to be clear.

You both want to abandon
the rules

your representatives negotiated
and rely on me

to moderate
an open debate
in a fair way.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.

Let's do it.

All right, then. I will follow

the order determined
by the coin toss

and that means
the first question

goes to Senator Vinick.

Senator, the governors
of Arizona and New Mexico

have officially declared
a state of emergency

on their Mexican borders

because of illegal immigration.

How would you secure
the Mexican border?

Enforcement first.

That's my policy.

I would double
the border patrol--

not just increase it, double it.

Why not triple it, Senator?

Are you proposing tripling...?

Because we already did.

Since 1990, we have tripled--
not doubled--

we've tripled the border patrol
on the Mexican border

and you don't need me
to tell you

that it hasn't solved
the problem.

If we had more agents...

Doubling the border patrol means

that 80% of illegal entries
will get in instead of 90%.

Don't let anyone tell you

that the border can be secured
by doubling the border patrol.

The problem of illegal
immigration is much bigger

than the border patrol.

Look, I have family
who have lived

in Texas since it was Mexico.

I have other relatives
who have come here legally

and, yes, some who have
come here illegally.

I have lived this problem.

The senator talks about

how easy it is
to cross the Rio Grande.

I think he should tell that

to the families
of the men, women and children

who have died trying to do it.

I'm not saying
it's not a tragedy...

This is not
a law enforcement problem.

This is an economic problem.

If Mexico's economy
was as strong as Canada's,

there wouldn't be a problem.

The president cannot
solve this problem;

you can't seal
a 2,000-mile border.

Mexico has to solve it.

Mexico has to grow its economy,
provide enough jobs

so that it's not worth it to try
to cross our borders illegally.

There is no other real solution
to this problem--

Senator Vinick is smart enough
to know that--

and I think you are, too.

( applause )

( clears throat )

Senator Vinick...

Senator Vinick,

Senator Vinick, I think it's
fair to say the centerpiece

of your campaign is
your promise to cut taxes.

So, could you tell us
specifically, sir,

how you would cut spending
to pay for those tax cuts?

What do you mean
"pay for the tax cuts"?

I mean, would you cut spending
in the same amount

that you cut taxes in order
to balance the budget?

Liberals, who are opposed
to tax cuts anyway,

always say you can't cut taxes
until you've cut spending.

I say we can lecture our
children about overspending

until we run out of breath,

or we can just cut
their allowance.

I'm a cut-the-allowance
kind of parent.

( audience laughs )

Well, I'm a grandparent now,

so I'm a little less strict,
less strict than I used to be.

All right, but I...

I'm going to cut
Congress's allowance.

And then I'm going to force them
to get control of spending

because if they don't,

if they send me a budget
that's not balanced,

I will use this pen to veto it.

SAWYER:
Congressman Santos...

( applause continues )

Congressman Santos...

Congressman Santos,
your response.

Well, I hope everyone noticed

that the senator did not answer
the question.

He didn't tell you what spending
he will cut.

Would you like to try that again
Senator?

I said
I will balance the budget.

Well, we've seen this game
before.

See, we have a proven record
on Republican tax cuts.

First they cut taxes.

And then they never get around
to cutting spending,

so they run up huge deficits,

and they leave a massive debt
for our children to pay.

If you elect me as president,
that is a game I won't play.

You know, Congressman Santos is
running a very brave campaign.

I have to give him that.

I really, I have to give you
credit for that.

He's actually promising
a tax increase,

which is a brave
thing to do,

because the American
people don't want it,

and it's the wrong thing to do

because the American people
don't want it.

But even his big tax increases
won't raise enough money

to pay for the big spending
increases he's promising.

So.... so, President Santos
would have to do exactly

what he's promising not to do:

run up huge deficits
and leave a massive debt

for our children
and grandchildren to pay.

Wrong. Wrong.

I am going to balance
the budget.

Gentlemen, gentlemen,

I'd like to get an answer
to my original question

on spending cuts.

( laughter )

Now, are either of you prepared
to specify what spending cuts

you would make in order
to balance the budget?

Well, I...

Okay, just as a hypothetical,

let's accept the worst-case
scenario that neither one of us

would be able to pay
for everything we want to do

as president.

Then your choice
is between a Republican

who can't pay
for tax cuts

or a Democrat who can't pay
for spending increases

even after raising taxes.

I think the American people know
how to make that choice.

