Bush - Gore Debate Transcript (continued)

(CBS)  Back to previous text.
GORE: And as for this idea of nation-building. The phrase sounds grandiose. And, you know, we can't be we can't allow ourselves to get overextended. I certainly agree with that. And that's why I've supported building, building up our capacity. I've devoted in the budget I've proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as the governor has proposed.

I think that it's in better shape now than he generally does. We've had some disagreements about that. He said that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that's not what the Joint Chiefs say. But there's no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness and military strength, and we have to also be very cautious in the way we use our military.

LEHRER: In the nonmilitary area of influencing events around the world, in the financial and economic area, World Bank President Wolfensohn said recently, Governor, that U.S. contributions to overseas development assistance is lower now almost than it has ever been. Is that a problem for you? Do you think, what is your, what is your idea about what the United States' obligations are? We're talking about financial assistance and that sort of thing to other countries, the poorer countries?

BUSH: Well, I mentioned Third World debt.

LEHRER: Sure.

BUSH: That's a place where we can use our generosity to influence, in a positive way, influence nations. I believe we ought to have foreign aid, but I don't think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of foreign aid. I think foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform.

I think a lot of times we just spend aid and say we feel better about it, and it ends up being spent the wrong way.

And there's some pretty egregious examples recently, one being Russia where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn't help the nation.

I think the IMF has got a role in the world, but I don't want to see the IMF out there as a way to say to world bankers, "If you make a bad loan, we'll bail you out." It needs to be available for emergency situations.

I thought the president did the right thing with Mexico and was very strongly supportive of the administration in Mexico. But I don't think IMF and our ought to be a stop-loss for people who ought to be able to evaluate risks themselves.

And so, I look at every place where we're investing money; I just want to make sure the return is good.

LEHRER: You think we're meeting our obligations properly?

GORE: No, I would make some changes. I think there need to be reforms in the IMF. I've generally supported it, but I've seen them make some calls that I thought were highly questionable. And I think that there's a general agreement in many parts of the world now that there ought to be changes in the IMF. The World Bank I think is enerally doing a better job.

But I think one of the big issues here that doesn't get nearly enough attention is the issue of corruption. The governor mentioned it earlier. I've worked on this issue. It's an enormous problem. And corruption in official agencies, like militaries and police departments around the world, customs official that's one of the worst forms of it.

And we have got to, again, lead by example and help these other countries that are trying to straighten out their situations find the tools in order to do it.

I just think, Jim, that this is an absolutely unique period in world history. The world's coming together, as I said, they're looking to us. And we have a fundamental choice to make: Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, "OK, the United States is going to be the leader"? And the would benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.

I think that in the aftermath of the Cold War, it's time for us to do something very similar, to step up to the plate, to provide the leadership: leadership on the environment, leadership to make sure the world economy keeps moving in the right direction. Again, that means not running big deficits here and not squandering our surplus; it means having intelligent decisions that keep our prosperity going and shepherds that economic strength so that we can provide that leadership role.

BUSH: Let me comment on that.

LEHRER: Sure.

BUSH: Yes, I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, "This is the way it's got to be. We can help." And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean, I want to empower people, I don't you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do.

I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country, say, "We do it this way, so should you." Now, I think we can help, and I know we got to encourage democracy and the marketplaces.

But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said, "Here's some IMF money," and it ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others. And yet we played like there was reform.

BUSH: The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves. Mr. Putin is going to have to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of law and normal accounting practices so that if countries and or entities invest capital, there's a reasonable rate of return, a way to get the money out of the economy.

But Russia has to make the decision. We can work with them on security matters for example, but it's their call to make.

So I'm not exactly sure where the vice president is coming from. But I think one way for us to end up being viwed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, "We do it this way, so should you."

Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, a powerful force much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans.

But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

LEHRER: Let's move on. All right, no, let's move on.

GORE: Far be it from me to suggest otherwise.

LEHRER: First, a couple of follow-ups from the vice presidential debate last week.

Vice President Gore, would you support or sign as president a federal law banning racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of government?

GORE: Yes, I would. The only thing an executive order can accomplish is to ban it in federal law enforcement agencies.

But I would also support a law in the Congress that would have the effect of doing the same thing. I just, I think that racial profiling is a serious problem.

I remember when the stories first came out about the stops in New Jersey by the highway patrol there. And I know it's been going on a long time. In some ways, this is just a new label for something that's been going on for years. But I have to confess that it was the first time that I really focused on it in a new way. And I was I was surprised at the extent of it.

And I think we've now got so many examples around the country that we really have to find ways to end this. Because, imagine what it, what it is like for someone to be singled out unfairly, unjustly and feel the unfair force of law simply because of race or ethnicity.

Now, that runs counter to what the United States of America is all about at our core. And it's not an easy problem to solve, but I, if I am entrusted with the presidency, it will be the first civil rights act of the 21st century.

BUSH: Yes. I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That's just flat wrong, and that's not what America's all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling.

One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces.

I want to obviously, in the egregious cases, we need to enforce civil rights law. But we need to make sure that internal affairs divisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments. And obviously if they don't, there needs to be a consequence at the federal level. But it's very important that we not overstep our bounds.

And I think most people most police officers are good, dedicated, honorable citizens who are doing their job, putting their lives at risk, who aren't bigoted or arent prejudiced. I don't think they ought to be held guilty, but I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it. And say to the local folks, get it done, and if you can't, there'll be a federal consequence.

LEHRER: And that could be a federal law?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: And you would agree?

GORE: I would agree. And I also agree that most police officers, of course, are doing a good job and hate this practice also.

