It's a pleasure to present today's speaker Dan Quayle the 44th Vice President of the United States. Serving under President George Bush. Mr. Quayle was a head of the Council on competitiveness. He was a statutory member of the National Security Council and the first chairman of the National Space Council working to revitalize NASA twice elected to both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. Mr. Quails Public Service spans more than 23 years. He is now chairman of the competitiveness center of the Hudson Institute a nonpartisan educational institution founded in 1993 to help America meet new challenges in global competition. In his recently published book standing firm vice president Quayle describes his years of service in the Bush Administration and its efforts to deregulate Industry and enact legal reform. I am now pleased to present Vice President Dan Quayle. Well, thank you very much. Well that with the that warm response a Rudy. The only thing I can say is how the heck we lose. I am a I'm obviously delighted to be here been traveling around the country speaking and about my book and which I'm going to take the Liberty to do this afternoon. I travel a little differently than I used to we don't have a you know, the Secret Service and that we don't have the lights and sirens and I therefore not quite as punctual as perhaps. I should be we're coming from California this morning that we left there about 6:00 a.m. California time. And I think that we got here just about to within the the two minutes Zone as I noticed walking in. Who is that some of escorting me and she says now when you walk in the room you're going to be introduced tiny walked in the room and I was already introduced but Doug thank you very very much. I'll tell you another thing that has changed quite a bit since I've been out of office and I just this so-called with the recognition Factor on you know, are you really, you know, so-and-so several? Zuko as in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and I still run as early in the morning and I got on the elevator there's these two elderly people that were right there was an elderly couple and finally and I could see that there are sort of She got the courage up. She says are you who I think you are? I said Well, ma'am, that depends on who you think I am. And she finally she says you're Dan Quayle. And I said, yes, I am. She hesitated for about 15 seconds, and then she drilled me right in the eyes and she says no you're not. standing firm The the book is not about other people. It's as the initial reports that were the book is about me. It is a personal political story of how I took unprecedented abuse and succeeded and there's despite what the current occupant of the White House says is you know, he now is very fond of saying that he thinks that he in fact has taken more abuse than any other public official in the history of our Republic. The only thing I can say to him is Bill Clinton read my book. I enjoyed writing the book. I'd never written one before but I had I think I like most people always wanted to write a book. I did not plan on writing this book at this time. I had planned on being vice president United States, but the voters saw the otherwise and Upon Our involuntary retirement. I proceeded to write this book. It's there's thirty four chapters just to sort of give you a flavor of what the book is about. I have a chapter in their meeting at the media followed by another chapter called Feeding Frenzy. Actually. What I did is in writing about the media. I went out and interviewed a number of members of the national media because I wanted to get their Viewpoint of how the media covered me and I felt that they would be far more credible in quoting them than for me just to say well Here's my interpretation and that part of the book. I enjoyed not only writing but I enjoyed as David Broder said to being a reporter again. I would grew up in a journalism family and I took my little reporters notebook and sat down with people like Dan Rather and David Broder and Bob Woodward and Brit Hume and others interviewed him for as long as the couple hours and just ask them about the media's coverage of me the media in general and I put it in the book and I quote them not extensively but I do quote each and every one of them that I that I did interview the the chapters of the book indicate. I think what the the book is about a summary if you will is in 1988. I had a tremendous political victory in the fact that I was elected to 44th vice president. I'd States but from a personal level it was a personal defeat. And in 1992, it was just the opposite. Because For the first time in my life, I lost an election. But on the other hand from personal standpoint, I felt it was a victory felt very good about what I do is able to do with the convention. I felt very good about my debate within Senator Gore. I felt I was the one that was articulating a vision for the future of America, but the campaign suffered a defeat because we ended up adopting our opponents agenda. And that is the lesson of politics that if you adopt your opponent's agenda you are going to lose the election and to this day many people ask me. How did you go from 91 percent approval which we had shortly after Desert Storm and Desert Shield to 37% of the vote on Election Day 37% from an incumbent president who had unquestionable credentials International Affairs the accomplishments. I don't even need to enumerate, you know them picture the Cold War and post or the Soviet Union being past tense with a democratically elected president