( laughter )

Congressman Santos...

( applause )

Congressman Santos,
throughout this campaign

you said you want to be
the education president.

Now what does that mean?

What role should the federal
government play in education?

Level the playing field.

Help close the gap

between Beverly Hills High
and Harlem High.

You know, we've got
to change a system

that says the quality
of your education depends

on where you live.

Throw more money
at the problem.

That's the Democratic
party way.

You want to throw money
at the border.

You think that solving
the border problem...

Let me finish.
Before you vote

for someone
who thinks

you can buy
higher test scores

for poor students, know this:

The highest-spending public
school system in the country

has the lowest test scores.

Washington, D.C. spends more
than every state--

$15,000 per pupil--
and nothing to show for it.

I am not talking about just
throwing money at the problem,

I am talking about supporting
the new approaches

that have already succeeded
in some school districts.

Now, the president can spread
those good ideas

around the country

and make sure every student
gets the chance

that he or she deserves.

Except the chance

to go to a private school.

The Republican Congress passed

a federally, a federally funded
voucher program

for Washington, D.C.

to help poor students who can't,
who can't go to private schools.

Well, we got
more applications
than we could handle.

Poor minority parents
desperately want

to get their kids out
of failing public schools,

but the Democrats
won't let them.

Oh, that's right.

The big, bad Democrats
don't want to take money away

from public schools
to give them to
private schools.

I mean, what's next?

Taking money away
from police departments

to give
to private security guards?

The federal government
contributes about every...

seven cents from,
from each dollar

that's spent on public schools.

Now, if you enact every bit
of the Santos education plan,

then that will go
up to eight cents.

Do you really think

you get to call yourself
the education president

if you're only going
to address

eight percent
of the education budget?

The federal share
is much higher than that, sir,

if you take into account
the Headstart program.

I can understand why
you don't include Headstart

in the total of federal funding
since you've voted against it.

Headstart doesn't work.

( audience jeering )

I wish Headstart did work,
but it doesn't.

By grade four and five,

Headstart graduates
do no better academically

than their equally poor
classmates

who didn't attend Headstart.

So, yes, I have voted
against expansions

of a $6 billion program

that's not raising
academic achievement.

But Headstart does raise scores
in the early years,

and then we let
them slip.

Our whole school system has
been slipping now for years

in our ranking
with other countries

in science and math achievement.

We've got to find a way
to turn that around.

If we provide school systems
and teachers

with everything they need

and the flexibility
to experiment

with fresh new approaches,

I think that American students
can be number one in the world

in math and science achievement
in ten years.

That's a lie.

MAN:
You're the liar!

Please! Ladies and gentlemen,

I think we should impose the
original rule on the audience.

I'm going to ask you
to please remain silent

for the remainder of the debate.

Senator Vinick,
Senator Vinick,

we've managed to maintain
a civil tone

throughout this discussion,

and unless we can continue
to do that,

I'm going to impose the original
rules on the candidates as well.

It's a lie that every president,
Democrat and Republican,

has been telling for 20 years:

"We're going to be
number one in ten years."

Go ahead,
Google it right now.

I'm not saying
that every president
knew it was a lie

when he said it,

or that Congressman Santos
knows it's not true, but I do.

So let me tell you
what our goals should be,

our realistic goals.

First of all, let's, let's stop
pretending that everyone can

or should go to college.

Every airline needs
high-paid mechanics,

None of them have
to go to college.

There are plumbers
in some parts of
the country

who make
a better living
than dentists.

Now, I'm not talking
about lowering
our ambitions.

I'm talking about targeting
our ambitions correctly.

Now, it's true

some other countries are doing
better academically

than they used to,

but we still have the best
scientists in the world,

the best doctors, and by far
the most Nobel prizes.

And If a kid does well in one
of those foreign high schools,

guess where he or she wants
to go to college.

That's right: Harvard, Stanford,
Cal Tech, University of Texas,

and a hundred
other American
universities

that are better than anything
they have in their countries.

Now, if we're going

to have a practical approach
to education,

we're going to have to admit

that not everyone can go
to M.I.T.,

but most of the kids
who do go to M.I.T.

come from American
public schools.

Gentlemen, I would like
to turn to health care.

Senator, there are now
45 million Americans

who have no health insurance
at all.

What can the government do

to make health care affordable
for them?

Make it tax deductible.

Instantly cuts the price
by as much as 35%.