I talked to an African-American police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts, not, not long ago, who raised this question and said that in his opinion, one of the biggest solutions is in the training, and not only the training in police procedures, but human--human relations.

And I think that racial profiling is part of a larger issue of how we deal with race in America.

And as for singling people out because of race, you know James Byrd was singled out because of his race, in Texas. And other Americans have been singled out because of their race or, or ethnicity. And that's why I think that we can embody our values by passing a hate crimes law. I think these crimes are different.

GORE: I think they're different because they're based on prejudice and hatred, which is which gives rise to crimes that have not just a single victim, but they're intended to stigmatize and dehumanize a whole group of people.

LEHRER: Do you have a different view of that?

BUSH: No, I don't really.

LEHRER: On hate crimes violence?

BUSH: No, I, we got one in Texas, and guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty and I, it's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it's the right cost; it's the right decision.

And secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect.

So racial profiling isn't just an issue at the local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more.

I believe though, I believe, sure as I'm sitting here, that most Americans really care. They're tolerant people. They're good, tolerant people. It's the very few that create most of the crisis. And we just happen to have to find them and deal with them.

LEHRER: What, if you become president, Governor, are there other areas, racial problem areas, that you would deal with as president, involving discrimination?

BUSH: Sure.

LEHRER: Again, you said Arab-Americans, but also Hispanics, Asians, as well as blacks in this country.

BUSH: Let mtell you where the biggest discrimination comes: in public education, when we just move children through the schools.

My friend Phyllis Hunter's here. She had one of the greatest lines of all lines. She said, "Reading is the new civil right." And she's right. And to make sure our society is as hopeful as it possibly can be, every single child in America must be educated, I mean every child.

It starts with making sure every child learns to read; K-2 diagnostic testing so we know whether or not there's a deficiency; curriculum that works, and phonics needs to be an integral part of our reading curriculum; intensive reading laboratories; teacher retraining.

I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. We can do better in our public schools. We can we can close an achievement gap. And it starts with making sure we have strong accountability, Jim.

One of the cornerstones of reform, and good reform, is to measure because when you measure, you can ask the question: Do they know? Is anybody being profiled? Is anybody being discriminated against? It becomes a tool, a corrective tool.

And I believe the federal government must say that if you receive any money any money from the federal government, for disadvantaged children, for example, you must show us whether or not the children are learning. And if they are, fine. And if they're not, there has to be a consequence.

And so to make sure we end up getting rid of a basic structural prejudice, is education. There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child.

LEHRER: Vice President Gore, what would be on your racial discrimination elimination list as president?

GORE: Well, I think we need tough enforcement of the civil rights laws. I think we still need affirmative action. I would pass a hate crimes law, as I said.

And I guess I had misunderstood the governor's previous position. The Byrd family may have a misunderstanding of it in Texas also.

But I'd like to shift, if I could, to the big issue of education.

LEHRER: Well, no, hold on one second. What is the misunderstanding? Let's clear this up.

GORE: Well, I had thought that there was a controversy at the end of the legislative session where the hate crimes law in Texas was--failed and that the Byrd family, among others, asked you to support it, Governor, and it died in committee for lack of support. Am I wrong about that?

BUSH: Well, you don't realize we have a hate crime statute...

GORE: I'm talking about the one that was proposed to deal...

BUSH: Well, what the vice president must not understand is we got a hate crimes bill in Texas. And secondly, the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment...

LEHRER: But they were...

BUSH: ... the death penalty.

LEHRER: They were prosecuted under the murder laws, were they not...

BUSH: Well...

LEHRER: ... in Texas?

BUSH: In this case, when you murder somebody, it's hate, Jim.

LEHRER: No, but...

BUSH: Crime is hate. And they got, and they got the ultimate punishment. I'm not exactly sure how you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty. Well, we happen to have a statute on the books that's a hate crimes statute in Texas.

GORE: May I respond?

LEHRER: Sure.

GORE: I don't want to jump in.

(LAUGHTER)

I may have been misled by all the news reports about this matter, because the law that was proposed in Texas, that had the support of the Byrd family and a whole lot of people in Texas, did in fact die in committee. There may be some other statute that was already on the books, but certainly the advocates of the hate crimes law felt that a tough new law was needed.

And it's important, Jim, not only--not just because of Texas, but because this mirrors the national controversy. There is pending now in the Congress a national hate crimes law because of James Byrd, because of Matthew Shepard, who was crucified on a split-rail fence by bigots, because of others. And that law has died in committee also because of the same kind of opposition.

LEHRER: And you would support that bill?

GORE: Absolutely.

LEHRER: Would you support a national hate crimes law?

BUSH: I would support the Orrin Hatch version of it, not the Senator Kennedy version.

But let me say to you, Mr. Vice President, we're happy with our laws on our books. That bill, there was another bill that did die in committee.

But I want to repeat, if you have a state that fully supports the law like we do in Texas, we're going to go after all crime, and we're going to make sure people get punished for the crime. And in this case, we can't enhance the penalty anymore than putting those three thugs to death. And that's what's going to happen in the state of Texas.

LEHRER: New subject, new question, another vice presidential debate follow-up.

Governor, both Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney said they were sympathetically rethinking their views on same-sex relationships. What's your position on that?

BUSH: I'm not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I appreciate the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the vice president supported it when the president signed that bill and supports it now. But I think, I think marriage is a sacred institution.

I'm going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so in the state of Texas. I've been a person that would been called a uniter not divider because I accepted some I accept other people's points of view. But I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Click here for more text of the debate.