BRUNO: Okay. I think it's time to move on to our next topic. All 3 of you gentlemen have some expertise in defense and the armed forces. Vice President Quayle and Senator Gore both served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Admiral Stockdale, of course, has a very distinguished military career.

With the end of the Cold War, everyone agrees that there are going to be major cuts. They've already started in the defense budget. But this country has a long history of neglecting its military needs in peace time and then paying for it with heavy casualties when we're caught unprepared. How much of a defense cut is safe? What happens to the people who are forced to leave the military services, or if they lose their jobs because they're working in defense industries.

I think we start with Senator Gore this time.

GORE: Bill Clinton and I support a strong national defense. He and I have both fought for change within the Democratic Party as well as within the country. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the definition of strong national defense has obviously changed somewhat. For example, George Bush wants to maintain at least 150,000 American soldiers in Europe, even though World War II ended 50 years ago.

Bill Clinton and I agree with so many military experts who believe that it is time for the Europeans, who are so much wealthier now and more powerful than they were at the end of World War II to start picking up a little more of that tab themselves and not rely so exclusively on the U.S. taxpayers for the defense of Europe.

We believe that we can make savings in our defense budget and at the same time, improve our national security.

Now, for those who are affected by the cutbacks, whether they come from George Bush or Bill Clinton and me -- the difference is, Bill Clinton and I have a defense conversion program so that those who won the Cold War will not be left out in the cold. We want to put them to work building an infrastructure and an economy here in this country for the '90's and the next century.

BRUNO: Vice President Quayle.

QUAYLE: We won the Cold War because we invested in national security. We won the Cold War because we invested in our military. We didn't win the Cold -- we won the Cold War because we invested in national security. We won the Cold War because we invested in our military. We didn't win the cold -- or we won the Cold War because America had the political will and made the right decisions. Yes, we can make the cuts in defense and we have. Bill Clinton wants to cut defense another $60 billion. I'd say to the defense workers in California and elsewhere, a $60 billion defense cut is going to cut a lot of jobs out.

Yes, we are making a conversion and we can go to a civil space rather than having defense -- or the defense industry. Well, let me say this: we would not have won the Cold War if we had listened to Senator Gore and his crowd, and had supported a nuclear freeze. If you would have supported that attitude -- if you would have supported that attitude, we would not have won the Cold War. We won the Cold War because we invested and we went forward.

(Applause.)

BRUNO: Mr. -- Admiral Stockdale, please.

STOCKDALE: Yes, thanks. The numbers, in terms of the dollar cuts, as they stand on our plans now, show us almost the same as the vice president's. But we'd note that Mr. -- Governor Clinton's plan is almost twice as much a cut as either one of us. I've been through the end of World War II, and the surprise beginning of Korea, to see how we -- it cost us more money because we overcut the defense budget in the first place. I don't say that --

(Applause.)

So I think that should be eyed with great suspicion, people that are really kicking the props out from under our grand military establishment prematurely.

Now there's other differences between the Perot approach and what we see up here on either side of me, and that has to do with we want to focus our interests, economic and military, more to the Pacific. We figure that we are generally going along with any sort of a troop removal from Europe. So that's still another face of this puzzle.

BRUNO: Senator Gore, would you like to start the discussion period on this topic?

GORE: Yeah, I'd like to respond first to you, Admiral Stockdale. Under the details of our 5-year budget plan, we do propose more in defense cuts than George Bush and Dan Quayle, but only 5 % more.

Admiral Crowe, who I think was one of your classmates in Annapolis --

STOCKDALE: Oh, yes, I've known him --

GORE: -- has endorsed --

STOCKDALE: -- 50 years.

GORE: -- the military portions of our plan, even though he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under George Bush, and John White has endorsed the economic aspects of our plan, even though I believe he was the architect of Ross Perot's economic plan.

Now when I heard George Bush say at the convention in Houston, that when he heard the phrase "we won the Cold War," it made him wonder who the "we" was. Well, I want to tell you, President Bush, the "we" is the people of the U.S. of America. This wasn't a partisan victory that came suddenly, a few months after you took the oath of office. This started with Harry Truman and it was a bipartisan effort from the very beginning. George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall coming down is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

(Applause.)

