Excerpts from Sunday's debate on NBC's "Meet the Press" between Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley, as transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House:

HOST TIM RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. Senator Bradley, let me start with you: health care. You have been on the receiving end of Vice President Gore's attacks over the last few weeks questioning your plan, how to pay for it. Your campaign in New Hampshire responded with a flyer -- I'll put it on the screen -- which talked about the disease of "Gore-itis." The symptoms, uncontrollable; lying, the medication truth serum; the patient, Vice President Al Gore.

Specifically, what has Al Gore said about your health care plan that is a distortion or a lie?

BRADLEY: Well, first of all, Tim, we apologized for that as soon as it came out. It was unauthorized.

I do think that there have been some misrepresentations -- one which relates to the total cost of the program. The program will cost between $55 and $65 billion a year. I think that is the most significant change and distortion.

I think also, frequently when you talk about eliminating a part of the health care program -- for example, Medicaid for the poor -- there's an absence of telling the whole story, which is what we replace it with, and the elements we replace it with.

What we're trying to do is we look out there and we see a health care system that is in real distress. We find millions of people with health insurance who don't know if they're going to be able to see a doctor or a hospital. You see millions of middle income people unable to afford health insurance. And then you find 44 million people without any health insurance. ...

I think that the question is: Who would you leave out?

RUSSERT: Well, Senator Bradley, how long before all 45 million uninsured Americans would have some kind of guaranteed health care?

BRADLEY: Well, we'd look at the next several years as a way to get to 30 million, with access available to all 45.

RUSSERT: Who would you leave out?

BRADLEY: We would allow every -- we'd leave no one out because every person with health insurance would be able to exclude their premium from health insurance. So that applies to everyone. And plus there would be access for everyone. So we'd leave no one out.

RUSSERT: Vice President Gore, your plan, as I understand it, would take care of about 12 million of those 45 million people. How long before the 45 million uninsured Americans would have access to health care?

GORE: Tim, both Bill and I have the same goal to get to universal health insurance. He just told you that his plan leaves out some 14 million and offers them the chance to deduct health care insurance premiums from their income taxes.But most of the people who don't have health care today don't have premiums to deduct, so they're left out.

I think we have to get to universal health insurance. And I think the way to do it is to get there step by step.

RUSSERT: How long before you would get there?

GORE: I think we can get there early in the next century. I think that we have to start. ...

RUSSERT: 2020, 2040?

GORE: Oh, I think we can get there before then.

But here's the point: We should start by getting every single child in America, within the next four years, then all the parents of those children, up to 250 percent of the poverty rate. And then, let's have small business owners, have ... not only a tax deduction, which they have now, but a 25 percent tax credit. They have half of all the uninsured work force.

Then give individuals who want to purchase their own health insurance the same 25 percent tax credit. Beef up the community health centers, give a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and have long-term care, and enact a Patients' Bill of Rights.

Now, here's the point, though. There are 75 million Americans today who get Medicare and Medicaid. They are all left out under Senator Bradley's plan because he eliminates Medicaid and replaces it with little $150 a month vouchers.

BRADLEY: That's wrong. That's not correct.

GORE: Which also limits the access. Let me just finish, if I could.

BRADLEY: It's not a voucher.

...

RUSSERT: ... But, Mr. Vice President, I went back and looked at the Clinton-Gore Health Plan of 1994. And let me show you a description of what that plan did to Medicaid. And I'll put it on the screen for you.

Under Clinton's bill, Medicaid patients would receive the same benefits package as other Americans. That would mean fewer services for some Medicaid beneficiaries who currently receive assistance with transportation, translation, rehabilitation. Overall spending for Medicaid would be sharply reduced.

You propose doing exactly. ...

GORE: No. No.

RUSSERT: ... the same thing that Senator Bradley is discussing now.

GORE: Not at all.

RUSSERT: And you're accusing him of destroying Medicaid.

GORE: Not at all, Tim. I've always said it's perfectly fine to eliminate Medicaid if you replace it with something better.

RUSSERT: Is he?

GORE: No. What he replaces ...

BRADLEY: Absolutely.

GORE: ... replaces it with...

BRADLEY: Wrong. That's not right.

GORE: What he proposes to replace it with...

BRADLEY: That's not correct.

GORE: ... are vouchers that are limited to $150 a month.

BRADLEY: No.

GORE: And he says buy into the Federal Employee Benefit Plan. Ninety-five percent of all the health insurance plans that are part of the Federal Employee Benefit Plan have premiums that are far in excess of the $150 a month.

RUSSERT: Senator.