of Russia and Eastern Central Europe and part tighten the process of being dismantled on the verge of a historic Middle East peace settlement go on down the list. On top of that. We had an economy that was growing at about four and a half percent come election day. But in politics it's not necessarily what is happening on Election Day. It's what's happening before the election and the perceptions leading up to that. So as you look to 1996 if you will, it's not necessarily what's going to necessarily what the economic growth is going to be in the third quarter of the fourth quarter. It's what the growth is on the first and second quarter which in 1992 is rather anemic and there was a perception that the economy was not moving forward went in fact that it was but there was absolutely no communication strategy on to tell the American people what we were what George Bush was going to do for them for the next four years. It was as I write in the book. I thought perhaps the most incompetent incumbent presidential campaign certainly in this century. And I tell it and I write about it in a very honest candid Midwestern manner matter of fact, I've been criticized for being too honest. Inside Washington, that is somewhat times a liability. Being too honest, but with the American people, I don't think you can be too honest. They want Candor and that's the way that this this book is written. There is one chapter just to see how it worked. You are that I wrote about it's called. baked mashed and fried I put that all in there. There's another chapter titled Murphy and me and I I put I put the whole so-called Murphy Brown speech in the appendix. I just to put the whole thing in there and you can see how one just line in a speech triggered a tremendous debate. I knew at the time that it was going to be somewhat controversial by putting that in there. I had no idea how controversial that it would become but if you step back and to think about it for a moment or two. What I was saying in the speech which was titled the poverty of values. I was suggesting that it might be in the best interest of our children. To be raised in an intact family. Now that is controversial. That statement is to receive unbelievable amount of ridicule. Not that children of single mothers or single fathers can't make it they do my maternal grandmother was divorced of my grandfather in the early 1940s. So my mother was raised by a single mother for most of her years she turned out all right. But I was simply pointing out some statistics that are true today. That where you have this situation of fatherless homes and a third of our children today or born into fatherless homes. Unfortunately those children have a greater chance to drop out of school. The greater chance not to have a good paying job. This is not a Conservative Republican speaking. These are just hard cold statistics and facts and now I am delighted to to learn we've had a few convert since that's a speech in May of 1992. most recently the president United States is speaking forcefully about the importance of the family and the family unit. He made I thought a very good speech in Memphis Tennessee, I think is the Baptist Church where dr. Martin Luther King made his last address before being assassinated about the importance of the family and he lamented the breakdown of the family and the Dysfunctional Family. It was almost as if I was speaking. He's the president. I'm not. But I think it what it shows is that what I was saying and trying to engage the American people in a debate wasn't really controversial at all. It was common sense. And if we don't focus upon the family and the family unit and the neighborhood and I will say this to the gentleman in this audience that raising children is not just a mother's responsibility. Raising children is also a father's responsibility. And when you do not have fathers at home. When you do not have people that are involved. The children are affected are going to get distracted and they are going to go in the wrong direction. And if you look at the violence and the crime and the lack of Education opportunity and the welfare dependency, you can trace most if not all of our social problems today back to the family. And so the president now recognize that so we are engaged in this debate and I say let the debate continued. This debate is not going to end with one speech it is not going to end by one piece of legislation. It is going to continue because this is a problem that we just didn't get into overnight. And when you have eighty percent of our children in some sectors of our society today to Born to unwed mothers. That's a problem. You take a never married female head of household average income but $9,000. You take an intact family average income Nationwide about $43,000. You tell me which what's going to be in the best interest of our children and I would say this to the baby boom generation, which I'm a product of so called me generation, you know, it's time that you know, we put our children in their interests first rather than ours and so often we about just one thing. What does it mean to me? Well, what does it mean to the children heard about the opportunity for that child the future of that child? And so let the debate Roar on there's going to be other debates that we will be having in these next couple years, and I thought I'd take this opportunity to give you my objective and unbiased account of the current Administration and where they may or may not be going. Let me let me just take me just take a couple issues and to speak to you about them one the