And I want to, I want to add -- I want to add one other thing, because in the debate a few nights ago, I think President Bush made a very serious misstatement of fact in response to Ross Perot. It was kind of a little lecture he gave to Ross Perot when he said those SS-18s are gone, Ross, that's done. He -- he reached a deal with Boris Yeltsin to completely remove them so we can all sleep safely without any fear tonight.

But you know what? They thought they were going to get that deal, but when he took the person in charge of the negotiations out of the State Dept and put him in charge of the reelection campaign, the deal unraveled and now there is no START II deal at all. In fact there are serious problems.

Isn't it a fact, Dan, that every single one of those SS-18s is still there, in the silos, and under the START I treaty, only half of the silos are supposed to be dismantled, and there is no deal to get rid of the other half?

Didn't the president make a mistake there?

BRUNO: Vice President Quayle, please.

QUAYLE: The president does have a commitment from Boris Yeltsin to eliminate the SS-18s. That is a commitment to --

GORE: Is it an agreement?

QUAYLE: It is a commitment.

GORE: Oh.

(Laughter)

QUAYLE: Let's talk about, let's talk about --

GORE: Well, he said he'd --

BRUNO: Let him talk, Senator.

QUAYLE: Lighten up here, Al.

(Laughter and applause)

BRUNO: Go ahead.

QUAYLE: Let's talk about getting agreements. You know, the president of the U.S. doesn't just negotiate with your friends in Congress; the president of the U.S. deals on the international scene. He's got to deal with the president of Russia, he's got to deal with the chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Britain, the president of France, the prime minister of Japan -- he's got to deal with a whole host of leaders around the world. And the leaders sit down and they will negotiate, and they will come to agreements with people that they trust. And this is a fundamental problem with Bill Clinton, is trust and character.

It is not the issue of how he avoided military service 20-some years ago; it's the fact -- it's the fact that he does not tell the truth about it. He first said he didn't get an induction notice, then we find out that he did; he said he didn't have an ROTC slot, then we find out he did; he said he didn't use Senator Fulbright's office for special influence, then we find out that he did.

These are inconsistencies. Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth. And he will have a very difficult time dealing with somebody like President Yeltsin or Chancellor Kohl or Prime Minister Major or President Mitterrand, because truth and integrity are prerequisites to being president of the U.S.

(Applause)

GORE: I want to respond to that, I want to respond to that. George Bush, in case you've forgotten, Dan, said "Read my lips -- no new taxes."

(Laughter and applause)

And you know what?

QUAYLE: I didn't think I was going to hear that tonight.

GORE: Hold on, hold on, let me finish.

QUAYLE: Okay.

GORE: He also said he wanted to be the environmental president; then he went on to say he wanted to be the education president. Then he said that he wouldn't raise taxes again -- no, never, ever, ever. Then the next day his spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, came out and said that's not a pledge. Then 2 weeks ago he said that after the election, if you win, then James Baker's going to go back to be secretary of state; then a week later, in the debate a few nights ago, he said, no, after the election, if we win, James Baker is going to be in charge of domestic policy.

Which is it, Dan? Is he going to -- what's your role in this going to be?

(Laughter and applause)

BRUNO: Well, we'll have to move on to another topic.

QUAYLE: Let me --

BRUNO: Sorry, Mr. Vice President.

QUAYLE: I don't have time to respond to that?

BRUNO: You'll get plenty of chance to respond, so don't worry.

QUAYLE: Okay, you're the moderator. I was under the assumption that when the thing is like that that you get a chance to respond.

BRUNO: Well, we ran out of time; according to the agreement, it's time to move on. And I want to stick to the agreement.

QUAYLE: Okay. Well, you got the last word on that, but we'll come back to it.

BRUNO: But you'll have a chance -- I can see what's happening here: we throw out the topic and then we drift. But that's okay, because I think it's making for a healthy exchange.