BRADLEY: First of all, it's a particular Washington perspective to say that Medicaid is just fine right now.

Medicaid is supposed to cover people who are poor. But 40 percent of the people who are in poverty in this country do not have any health insurance. None. Medicaid doesn't cover them.

Under our proposal, they would have health insurance. In terms of long-term care, we keep the same amount of money that Medicaid spends on long-term care now. It's the same amount of money that will go to the states; the states will have that same amount of money to spend.

So, the fact of the matter is, that this is incorrect. And the real question is whether you're willing to deal with a big problem, a comprehensive problem in a way that insures middle-class Americans some health.

Al does nothing for middle-class Americans. The reality is that millions of middle-class Americans are struggling to meet their premium payments. Every year premiums go up and they have no help. We're going to help the middle-class Americans, in addition to cover people who don't have any health insurance.

RUSSERT: ... Would you consider looking at a gradual increase in the retirement age?

BRADLEY: Tim, no, I don't propose that. ... I believe that the most important thing you can do, first, is you take the Social Security trust fund out of the budget, you put it over on the side. So you set aside $1.9 trillion over the next decade for Social Security.

And then what you do is you manage the economy so you have higher levels of economic growth. The whole thing is premised on growth of about 2.9 percent. If we can grow faster -- last quarter was, like, 5, 5.5 percent -- that will be more money coming into the trust fund.

And if you're going to ever get to the 75-year number that the trustees say is necessary, the only way that that is going to happen is if you have a leader who's going to be able to push a bipartisan approach to the problem and get people around the table to decide how we're going to get there. ...

RUSSERT: Would you consider making the cost-of-living increase more accurate?

BRADLEY: Tim, I'm not going to get into going down the whole list of possibilities. When you are out there you have a negotiation and you're trying to get together people so this does not remain a political football.

RUSSERT: But something must be done, Mr. Vice President. Benefits cut by a third, taxes increased by a trillion dollars. Would you consider gradually raising the retirement age? ...

GORE: Tim, I strongly oppose raising the retirement age. ...

RUSSERT: Ever, ever?

GORE: Well, in the foreseeable future, ever, I'll say ever, sure. And let me tell you why.

You know, you're logic is that since lifespans are increasing, the retirement should also increase. But what that misses is that steel worker in Buffalo that you sometimes refer to, who has a hard, physical labor job, and the wear and tear on that person's skeleton and muscles is just the same as when average lifespans were shorter.

And, you know, Senator Bradley voted in the Senate to consider a measure that would raise the retirement age for both Social Security and Medicare to 70. I'm glad that he's backed off that now, because I think the American people are correct in opposing it. But the fact is, we have to make sacrifices, you're right on that point, but in an era of surpluses instead of deficits, here is one way to frame these sacrifices.

We have now the largest surpluses in history. I devote $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years to the Social Security trust fund, and then--because that's the money that's in Social Security. And then in the year, after the year 2010, devote all of the interest saved from paying down the debt to the Social Security trust fund. ...

...

RUSSERT: Reality check. Suddenly there are no surpluses. The economy goes into a downturn. Then what happens to Social Security and Medicare? The benefit levels are the same. You increase taxes. ...

BRADLEY: What happens then, Tim, is that Al's solution is gone. And we're back to what I said, which is you have to have a leader who's going to be able to convene a bipartisan approach to this problem to consider all of the possibilities.

No one is going to let Medicare or Social Security go bankrupt.

RUSSERT: What are all the possibilities?

BRADLEY: Well all of the things that you mentioned.

RUSSERT: Retirement age, taxing Social Security benefits like other pensions, bringing in state and local workers, everything's on the table.

BRADLEY: Well I'm not going to get -- I said no on retirement age, but I'm not going to get into all these other issues.

RUSSERT: But everyone -- you act like it's a hot -- it's radioactive. We can't possibly talk responsibly about Social Security and Medicare because we'll be punished by the unions and the senior citizens.

BRADLEY: That's why -- no, no that's partly because this has become nothing but a political football since 1983. One party has used it against the other since 1983.

...

RUSSERT: Well, Mr. Vice President, if in fact the surpluses go away, there's an economic downturn, what possibilities would you consider to save Medicare and Social Security because there's going to be a shortfall.

GORE: Look, more than a dozen times in the history of Social Security, we have had to make changes and put together bipartisan solutions that adjust to the fiscal realities of the time.

But, you know, whether we have ...

RUSSERT: So what's on the table? What's on the table? Be specific.

GORE: ... whether we have surpluses or not is not a matter to see in the crystal ball. That's determined by the choices we make today. I'm committing to surpluses.