health care. Bait they were having into foreign policy and then we'll open it up for questions and answers that the health care debate. I presume that the health care debate will produce a health care bill sometime in October that is a an assumption that I make and I make that assumption from from politics that you have a Democratic president and a democratic Congress. They have said that this is the number one issue. It is in the Congress. It is not what the American people and if in fact they can't come together on some piece of legislation. That then how are they going to come home to the voters and to explain what they've been doing for the last couple years. So therefore something will in all probability pass. The Democrats will try to put the Republicans in a position of filibustering a filibuster may take place on a limited basis. I do not believe that ultimately that there will be a filibuster that would be sustained on the Whole Health Care legislation. I just don't see that that happening filibusters, you know are appropriate certain times. Bob Dole will choose the right time to engage in filibuster in the right time not to engage in the filibuster and he will use his political Acumen and instincts to determine when to engage in when not to but ultimately I do not see that the Republicans will stop this bill because they The Democrats will want to say well. It's just the Republican stopping this and say okay fine, you know, you won the election got control the Congress. If you've got the votes Leon Panetta said this yesterday on television that they would like to have it to be bipartisan, but it has to be Parson fine and it will when all probability be a very partisan bill, but I should I have a hunch that the bill will be a very weak version of the original Clinton package. Most of the mandates and most of the real owners parts of that bill. I predict will be phased in over a period of time. They will have a certain benchmarks that they'll have to achieve. The Senate finance committee is already doing this on the so-called Universal coverage where they've now only been able to get to 95 percent and they want to set up some sort of a board that will this will all change by the time it gets to conference that will be the overseer to see how in fact a universal coverage is coming about I thought there was a very interesting statement by the president and mrs. Clinton on this issue of universal coverage which shows underpinning in the philosophy and ideology of this Health Care debate. The argument was made. Why don't we encourage people to choose their health insurance and to allow the marketplace to give the people this choice and if there are economic considerations that need to be Advanced let us do that through some tax credits or vouchers and allow people in the marketplace to go out and to choose which health insurance that they would like if they want to catastrophic it's going to be more limited and less costly if they want the whole thing that they're married and have children and they're concerned about that or whatever maybe than they can have a large one and the answer came back which I thought was quite astonishing said we can't trust the individual to choose. To have health insurance because someone might be young and healthy and they might choose not to have health insurance. And therefore we simply can't afford to allow the people to make that kind of a choice and that's why the government has to impose. Universal coverage and therefore the government has to set up this type of assistant. Well that to me breaks down into the fundamental debate that we're having on Healthcare and the fundamental debate on what you want the government to do. Do you want the government to basically to come in and to mandate and set up a benefits package or to have a Single Payer provision or whatever the Congress is going to come up with in conjunction with present and to have a government styled healthcare system or do you want to recognize? Yes, there are some problems that you have with a healthcare system that can be dealt with and can be reformed it is access to health insurance. It's not the health care delivery system itself. It's access to health insurance and you can do that through the marketplace with tax credits and vouchers and you don't have to have these owners mischievous mandates placed especially on on small business. The pre-existing condition issue where insurance companies refuse to insure someone with a pre-existing condition if your son has asthma sorry, if you have a pre-existing condition, sorry, if you change jobs sorry just prohibit that Republicans and Democrats can agree on that there is no debate and then the insurance companies will have to to fund their insurance on a Level Playing Field rather than some coming in and do do it one way or another if you're interested in driving down costs. Which I think everyone is interested in driving down costs. We ought to look at the medical liability system and the medical liability system is a tremendous cost igniter to healthcare. I know Congressman grams is going to introduce legislation modeled after our Hudson Institute research that we did on the whole medical liability system. We documented by doing a survey of a major Hospital in Indianapolis that defensive medicine and the medical liability system on a direct and indirect basis cost a patient on a per visit four hundred and fifty dollars. And that's an Indiana where we have a rather Progressive Medical liability system. I don't know what that factor would be here would be in Minnesota