(Laughter)

The only thing I would ask of you --

GORE: I'm enjoying it.

(Laughter)

BRUNO: The only thing I would ask of you gentlemen is that when we get to the discussion period, whoever talks first be considerate of the others, because you have a tendency to filibuster.

QUAYLE: Look over there.

(Laughter)

BRUNO: Okay, I'm not pointing any fingers. Let's talk about the environment -- we'll get away from controversy.

(Laughter)

Everyone wants a safe and clean environment, but there's an ongoing conflict between environmental protection and the need for economic growth and jobs. So the point I throw out on the table is, how do you resolve this conflict between protection of the environment and growth in jobs, and why has it taken so long to deal with basic problems, such as toxic waste dumps, clean air and clean water?

And, Vice President Quayle, it's your turn to start first.

QUAYLE: Hal, that's a false choice. You don't have to have a choice between the environment and jobs -- you can have both. Look at the president's record: clean air legislation passed the Democratic Congress because of the leadership of George Bush. It is the most comprehensive clean air act in our history. We are firmly behind preserving our environment, and we have a good record with which to stand. The question comes about: What is going to be their position when it comes to the environment? I say it's a false choice. You ought to ask somebody in Michigan, a UAW worker in Michigan, if they think increasing the CAFE standards, the fuel economy standards, to 45 miles a gallon is a good idea -- 300,000 people out of work. You ought to talk to the timber people in the Northwest where they say that, well, we can only save the owl, forget about jobs.

You ought to talk to the timber people in the northwest, where they say that -- well, we can only save the owl. Forget about jobs. You ought to talk to the coal miners. They're talking about putting a coal tax on. They're talking about a tax on utilities, a tax on gasoline and home heating oil -- all sorts of taxes.

No, Hal, the choice isn't the environment and jobs. With the right policies -- prudent policies -- we can have both.

(Applause)

BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale.

STOCKDALE: I read Senator Gore's book about the environment and I don't see how he could possibly pay for his proposals in today's economic climate.

(Applause)

You know, the Marshall Plan of the environment, and so forth.

And also, I'm told by some experts that the things that he fears most might not be all that dangerous, according to some scientists. You know, you can overdo, I'm told, environmental cleaning up. If you purify the pond, the water lilies die. You know, I love this planet and I want it to stay here, but I don't like to have it the private property of fanatics that want to overdo this thing.

(Applause)

BRUNO: Senator Gore.

GORE: Bill Clinton and I believe we can create millions of new jobs by leading the environmental revolution instead of dragging our feet and bringing up the rear.

You know, Japan and Germany are both opening proclaiming to the world now that the biggest new market in the history of world business is the market for the new products and technologies that foster economic progress without environmental destruction.

Why is the Japanese business organization -- the largest one they have, the Ki Den Ren (phonetic), arguing for tougher environmental standards than those embodied in U.S. law? Why is MITI -- their trade organization -- calling on all Japanese corporations everywhere in the world to exceed by as much as possible the environmental standards of every country in which they're operating?

Well, maybe they're just dumb about business competition. But maybe they know something that George Bush and Dan Quayle don't know -- that the future will call for greater efficiency and greater environmental efficiency.

This is an issue that touches my basic values. I'm taught in my religious tradition that we are given dominion over the Earth, but we're required to be good stewards of the Earth, and that means to take care of it. We're not doing that now under the Bush-Quayle policies. They have gutted the Clean Air Act. They have broken his pledge to be the environmental president. Bill Clinton and I will change that.

(Applause)

BRUNO: Okay. Discussion period now. Again, leave time for each other, please. Vice President Quayle, go ahead.

QUAYLE: Well, I'm tempted to yield to Admiral Stockdale on this. But I -- you know, the fact of the matter is that one of the proposals that Senator Gore has suggested is to have the taxpayers of America spend $100 billion a year on environmental projects in foreign countries --

GORE: That's not true --

QUAYLE: Foreign aid -- well, Senator, it's in your book. On page 304 --

GORE: No, it's not.