RUSSERT: You're guaranteeing surpluses as far as the eye can see?

GORE: I'm committing that in every budget that I propose in a Gore presidency, we will pay down the national debt. I think that keeps interests rates lower, I think that it is good for progressive programs. It doesn't transfer all this money to wealthy bond holders, it helps to keep our economy strong.

Nobody's repealing the business cycle.

RUSSERT: So if there's a war, an oil embargo?

GORE: No, of course not. If there's a national crisis ...

RUSSERT: ... so you can't guarantee surpluses.

GORE: No, of course -- if there's a national crisis, then all bets are off.

RUSSERT: And everything's on the table for Social Security and Medicare.

GORE: Well, I'm not for raising the retirement age. I'll tell you that right now. And I don't -- the so-called elite opinion is that it's fine to raise the retirement age, that's a tough choice.

Listen, if you've got a waitress carrying trays at the age of 65, if you've got somebody on a jackhammer, or if you've got somebody who's a steelworker who's in hard physical labor, I am not going to tell that person that he or she has to wait another five years to get Medicare and Social Security.

RUSSERT: Let me turn to education. Senator Bradley, you supported tuition tax credits. A parent who sends their child to a nonpublic school could deduct part of the tuition on their income tax form. You supported a experimental program of vouchers throughout the country. As president, would you support tuition tax credits and vouchers?

BRADLEY: The answer is ... no. And I will tell you why. I have supported vouchers on an experimental basis on a number of occasions over 18 years. I do not believe that vouchers are the answers to the problems of public education. There are 47 million people, children in public schools, six million children in private schools, 90 percent capacity. How could 600,000 slots be the answer to the problem of 47 million children in this country? Every time I voted for vouchers, I voted for it as an experimental basis and I also said that I would ... not take any public money that was set aside for schools. This would be new money in order to do this experiment.

So I've said, no, I don't think that we're going to need that. There are experiments out there in the country today. And those experiments are in Cleveland and Milwaukee and quite frankly, the issue is, how do you improve the quality of public education in this country? And if those experiments demonstrated that the quality of public education was improved because of the competition, I think that it would be very difficult to turn your back on that evidence. ...

RUSSERT: When will we know whether those experiments have succeeded?

BRADLEY: Well, I think over the next several years. I mean, it's too early to tell now.

RUSSERT: But no to tuition tax credits.

BRADLEY: No to tuition tax credits.

RUSSERT: Why?

BRADLEY: Because I don't think the tax code should be gummed up with a lot of credits. I prefer a tax system with lower rates and fewer loopholes.

...

BRADLEY: Well, I'd like to ask Al ... if the experiments demonstrated that the quality of public education was improved, does that mean that you would not even consider vouchers?

GORE: You know, I favor competition, Bill. I favor competition within the public school system. I favor more choice for parents to send their children to whatever school they want to send them to. But the reason I oppose vouchers, Tim, is because even if you say it's not going to come from public school budgets, it does. Because history shows--experience shows, there's a set amount of money that communities have been willing to spend on education. And if you drain the money away from the public schools for private vouchers, then that hurts the public schools. ...

...

RUSSERT: ... Why don't those poor, minority moms with their kids, who could not possibly deal with the chaos of public school, deserve a break?

GORE: Well, I think they do deserve a break. And that's why I say ...

BRADLEY: Then ... how?

GORE: We've got to have a national commitment to not just nibble around the edges, not just have slow, incremental advances but to have truly revolutionary improvements.

That means testing all new teachers; that means getting two million new teachers over the next 10 years; that means rigorous peer review of current teachers, and making it easier within due process to fire the ones that are not doing the job. It means closing down failing schools, reopening them under a new plan, new principal, peer evaluation of all the teachers. It means reducing the class size. It means wiring ever classroom and library to the Internet. It means training ...

RUSSERT: But these parents have their child right now. They're not going to wait for your experiments and your ...

GORE: We shouldn't wait. I'm not talking about experiments.

RUSSERT: They have decided the public schools don't work. They want to send a non-Catholic to a Catholic school. Why not give them a couple hundred bucks to offset the burden of tuition?

GORE: Well, first of all, the flaw with the voucher theory is that the vast majority of those who receive a tiny little down payment on the tuition cannot afford the rest of it. And when you drain that money out of the public school system, it kicks off a downward spiral.

For example, George W. Bush says, close those schools, give them a $1,500 voucher, which is half of the average tuition. Most of those kids would then go to the next school district over, further crowding those classrooms, further overburdening those teachers.