That happens to be one
of the items

in my tax cut package.

You really think

tax cuts are the answer
for everything.

If it's deductible...

That won't help at all.

The uninsured are in
the 35% tax bracket,

not in the 10% bracket.

So, your deduction would
only give them a 10% discount.

So then a $10,000 policy
would cost $9,000.

Now, does that sound like
something that a mother of three

making $30,000 a year
can afford?

Okay, so after
you've raised taxes

and you've enacted every bit
of the Santos healthcare plan,

then all the health care
problems in America

will be solved, right?

Everyone will have
health insurance,

everyone will be happy.

No, but it will move us
towards universal health
coverage.

Towards universal
coverage.

So it won't cover
the 45...

It'll be a very large
first step

towards universal
health coverage.

First step. So after you've
enacted the plan

that you're proposing here
tonight,

how many people will that leave
without health insurance?

The first stage
of my plan would cover

at least 15 million people.

15 million.
Yes, 15 million,

which represents the single
biggest increase

in health insurance coverage
that the federal government... .

So after raising taxes

and creating a massive
new bureaucracy

to run a complex government
health insurance program,

the Santos health plan
will leave 30 million people

without health insurance.

Do you really think
that the Congress

is going to let you do all that

and not even cover
half the problem?

To tell you the truth,

I'm not crazy about
my health care plan, either.

It's what I think
can get through Congress.

My ideal plan, very simple:

Just delete the words "over 65"
from the Medicare statute.

( scattered applause )

No, wait, excuse me.

You, you want
to put everyone in the country

on Medicare.

Why not? You want to start
on the whole socialized
medicine rap now?

Well, yeah, for starters.

Well, this is
never gonna happen

because Senator Vinick...

Can you hear me?

No, sir. No, sir.
Let's...

Okay.
No, no, no.

Senator Vinick
and the insurance companies

will never let it happen,

but if you all had
an option, an option,

of using Medicare,
you could save a lot of money.

Private health insurance
companies, they spend

about 25% of your money
on administrative costs--

on paperwork.

Do you know how much Medicare
spends on administrative costs?

Would anyone like to guess?

WOMAN:
35%.
35%.

MAN:
40%.

40%. Anyone want to go higher?

WOMAN:
45.

Yeah, you see,

you think
it would be higher

than private companies, right?

A massive government bureaucracy
can't be more efficient

than private companies.

Republicans have been telling
you that forever.

Two. 2%.

Medicare's administrative costs
are 2%-- that's 23% lower

than private health insurance
companies and HMOs.

The best-kept secret in this
country is that Medicare

is the most efficient
health care system in the world.

If you had the option

of choosing Medicare

instead of your private
insurance companies,

you would save big money,
at least 20%.

That's crazy.

Medicare taxes
would skyrocket.

Yes, the Medicare tax
would have to go up,

but it still would be much lower

than your present health care
insurance premiums.

I don't know about you,
but if you give me a choice

between something
called a premium

and something called a tax,

my only question's going to be,
which one's going to be cheaper?

I literally don't know
where to begin.

I mean, to force everyone
in the country into...

I wouldn't force anyone.

I would just give them
the option.

See what happens
when the HMOs have

to compete
with an efficient system

that allows you to choose
your own doctor

and to make your own
health care decisions.

Are you finished?
Because if you have
anything sensible

to say about health care,
I'd sure like to hear it.

You know, coming from a guy
who has no plan at all,

who has spent a career saying
"no, no, no"

to every healthcare
reform package

that has ever come
to Congress...

Do you have another one
of these microphones?

You gentlemen aren't going to go
out into the audience, are you?

Okay, let me
leave it at this:

I am opposed to Congressman
Santos's compromise plan

and to his dream plan,

and I pledge to you here tonight

I will never raise
the Medicare tax, not one penny.

Senator, you're on
Medicare, right?

I'm on the Senate
health care plan.

And you use the Medicare
as a supplement to that plan.

Yes, but I haven't...

Medicare is good enough
for the Senator,

but it's not good enough for us?

I'm just saying
that if we could
join Medicare,

we could have
a much cheaper,

much more efficient
health care system.

Let me raise a related issue
if I possibly could, Senator,

and that is prescription drugs
whose prices have been going up

at more than twice
the rate of inflation.

So do you favor

re-importing American drugs
from Canada

where they are much cheaper?

You know why

Canadian drugs are cheaper?