QUAYLE: It is there.

(Applause)

It is in your book. You know, Hal, I wanted to bring the Gore book tonight, because I figured he was going to pull a Bill Clinton on me and he has. Because he's going to disavow what's in his book. It's in your book --

GORE: No.

QUAYLE: It comes out to $100 billion of foreign aid for environmental projects.

BRUNO: All right. Let's give him a chance to answer.

QUAYLE: Now, how are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for an extra $100 billion of the taxpayers' money for this?

GORE: Dan, I appreciate you reading my book very much, but you've got it wrong.

QUAYLE: No, I've got it right.

GORE: There's no such proposal.

QUAYLE: Okay, well, we'll find --

BRUNO: Let him talk, Mr Vice President. Let the senator talk. Go ahead.

GORE: There is no such proposal. What I have called upon is a cooperative effort by the U.S. and Europe and Asia to work together in opening up new markets throughout the world for the new technologies that are necessary in order to reconcile the imperatives of economic progress with the imperatives of environmental protection. Take Mexico City for an example. They are shutting down factories right now, not because of their economy, but because they're choking together on the air pollution. They're banning automobiles some days of the week.

Now what they want is not new laser-guided missile systems. What they want are new engines and new factories and new products that don't pollute the air and the water, but nevertheless allow them to have a decent standard of living for their people. Last year 35 % of our exports went to developing countries, countries where the population is expanding worldwide by as much as one billion people every ten years.

We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we don't face a global environmental crisis, nor should we assume that it's going to cost jobs. Quite the contrary. We are going to be able to create jobs as Japan and Germany are planning to do right now, if we have the guts to leave.

Now earlier we heard about the auto industry and the timber industry. There have been 250,000 jobs lost in the automobile industry during the Reagan-Bush-Quayle years. There have been tens of thousands of jobs lost in the timber industry. What they like to do is point the finger of blame with one hand and hand out pink slips with the other hand. They've done a poor job both with the economy and the environment.

(Applause.)

It's time for a change.

(Applause.)

BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale, you had something you wanted to say here?

STOCKDALE: I know that -- I read where Senator Gore's mentor had disagree with some of the scientific data that is in his book. How do you respond to those criticisms of that sort? Do you --

QUAYLE: Deny it.

GORE: Well --

(Laughter.)

STOCKDALE: Do you take this into account?

(Laughter.)

GORE: No, I -- let me respond. Thank you, Admiral, for saying that. You're talking about Roger Revelle. His family wrote a lengthy letter saying how terribly he had been misquoted and had his remarks taken completely out of context just before he died.

(Jeers.)

He believed up until the day he died -- no, it's true, he died last year --

BRUNO: I'd ask the audience to stop, please.

GORE: -- and just before he died, he co- authored an article which was -- had statements taken completely out of context. In fact the vast majority of the world's scientists -- and they have worked on this extensively -- believe that we must have an effort to face up to the problems we face with the environment. And if we just stick out heads in the sand and pretend that it's not real, we're not doing ourselves a favor. Even worse than that, we're telling our children and all future generations that we weren't willing to face up to this obligation.

QUAYLE: Hal, can I --

GORE: I believe that we have a mandate --

BRUNO: Sure. We've still got time.

GORE: -- to try to solve this problem, particularly when we can do it while we create jobs in the process.

BRUNO: Go ahead, Mr Vice President, there's still time. Not much, though.

QUAYLE: I know it. We've got to have a little equal time here now, Hal. In the book you also suggest taxes on, gasoline taxes on utilities, taxes on carbon, taxes on timber. There's a whole host of taxes. And I don't just -- I don't believe raising taxes is the way to solve our environmental problems.

And you talk about the bad situation in the auto industry. You seem to say that the answer is, well, I'll just make it that much worse by increasing the CAFE standards. Yes, the auto industry is hurting, it's been hurting for a long time, and increasing the CAFE standards to 45 miles per gallon, like you and Bill Clinton are suggesting, will put, as I said, 300,000 people out of work.