because I do not know your medical liability is laws that well, but an Indiana 450 dollars per patient visit direct and indirect costs. So if you're interested in driving down costs look at the medical liability system that will drive down the costs, but this debate will will move on as I said, I think it's something that will ultimately pass and it will do done. I'm afraid more on a partisan basis in a bipartisan basis and the must have most of it will be B phase in but just I hope that you will contact your Congress people your senators and make sure that they understand the stakes that are involved here because if this mandated government in a quasi socialized basis is past for a healthcare system. I'm telling you it's very difficult to change it and to roll it back. Once these entitlements are out there. Once these benefit packages are put together by the government. It is very difficult to change how many programs have been eliminated by the Congress when they all say, huh? You know, we got a lot of waste out here in Washington how many programs been limited? I not many if if I can't name any they just it just doesn't happen that way and that's why the stakes are very high not they want to phase it in over a longer period of time. No, that's that's sort of a compromise you might be able to handle that. But if they pass something anything close. Do what the Clinton plan is and I don't know how much compromise that they're willing to do. It is going to be the biggest political I think power grab that this country has seen perhaps in the history of our Republic and you will be creating more dependency on government. You will lessen the quality. I've got friends who have sons and daughters and very well respected universities that are going through college right now and are making decisions to opt out of medicine because of the fear of uncertainty and what the medical situation is going to be if smart young men and women are making that decision today. Where do you think we're going to get the quality medicine? Someone sophisticated might say, well, you know, we have a number of the foreign doctors that come into this country and they can practice fine. We welcome them in a non-person. They'll be part of the mix but I'm not going to say we're going to rely on other countries to supply us for our Medical. Skills and our practitioners we ought to rely on what we have in the past and that is their our universities and our medical schools to produce the best and they the brightest and they're making that choice right now. Let me just if you will, let me shift gears to to foreign policy because I will conclude as the present is you know on his winding up his his trip in the G7 were once again, you know focused on on foreign policy remember in 1992 and I write about this extensively in the book foreign policy was a non-issue couldn't talk about it the campaign even went so far as to tell the present. He shouldn't even see heads of state because it would be make the appearance that he was focused on foreign policy and not domestic policy. And therefore you might have the perception that he doesn't get it. That's how far that they went in 1992 now that we have had the election and a president has to deal with the challenges that are faced with we're finding that foreign policy is a very important. Roll an aspect of being president of States we have just lost the leader of North Korea Kim il-sung. Reports have that Kim Jong-il his son will take his place. We do not know the stability of his son. Very few westerners have met him there all sorts of press reports. I've seen intelligence dad does not paint a very pretty picture of the successor. Nobody knows how he is going to handle if in fact first of all, he'll be able to get control of the military and that's the key and North Korea if he can get control of the military. Will he be willing to change? I thought that the Carter Mission President Carter's mission to North Korea was contrary to the Press reports. I thought it was a disaster to have a former Democratic president go to North Korea and have a current Democratic president and have him criticize President Clinton while he was in North Korea about North Korea's policy. I found it unbelievable. To have that kind of criticism directed at your present when you're over there on a mission supposedly to help and criticizes the very policy and I can tell you how the dictators and totalitarian leaders will think when they see someone like former President Carter come with the Quasi blessing of President Clinton. They think that he's speaking for the president that was not evidently too much communication between Clinton and Carter before he went but the perception is that Carter was there on behalf of Clinton. It was basically hat in hand. What would you like because they call him the great leader. This is a totalitarian leader who has been in the involved in the most barbaric barbaric types of Acts that we have known certainly in this last decade decade or generation. He has now passed machine and we'll see what his son if he is the ruler what he does, but that trip shows a certain amount of weakness. Lack of resolve and a lack of sophistication when it comes to International Affairs. You just don't do things like that and now we can see the Haitian situation. That is exploding before our very eyes. You see the refugees night after night trying to seek find Freedom how with the latest numbers and the people have tragically lost their lives at sea, but you have a Haitian policy that is geared to one fundamental goal. And this is the