Why drugs are cheaper up there
in Canada?

Because the government controls
the price.

You know how many
lifesaving drugs are invented

in Canada? None.

Because the government controls
the price.

Well, Canadian
laboratories
have helped

to create some
very important drugs.

Nothing like
the miraculous drugs

that the American pharmaceutical
industry has given

to the entire world.

"Given to the world"?

I guess you haven't seen
their price lists lately.

( laughter )

Not long ago, if you were,

if you were HIV-positive
in this country,

you were marked for death.

Not anymore,

And that's thanks

to the American
pharmaceutical companies.

In the 1970s, the most common
cause of surgery was for ulcers.

Now you get an ulcer,
you take a pill.

Is it an expensive pill?

Yes. Yeah, a dollar seems
like a lot to pay for a pill.

But how does a dollar a day
sound compared

to a $40,000 surgery bill?

So, are prescription drugs
expensive? Yes.

Do they save us
from getting hit

with much more expensive
hospital bills? Yes.

Do they save lives? Yes.

American pharmaceutical
companies save us money

and they save lives,

and the Democrats can't stop
attacking them.

Why should the pharmaceutical
industry get protection

that no other American industry
gets?

We can buy anything else
from Canada.

Why not prescription drugs?

Because Canadian price controls
are not fair

to American companies.

They're not fair?
No, they're not.

Is it fair
that AIDS victims

have been dying in Africa
for years

because drug companies

have been protecting
their profit margins?

Drug makers have lowered their
prices in Africa dramatically.

Only after we have
pushed them to do it.

And they're still not low enough

to, to get to every person
who really needs them in Africa.

People are not dying
in Africa

because of, of, of
drug companies.

They're dying because they don't
have clean water supplies

and because they don't have
a basic infrastructure

for a health care system,

and because they have
corrupt leaders

who frequently prevent our help

from getting to the sick people
who need it.

Well, yes, health care
delivery in Africa is weak.

Which is why
we have to provide

full-scale debt relief
for those countries

so that they can concentrate

on building up
their basic infrastructure

instead of the impossible
burden of repaying loans

to the rich countries
of the world.

Debt relief is a nice idea,
but it won't help.

It will just formalize
the reality

that poor countries can never
repay their loans.

Senator, are you saying you're
opposed for debt relief

for impoverished countries?

No, we should forgive the debts,

but that's not going to help
those countries very much.

Okay.

What will?

Tax cuts.

( laughing )

( applause )

Some African tax rates are
the highest in the world.

In Tanzania,

the 30% rate kicks in
at $475 of income.

Plus, they have
a 20% value-added tax.

It's gets added to
everything you buy.

Those high tax rates
make it impossible

to build capital
in those countries,

so nothing gets built--

not factories, not roads,
not anything.

Poor African countries

have the lowest-wage workers
in the world.

And yet, a company like Nike,
for instance,

can't put a factory
in one of those countries

because of the oppressive
tax rates.

Taxes have killed
any possibility

of economic development.

They've killed any hope

of these countries
ever helping themselves.

Helping themselves.

Which that...
and that leaves them

completely at the mercy
of charity and loans.

And here...

here's the worst part.

You know why those countries
have such high tax rates?

Because of us.

To show us that they can
raise enough money

to pay back their loans.

But taxes can't raise any money
if they kill the economies.

So it turns out that the tragic,
unintended consequence

of our good intentions toward
Africa, our kindness,

is that we have encouraged
those countries

to lock themselves into
a gruesome economic depression.

If we don't urge those countries
to cut their tax rates,

they will never
grow their economies.

People will live lifetimes
of unemployment.

Disease will be rampant,
poverty will be permanent,

and children will be hungry.

And our charity
will never be enough.

Never.

right here at home.

Congressman Santos, an awful
lot of people are afraid

that their jobs
are going to be outsourced

to low-wage countries, or
they're just going to be lost

in another round of belt-
tightening at their companies.

So what will you do
to increase job security?

Well, first, we already
have a program

called the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program

which provides job retraining
to those workers,

who have lost their jobs
to foreign trade.

As president,
I would add to that

any workers who lose their jobs
to outsourcing.

My economic program

and my plan to keep
American workers competitive

will keep on building
on President Bartlet's

extraordinary job record.

And I think
it'll keep us on track

to create a million jobs

by the end of my first term
of presidency.

A million jobs?