We have to have a president who will say to this country, this is our number one investment in the future. We rank 18th out of 18 nations surveyed in 12th grade math, Tim. We now have 60 percent of the businesses in America with good--good-paying jobs they cannot fill because they can't find enough people with the education (inaudible) skills.

BRADLEY: Tim.

RUSSERT: Senator, I'll give you the last word on education.

BRADLEY: Yes, Tim. I don't think that anyone should question my commitment to public education. I also don't think they should question what I proposed.

I believe that there should be a strong federal commitment to education. Everything that we've learned about how children learn, they learn a lot in the first two to three years of life. So early childcare is tremendously important. I proposed a specific program for early childcare. I proposed doubling the number of people in Head Start.

When you get to the elementary and secondary school level, the single most important thing that the national government could do is to make sure there's a good teacher in every classroom, every classroom in this country.

I have proposed a way to get 600,000 teachers into the classrooms of public schools over the next 10 years.

And then, since the federal commitment should be from birth, include everyone, and go through all life stages, I make a strong commitment to community colleges in this country because that's where the kids go first to college and to a two-year, then to a four-year college. And that's where lifetime learning takes place. So the commitment in my view, has to be in the places where people live their lives.

I think the differences Al proposes in education program, many of the things that, you know, I don't have a problem with, but it comes from Washington as an education program, as opposed to helping people where they live their lives.

If you are that young mother you were talking about, and you need to get just a little skill, and you don't have any way to get that skill, well you could go to a community college, but then there's nobody to look after your children. You have to have somebody to look after your children so you can go to a community college. That's education help where people are living their lives.

I also think that the teacher shortage in this country is going to be dramatic over the next decade: 2.2 million teachers will retire over the next decade. That's why the single most important thing that the national government can do is to make sure that there's a good teacher in every classroom in this country.

RUSSERT: ... Mr. Vice President ... Senator Bradley proposed earlier this summer that he would not accept soft money if the Republican candidate would not accept soft money.

Let me show you what your campaign manager said about him back then and get your reaction: "In election after election, Bill Bradley took money from the Democratic Party. Now he would leave the party and every Democratic candidate from school board to U.S. Senator to fend for themselves while George W. Bush and the Republican money machine tried to buy the election."

Is that accurate?

GORE: That was in reference to a proposed -- what he thought was a proposal to have unilateral refusal to do soft money.

You know, two-and-a-half years ago, Tim, I made the same proposal, that we ought to completely give up soft money if the Republican Party would do the same thing. I said then--and Tony said later--that it shouldn't be unilateral. Subsequently, and maybe it was just a clarification, but Bill said the same thing.

RUSSERT: Is that accurate, Senator?

BRADLEY: No, I took the position last summer in a speech that I made, I asked the vice president to join me. He did not join me. There was no acceptance of the challenge I offered. And the day after I made the speech ...

RUSSERT: But your proposal is only if the Republicans agree? It's not unilateral.

BRADLEY: I've not ruled out the possibility of unilateral. However, if you look at the Republican money machine, it would be very difficult to do so.

GORE: I don't think it should be unilateral. That's the only point that was being made.

I have exactly the same position. I will refuse to accept soft money if the Republican nominee does. If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, then whichever one of us wins, there won't be soft money in this race.

Now, beyond that, 20 years ago I proposed and co-sponsored public financing for congressional elections. I have sponsored and co-sponsored more than a dozen major bills on campaign finance reform, over 20 years I refused to accept any PAC money, I have strictly abide by the $1,000 limit. I have the smallest average contributor in this race.

But, you know, we can go further than this, Tim. I would like to make a proposal on your show today and, you know, we don't have to wait for the Republican nominee to be picked, Bill. I'll make you this offer right now: If you will agree, I will stop running all television and radio commercials until this nomination is decided. That can get a lot of the money out of the presidential campaign and accomplish one of the best reforms. What about it?

BRADLEY: It sounds to me like you're having trouble raising money.

GORE: No. As a matter of fact, I'm not.

BRADLEY: I mean, this is a ridiculous proposal. You know, the way you communicate with people is when you talk to them. I love to talk to them in town meetings, that's my favorite place, I've been doing that since January.

But I also love to talk to them over television in their living rooms.

GORE: OK, here's the second part of the proposal.

BRADLEY: I love to talk to them about what I want to do with the country, who I am, where I'm from, what I believe, and where I'd want to take the country.

GORE: In 30 second commercials?

BRADLEY: Absolutely.

GORE: Well here, look. Here's my proposal, Bill ...