goal to return present aresty to power. Present are Steed I admit that he was in fact democratically-elected. But he in fact and I have met him a couple times does not practice nor. Does he advocate in private democratic values? This is the same person who endorsed the Hideous torture of necklacing. Were they put the gasoline in the tire and put it around your neck and you die of Suffocation once it's lit as a means to intimidate. His democratically elected Parliament. And this is someone that we are going to say it is in our national interest to return to power. What is happening is the president is responding to pressure from the left wing of the democratic party. And now we find out in today's Wall Street Journal where supposedly strobe Talbot who is a former time correspondent. And now the deputy secretary of state has urged the president to invade Haiti. Because of politics and it will make him look strong. That's our foreign policy. And yet we have a letter from the democratically elected parliament in Haiti suggesting that there have a bipartisan group from Congress to come down and to talk about a democratic exchange and how they can return democracy. To Haiti, but look at what the policy has created the sanctions have in fact made the military stronger not weaker. They have created a more poverty more starvation more hunger. They have created more refugees, but because of politics he can't take the refugees in the United States because Florida doesn't want them. Did they then turn to Panama and someone lack of understanding that takes place there? They can't go to Panama. Now the talking about the Dominican or some somewhere else and you have a policy in crisis, and we're on the verge of invading Haiti with the sole goal of returning aresty to power. And why that and how that is within our national interest? It's beyond me. It hasn't been explained because what it is, it's all politics. Politics does not belong in international Affairs you have to do what is in the National Security interest of your country. And I telling you that invading Haiti to return aresty the power is not in our national security interest and it may happen and when it does I don't know how long we'll be there last time. We invaded Haiti where their proximate 15 years. I would hope and presume it wouldn't be that long. But look who's opposed to it. Our military is opposed to it. Most of the career people in the state department are opposed to most of the members of Congress opposed to most of the American people are opposed to it because it is not in our national interest and the people that are advocating invading Haiti are the ones that were critical of us invading Panama where you had Noriega Killing American declare war on us and they criticize us for invading Panama these same people that are encouraging invading Haiti were also, Very critical and voted against us. When it came to Operation Desert Storm and getting Iraq out of Kuwait. I happen to be on the conservative side of the matter on Military matters, but on this one until I can see why it's in our national security interest do this count me out and count out most of the American people but we are on the verge of doing that all the Bill Gray. I thought I didn't see it only read press accounts. I thought he hesitated a little bit on David Brinkley, but they are Conjuring this up where in fact it may be. The only option that President Clinton has left to him and that would be to militarily invade Haiti and a strobe Talbott says to make the present look strong that is a sad situation that we have. I think we're going to probably have a couple bumpy years ahead of us. So just tighten the seatbelt. Hang on it'll be an it'll be a bumpy ride. But as long as we don't lose sight of the core values that make this country what it is. We'll be all right, we'll have debates will have elections will have meetings like this, but core values like Family Faith freedom and hard work. These are not lifestyle choices. These are the very fundamentals of the individual and fundamentals of our society. And as long as we stay focused on those values and are willing to debate how we strengthen those values and preserve those values will be alright, no matter how bumpy the road may get. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're listening to vice president Quayle speaking to the Minnesota meeting on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. I should tell you vice president Quayle in 13 and a half years of Minnesota meetings. We've never had a vice president or a former vice president speak to us, but you are the second Quail that we've had speak to us. So we appreciate the fact that five years ago your wife Marilyn Quayle right before the election spoke to this audience. We're pleased that you could follow in her footsteps. We have a first question here from Denny's Schultz did who is a member of the Minneapolis city council that before Vice President? We welcome to Minneapolis. I'm also a member of the Air Force Reserve. I'm a colonel in the reserve and during the Reagan and Bush administration's we witnessed a Resurgence of the American Military. So our presidents could negotiate from a position of power now, we're seeing our military cut by one-third and and we wonder if this is going to influence the way our leaders can negotiate foreign relations in the future particularly now in North Korea, Military spending today as a percentage of the gross domestic product is approximately 3.7 percent. That is the same level that we contributed toward National Security in 1938. That's