How many jobs would you create
in your first term, Senator?

None.

( crowd murmuring )

In fact, I'll cut jobs.

I will reduce the number of jobs
in the federal government.

I know I am supposed to tell you
that my tax cuts

will stimulate the economy
and therefore create jobs.

Entrepreneurs create jobs.

Business creates jobs.

The president's job
is to get out of the way.

Do you want a president
who will get out of their way

when corrupt executives are
plundering a company like Enron?

Hey, I'll go after
corporate criminals.

My running mate, Ray
Sullivan, was very tough

on white-collar crime
when he was a prosecutor.

And my attorney general
will be just as tough.

Do you want a president
who will get out of the way

when airline executives

are putting their companies
up to bankruptcy

so that they can avoid pension
responsibilities to the workers

who have given their lives
to these companies?

Some of our major
and older airlines

are having trouble
meeting their huge
pension obligations

at the very same time
that they're under intense,

intense competition
from low-cost airlines

that are so new,

they don't yet have
pensions to pay.

Now, an unthinking liberal

will describe
the airline bankruptcies

as the evil capitalists
screwing the worker...
I didn't say that,

Senator, I don't think you
should put words in my mouth.

No, I know you didn't say it.

You're not an unthinking
liberal, are you?

( chuckling )

I know you like

to use that word "liberal"

as if it were a crime.
No, I'm sorry.

I shouldn't have used that word.

I know Democrats think "liberal"
is a bad word--

so bad you had to change it,
didn't you?

What do you call yourselves now,
progressives, is that it?

It's true, Republicans
have tried to turn "liberal"

into a bad word.

Well, liberals ended slavery
in this country.

( applause )

A Republican president
ended slavery.

Yes, a liberal Republican.

What happened to them?

They got run out
of your party.

What did liberals do
that was so offensive

to the Republican party,
Senator?

I'll tell you
what they did.

Liberals got women
the right to vote.

Liberals got African Americans
the right to vote.

Liberals created social security

and lifted millions of elderly
people out of poverty.

Liberals ended segregation.

Liberals passed
the Civil Rights Act,

the Voting Rights Act.

Liberals created Medicare.

Liberals passed
the Clean Air Act,

the Clean Water Act.

What did conservatives do?

They opposed
every one of those programs.

Every one.

So when you try to hurl that
word "liberal" at my feet,

as if it were something dirty,

something
to run away from,

something that I
should be ashamed of,

it won't work, Senator,

because I will
pick up that label

and I will wear it
as a badge of honor.

( applause )

( cheering )
SAWYER:
It is...

( applause )

And, Senator Vinick...

let me try gun control.

Do we need more of it?

No. The constitution gives us
the right to bear arms.

It's not up to the president
to choose

which law-abiding citizens
the constitution applies to.

Congressman Santos.
I think we should

forget about
more gun control.

What we need
is bullet control.

That's right, there are
at least 200 million guns

in this country,
I own three of them.

We cannot control
the supply of guns,

but we can control
the supply of ammunition.

Buying bullets
shouldn't be easier

than buying a plane ticket.

We should license the purchase
of handgun ammunition.

There should be a clear record,

an ID record, of every purchase
of handgun ammo.

In the 21st century, homicide
detectives should be able

to trace every fired bullet
back to the buyer in minutes.

SAWYER:
Gentlemen, let's...

let's turn to energy.

We have seen record high
gasoline prices this year.

Now is this a glimpse
of an even worse future

if we don't adopt a policy
that allows us

to meet our energy needs at
reasonable prices, Congressman?

Well, obviously, it is time
for us to get really serious

about developing
alternative energy sources

and stop letting
the oil companies

dictate our energy policy for us

while they rack up
record high profits.

There you go again,
the Democratic party line.

"Attack big business."

I'm not attacking
the oil companies...

Yes, you are.
Look, Arnie,

I understand that
the oil companies

have given a lot of money
to your campaign...

So I'm their puppet, huh?

Is that what you're saying?
They own me?

Gentlemen, let's get back
to the issue.
No, no, no.

He doesn't get to smear
me, and then move on.

I didn't smear...
That's exactly what
you're trying to do.

Gentlemen, let's just take

a breath if we could...
No, let's talk about
the money...

right now, right now.

He raised it, I think
I have a right to respond.

SAWYER:
All right, sir, go ahead.

