Original subtitles

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 )