where we are today. And what has happened is with the passing of the Cold War. There's a perception in the Congress and a perception in the country. If you will that somehow the world is not a dangerous place. I can tell you and you know from your experience that it is a dangerous place there something like can't name 40-some Wars that are going on all over the all over the world. We have that the nuclear problem with the North Korea if Saddam had saying it had the nuclear weapon. He certainly would have threatened to use it and he may well have used it and had he had it or threaten to use it it would certainly have changed our military tactics as you well know and if he had had used it, it would have changed the whole geopolitical situation in the Middle East and yet proliferation goes on Pariah Nations like North Korea have it are thinking about and perhaps exporting it to other countries the military. Is important especially for the United States and especially at this particular time? We are the only superpower in the world. Now. Some people will say well we don't want the responsibility of being the only superpower in the world. Because with being the only superpower there are awesome responsibilities to go with that. Well, my retort to them is well, if you don't want us to be the only superpower in the world, who do you want? You want Germany you what Japan Russia? What country do you want to lead the world? And what I am fearful of is as you look at the Draconian Cuts in the military, it is a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is going to retreat from its obligations. That they really believe Paul Kennedy's Book the rise and fall of great Powers, which is sort of been the intellectual Bible this Clinton administration. Will Paul Kennedy's Book talked about America's best days behind us and that we are in an irreversible decline. The decline has if you will and the military projection in the military respect in the military credibility is on the line and when we see these types of reductions in the lack of mobilization of the lack of Readiness the lack of people now joining the military That's declining. The number of high school graduates is declining. From where it was five or seven years ago. And when you have that condition you have that circumstance unfortunate is a sign that a country is in Decline. I don't buy that for a moment. But that is the message is going out and will continue to go out. If in fact we continue this slide of our investment in National Security matters. It is terribly important. Thank you. We have our next question now from Susan Flagger who is with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota regarding health care reform. How do you it's a two-part question first, how do you respond to the notion that by cutting Medicare and Medicaid which already significantly cost shift to the private sector that we can fund reform and secondly, how do you perceive funding the voucher system? You can fund the voucher system through the Contributions that we currently make to Indigent care and the way that you would do that was through the vouchers and the tax credits. You wouldn't get a hundred percent. I would say you'd probably get maybe 95% maybe 98% people that were actually be covered rather than the was it's a debatable figure but let's use the 84% that everyone throws around that is currently covered if someone is injured in a car accident, someone has an illness to go to hospital can be taken care of the Indigent care price tag to the federal government today or when we say two years ago. I don't know exactly what his day was about a hundred and fifty billion dollars over a five-year period of time that's the ballpark figure you could take that money. You're not going to eliminate it entirely but you'd eliminate 80 or 90% if everyone had or 95% of people had health insurance and you can use that to fund the tax credits and vouchers. We had prepared this in the Bush Administration. It was not released. Unfortunately. I thought it should have been released. It was not released but we had it prepared and we had the numbers to back it up your question on the Medicare and Medicaid the Medicaid actually is should be and we had a talk to the state's about this. This is primarily a state and local responsibility. I know the governor's just going to go up the wall when you mention this because it's a big ticket item, but we ought to have a serious Dialogue on this on this issue. The Medicare matter there will have to be some reforms in Medicare and whether you look at whether it's means testing or things of that sort that we really do need to examine the system and I reform-minded basis that there has been serious reform of the Medicare program since it was set up in the early 1960s. Thank you very much. Vice president Quayle. We have a next question from John Herman. Who is the communications chair of Minnesota's united we stand Your former aide. Mr. Crystal has come up with a health care plan that I think has been endorsed by Bob Dole and about 40 Republican Senators. Could you tell us a little bit about that? I don't have I don't have the details of it. But I have a good idea what it is. It's a long what I mentioned that is to reform health insurance access to health insurance you do that through the tax credits and vouchers, which I have addressed. The pre-existing condition is no debate just prohibit that and I would assume and I'm fairly certain of it that he would have a very strong component. I'm driving down the cost of the medical liability that that is the reform