I've disclosed the name of
every one of the 220,000 people

who have contributed
to my campaign.

There are no secrets about where
my campaign money comes from.

Some of my contributors
work for oil companies.

Liberals want you
to think that's evil.

They want you to think
you can't be a good American

if you work for an oil company.

I've got relatives

working all over
the old fields of Texas.

I'm just saying that your
positions on energy, Senator,

are exactly what
the oil companies want to hear,

which is why they've given
so much money to your campaign.

And your positions on spending,

on creating
more government jobs,

they're exactly what the public
employee unions want to hear,

and that's why they've poured
money into your campaign.

You want to talk about
conflict of interest...

Who's throwing cheap
accusations around...
You started it...

Gentlemen, I'm going to have
to stop it right there.

I'm just trying...
Senator!

I'm sorry.

Congressman Santos,
you have said

that we have to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil.

So why not agree to drill

in Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge?

Because we cannot drill our way
to energy independence.

There's only about a year's
worth of oil underneath there.

I don't think
that's worth disrupting

a million years
of ecological balance

and a unique
and spectacular wilderness.

That ecosystem
is much more valuable

than the oil
that's underneath it.

The pathway to a better,
more sustainable energy future

does not go through the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.

SAWYER:
Senator.

A year's worth of oil--

that sounds like a lot to me.

And there could be more there,
there could be much more.

I mean, we'll never know
until we get in there

and start drilling.

This isn't the Grand Canyon
we're talking about here.

How many people have been
to the Grand Canyon?

( applause )

If they discovered big oil
reserves at the Grand Canyon,

I would never
let them drill there

because that's our most
magnificent natural monument

and because real people
get to go there.

They get to see it,
they get to touch it,

they get to experience it
in all its glory.

Now, we're talking
about a country

that has oil wells
within sight

of the beautiful beaches
of Santa Barbara,

oil wells within sight
of every Texas beach.

There are thousands
of operating oil wells

in the city
of Los Angeles.

I saw an oil well

in the parking lot
of a McDonald's

in Long Beach
just the other day.

The Democrats are saying
we can't put oil wells

in a place so remote that
only animals will see them?

I wish we could put
all our oil wells there

where no one will ever see them.

( applause )

Congressman,

there are other approaches.

Would you support, for instance,

building more nuclear power
plants in order to reduce

our dependence
on foreign energy sources?

No. No, we still haven't...
not, we have not figured out

what to do
with the radioactive waste

from the plants
that we already have.

Nuclear power is a completely
safe, dependable energy source.

Of course we should build more.

Did you say
"completely safe"?

Look, I don't want
to be an alarmist here,

but there are plenty
of obvious safety concerns.

That's why we stopped
building them.

The government
should be supporting

the development
of alternative energy sources

and all of the
new technologies

like solar power,
wind power,

all of the other new, safer
alternatives to nuclear power.

How about that, Senator?

Government support
of alternative energy sources.

I don't trust
politicians to choose

the right new
energy sources.

I believe in
the free market.

You know, the government
didn't switch us from whale oil

to the oil
found under the ground--

the market did that.

The government
didn't make the Prius

the hottest-selling car
in Hollywood,

That was the market
that did that. You know,

in L.A. now, the coolest thing
you can drive is a hybrid.

Well, if the free
market can do that

in the most car-crazed
culture on earth,

then I trust the free market
to solve our energy problems.

You know, you know,
the market has the power

to change the way we think.

To change what we want.

The government can't do that.

That's why the market has always

been a better problem-solver
than the government,

and it always will be.

While you're trusting
the market,

we're burning fossil fuels
more and more every day,

and global warming is melting
the polar ice caps.

The same people
who told us

we were going to
run out of oil

by the end of the
20th century

are now trying to scare
us with global warming.

Theories?!

Yeah, global
warming theory--

that's all it is.

You don't think that there is a,
a consensus going about that

global warming
is melting...
Oh, no.

All they're talking about
is an increase of one degree

in the earth's
temperature...
I cannot
believe that you're...

SAWYER:
Gentlemen. Gentlemen!

Gentlemen.

We're running
short of time.

And I would like to ask
one final question on energy.

We're going to be dependent
on foreign energy sources

for quite some time, so

what can you do to assure

a dependable supply
of oil? Congressman.

Well, let me start by saying
what I would not do

because it is the most important
part of my energy policy.

I will never go to war
for oil. Never.

( applause )

SAWYER:
Please.

Please.

And I would like
to invite

Senator Vinick
to join me in that pledge.

( applause )

SAWYER:
Ladies and gentlemen,

ladies and gentlemen,
would you like to listen

to yourselves applaud
or would you like to listen

to the candidates speak?

Please. Senator.

It's ridiculous to suggest that
we would ever have to go to war

to assure our oil supply.

Oil is a commodity--
it's traded on a world market.

You don't have to shoot
anyone to get it.

You just have to pay for it.

And by the way,
you know... all right.

You know who our biggest
supplier of foreign oil is?

WOMAN:
Saudi Arabia?

No. No.

Wrong. Canada.

So let's stop
the hysterical talk

about the evils of foreign oil.

If it's ridiculous to even think
of going to war for oil,

then join me in my pledge.

No, that would be

like going to
war for sugar.

Do you want to take a
pledge against that, too?

You know, you know, the
oil exporting companies

the, the countries, the
countries who export oil--

they have to sell
it to survive.

They need us to buy it.

They couldn't cut us
off if they wanted to.

Will you join me
in the pledge, Senator?

I will not demean the presidency

by taking any pledge other
than the oath of office.

SAWYER:
Gentlemen, we have just

a very few minutes left-- now,

would you like to use that
for your closing statements?

Yes.

SAWYER:
All right, then.

According to
the coin toss,

the first closing statement

is from Congressman Santos.

Well, Senator Vinick was eager
to take a pledge about taxes,

but now taking a pledge
about anything else

is beneath the dignity
of the presidency.

Now, to his credit,
the senator's very
honest about the fact

that he has
no health care plan,

no education plan,
no jobs plan, no energy plan.

All he has is a tax plan.

After he cuts taxes,
what's he going to do

for the next four years?

( laughter, applause )

Tax cuts... tax cuts are not

a magic wand that you can
wave at every problem.

Senator Vinick was very quick
to attack my plans,

but the presidency
is about more

than saying no, no, no.

You have to say

yes to something.

You have to do something.

We don't have time
for me to remind you

of every policy difference
that you've heard here tonight,

but when you go
to work tomorrow

and you're talking
about this debate,

talk about the qualities
that you want in a president,

the leadership qualities.

Ask yourselves:
is Matt Santos the kind of guy

who's going to give up
on the promises

that he's made to you tonight

because it's going to be
too tough to get them done?

Talk about what it was like
for Matt Santos

to go from where he was baptized
45 years ago in San Antonio

to where he's standing tonight.

Ask yourselves
what it takes to do that.

And then ask yourselves
if you're ready

to give Matt Santos the
presidency of the United States.

( applause )

Senator Vinick,
your closing statement.

First of all, I want
to thank Matt for agreeing

to drop the rules and letting us
have a real debate tonight.

And what you've heard,

over and above the many
important policy differences,

were different philosophies
of government.

You know, I believe
mo... both of us want

what's best for this country.

We just have different ideas
about how to get there.

I think it's fair
to say that Matt has

more confidence in
government than I do.

I have more confidence
in freedom--

your freedom.

Your freedom to choose
your child's school.

Your freedom to choose
the car or truck

that's right for you
and your family.

Your freedom to save or spend
your hard-earned money

instead of having
the government spend it for you.

No, you see, I'm...

I'm not anti-government.

I just don't want any more
government than we can afford.

We don't want
government doing

things it doesn't
know how to do,

doing things
the private sector

does better, or
throwing more money

at failed programs,
because that's

exactly what makes people
lose faith in government.

And all of us--
Democrats, Republicans,

liberals, conservatives,

we all want a government
we can believe in.

We all want a government that
doesn't make false promises,

a government that
doesn't overreach,

that doesn't take on more
than it can handle,

an efficient, effective,
honest government--

that's what
the Founding Fathers created;

that's what they wanted for us.

The choice in this election
comes down to this:

Do we want more government?

Or do we want to get
control of government?

To govern is to choose, and

the choices are never easy.

That takes experience
and mature judgment.

That's what the presidency needs
now more than ever,

and that's why I ask you
to give me your vote,

so that I can give you

the government you were promised
by the Founding Fathers.

Thank you very much.

( applause )

Senator Vinick...

Senator Vinick,
Congressman Santos,

our thanks to you both.

Ladies and gentlemen,
that is our debate.

Thank you for watching.

Good night.

( applause )