package and that's somewhat the heart and soul as I know it of the Dole package and therefore this is a real Health Care reform package, but what I find traveling the country and you sit around the coffee table said, well what's concern to you today? Healthcare is not the top item. The top item is individual security cry. And violence the breakdown of society the Anarchy we see on the streets the next issue. Usually the pops up as a job and an economic growth. There's a lot of uncertainty right now in the economy, you know, as is the dollar goes down and it leads back to this question on the military is a dollar is driven down and it was intentionally driven down you get into a weak currency. You're going to get back into higher interest rates. The FED will have no choice higher rate of inflation. You will not have the growth that is being projected right now because of the inflation factor and the reason that the currency and the dollar is down is because at the very beginning of the Clinton ministration, they decided to manufacture this trade crisis with Japan and said well, we're going to drive the dollar down make the Yen stronger. Because of the trade imbalance well since that policy of driving the dollar down and making the end stronger the trade imbalance has improved at all. The Yen has in fact gotten much stronger now blow a hundred which the first time in post-world War II accountability that it's been blow a hundred the prime minister of the political situation in Japan is in crisis. They've had I think four prime minister's this last one who is viewed as a transitional prime minister a socialist is going to be there for a short period time. So they have a political crisis. But when you start talking the dollar down like we did deliberately because by having a weaker dollar Imports would be more expensive and exports our exports would be cheaper. What happens is that you're going to get a weaker dollar and then they tried to intervene and said they're going to have a policy of intervention have 16 to the international institutions come in and buy the dollars to try to save it didn't work and now just yet. I think it was yesterday maybe Saturday. They said we're not going to have a policy. Of intervention because it wouldn't work anyway in the dollar slid further and this gets to the fundamental point that you can talk a dollar down and you talk currency down if you think the nations in Decline you preach that kind of decline us. Theory it's going to happen it become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Vice president Quayle. Our next question is from Anthony Kozlowski. Who's the president of the American Refugee committee? Mr. Vice president you spoke briefly about leadership and talk primarily about the role of the military leadership your Administration or President Bush's administration had a lot to do with regards to leadership in the post-cold War era particularly in the humanitarian field. Somalia's an example. Haiti is an example perhaps in the other direction with regard to interdiction of Haitian refugees. I wonder what your vision is of leadership in the post-cold war world in situations such as Somalia such as Haiti and such as Rwanda today. We will at times do it unilaterally which we essentially did in Somalia. Although we had I think 17 of the Nations that finally joined us but we did that in unilaterally Rwanda is a different to situation the French have taken the lead in that case and I think that's quite a quite appropriate. They have a long history and connection with that country and they have much more vested interest there than perhaps that we do. What I would say and you have to you have to draw the line somewhere. And the first question you have to ask is is it in our national security issue interest? Being perceived into being a humanitarian nation in preaching immorality certainly part of our national security interest, but you cannot go into every single country around the world that has a hunger problem or an economy problem or political instability. You simply can't do that. You'll see you'll be tied down all over the world. You will literally bleed to death by a lot of pinpricks. It will just draw the draw the blood right from you if you in fact go in that direction, but let me say this. Somalia we went in we had a time schedule to get out. We got started it out. Then we went back in because the United Nations wanted us to go back in. And it became the United Nations agenda rather United States is agenda. Sometimes those agendas can be compatible but one is superior to the other some don't like For me to say this, but we have to do what's first in the United States interest and secondly what may be in the United Nations interest. Sometimes they're together and sometimes they're not that's why find it shockingly naive where the current Administration says. Well we are for lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia so we can level the playing field but other countries are opposed to it. So therefore we can't be for it. But you simply can't have it both ways, you know leadership demands sometimes going it alone. The humanitarian effort is part of it, but we simply cannot get bogged down in every humanitarian relief effort around the world, but we have good International organizations, like care and others who will be there the American Red Cross our military from time to time can be used but on a limited basis. Thank you vice president while we have time for two more questions. I'm going to ask Lieutenant Governor John Elder stead to ask one in the will let Senator boschwitz ask the final question. We kind of cover. Thank you very much Jane and I would like to welcome you to Minnesota as well. Mr. Vice president. Nice to have you join us again. You were mentioning the issues that are of greatest importance to Americans talking about jobs crime Health Care. Have you seen therefore any change in the feelings of the American public toward international relations and the significance of it in your particular in the past two years as you've traveled around the country. I think there are certainly more appreciation of international Affairs and the fact that the world is still perhaps a more dangerous place than we had anticipated. Although the primary focus of individuals is on their family their kids their school's their personal security their neighborhoods their local the state. Americans We'll accept responsibility when they have to and we welcome it. But Americans really the responsibility what they we are by our very nature peace-loving people. We want to be left alone. And since we want to be left alone, we want to leave others alone, but When it comes to your National interest you have to recognize as I said before that we are the only Power that in fact can lead the world and if it's not us it's going to be somebody else and I can remember all the debates in the Congress especially on foreign aid in Rudy can tell you this all the foreign aid bills. That would come through there very unpopular to devote for it. I said, why do you spend money on for Nate? Well, the fact is by spending money on foreign aid, which was less than 1% of the budget less than 1% of the budget was spent on 498 not fifteen percent 1 percent of the budget spent on on 498 but 48 in fact made America respected incredible which helped create the jobs which help keep the flow of capital coming to this country which helped this country, you know stand on its feet and it was in our interest to have a limited and I responsible no foreign aid appropriation. But no, I think that the people perhaps today sense that there is this You know, this is the responsibility and there's a recognition. Well, yes, maybe we don't have to worry that much about the Soviet Union, but I'll tell you this we ought to be concerned about Russia. I don't know what's going to happen in Russia. And anyone who tells you that knows what's happened in Russia don't believe them because they don't know it's too difficult to predict. The question is do we have a Russia that is going to remain on the road to democracy and a commitment to democratic values, which is a total aberration from the history of this of this nation or will we see the successor to Yeltsin return to a more authoritarian type of leadership and if in fact it does what will Russia do Russia is always expanded and their interest right now Central Asia, they've always wanted that warm seawater Port there are watching the inability of the West to focus on Bosnia-Herzegovina. Because paralysis there would mean paralysis if in fact you get a strong leader in Russia, and he would like to do something to the South and he certainly would move to the South. So yes, I think it's certainly more on our mind today. But basically the total the preoccupation with people just our domestic matters and domestic politics. Thank you. We have a final question from Senator boschwitz. Well, Dan, welcome to Minnesota first. It's very nice to have you here and I just wanted to pursue the business of the medical intervention by federal government and the president's plan and being very cautious about the government numbers because back in 1966. They said that Medicare 25 years down the line would be 9 to 11 billion dollars. It was a hundred and two so that the government projections are somewhat off even to a factor of 10. You said that in Indianapolis you took that survey? And that four hundred and fifty dollars of a typical hat Hospital stay were the result of defensive medicine and the president's plan does nothing about tort reform nothing about medical liability reform. I've heard percentages of particularly with respect to hospital stays of 20 or 25% of the cost of such stays being involved with defensive medicine. Was there a percentage beside the figure of four hundred and fifty dollars that was found in your survey. We estimated approximately 15% in our in our survey 15% of the cost. It was not as high as the 20 to 25 percent although in some situations. I think it could possibly get that that high very interesting. There's going to be an OT a study and you're very familiar with OT a that it's going to come out and to show that that percentage Nationwide is I think like eight percent or excuse me, maybe even less than less than 8% In other words negligible. I we're trying to get ahold of that guy. In it so we can do our own computation to see what kind of data they put in there because I am convinced that this defensive medicine or medical liability system is one of the reasons that you've seen this real cost escalation. The Clinton Administration would have a very difficult time supporting this because of the vast amount of monies that they have taken primarily from the plaintiffs bar association, and the most of the plaintiffs bar that is really opposed to us defense trial lawyers on the defense side are very much. Most of them aren't favorite, but the plaintiffs bar are our is not and they have given considerable contributions would be very difficult for the Clinton Administration to accept us. Well, thank you very much. Have a great week. It's great to be back in Minnesota. Thank you.