BRADLEY: You know, and the point is, the point is, that's not so difficult to do if you know what you believe. And if you know where you want to take the country. If you have a positive vision, if you're involved only in trying to go against someone, trying to hammer someone about this is wrong, that's wrong, whether it's my health care plan or what, then you only have a negative message.

GORE: Well, hold on a second here.

BRADLEY: I'm talking about positive messages to talk to people about where the country should go.

GORE: Well, you know, I haven't had to apologize yet. I accept your apology for ...

BRADLEY: I know you haven't, you haven't apologized.

GORE: Nor have you called upon me to, because I haven't given you cause to.

BRADLEY: I call upon you now to apologize. Do you apologize?

GORE: But at the beginning of the show -- no, I don't, because I have never launched a personal negative attack and I never will.

BRADLEY: OK, well there it is. There it is.

GORE: And I accept your apology at the beginning of the show.

But here's my proposal. Let's debate twice a week from now until the nomination is decided and just go face to face about the issues and get rid of all these television and radio commercials. Why not do that?

BRADLEY: You know something? For 10 months, that I was running for president, you ignored me, you pretended I didn't exist. Suddenly I started to do better and you want to debate every day. It's ridiculous. We're having debates. We had a debate the other night in New Hampshire, we're on "Meet the Press" today, we're going to be in Iowa and New Hampshire the first week in January.

The point is, Al, and I don't know if you get this, but a political campaign is not just a performance for people, which is what this is, but it is rather, a dialogue...

GORE: That's not what I'm doing.

BRADLEY: ... a dialogue with people, Al. It's a dialogue with people where you listen to their stories, where you listen to what they have to say about their country's future, where you seek to engage them and convince them that the direction that you want to take the country is the right way. That's what a campaign is about.

GORE: We could call this the "Meet the Press" agreement. We could have two debates every single week and get rid of all of the television and radio commercials. I'm willing to do it right now, if you're willing to shake on it.

BRADLEY: Al, that's good. I like that hand. But the answer is no. I mean, why should I agree now. I'm not someone who's interested in tactics, Al. I'm interested in the direction ...

GORE: These aren't tactics. It's how we discuss issues.

BRADLEY: ... this country is taking. The direction this country goes.

RUSSERT: Let me go back to campaign finance reform because, Mr. Vice...

BRADLEY: And that was a very interesting ploy on "Meet the Press."

GORE: Look, I'm ready to agree right now.

BRADLEY: That's nothing but a ploy.

GORE: Debates aren't ploys.

BRADLEY: No, to come here, shake my hand. That's nothing but a ploy.

GORE: I mean, if we debate twice a week, the American people are going to -- will find out a lot more about what we believe and what we're proposing. Look, this is a serious proposition, Tim. I'm ready to agree right here. These 30-second commercials are part of what's wrong with American politics. You have these little attack ads, you have these little fuzzy images.

BRADLEY: Will you commit not to run any attack negative ads?

GORE: Absolutely. I will never run a personal negative attack against you.

BRADLEY: No, no. Will you attack -- no attack ads?

GORE: Absolutely.

RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, as you know, the Clinton/Gore campaign spent $40 million in soft money in 1996. Fifteen million of it on negative attack ads against Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich. Because of the fundraising irregularities in raising that soft money, 22 people have been indicted, 12 have been convicted, 70 witnesses took the Fifth Amendment, 18 witnesses left the country, 23 foreign witnesses refused to be interviewed. ... Are you vulnerable to the Republicans on this issue?

GORE: ... The question is not whether we've made mistakes. Everybody who has been a part of this system has made mistakes.

RUSSERT: Will you admit that in 1996, the Clinton-Gore fundraising apparatus was overly aggressive, perhaps unethical?

GORE: I'm not going to use those words. I think that obviously we would do things differently if we had it to do over again.

The point is, do you learn from mistakes? And I certainly have. I strongly support ... RUSSERT: What was the biggest mistake that was made -- if you learn from it?

GORE: Oh, you know, I think that pushing the limits, all this was reviewed and no charges were brought. But I think it was a mistake nonetheless. And I have said that we have got to have campaign finance reform as a top priority. I have fought for it for 20 years. I think that it's--I think the next president has to make it happen, and I promise you, if you entrust me with the presidency, I will make meaningful, sweeping campaign finance reform happen, including requiring broadcasters to give free time for the discussion of issues in election years as a condition of using the public airways, including a ban on soft money, including a ban on PACs, including the strict limits on contributions.

RUSSERT: Senator, what did you think ... of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign's approach to fund raising?

BRADLEY: I thought that a lot of people in politics were embarrassed by it, quite frankly. I think Republicans and Democrats were disgraceful in that fundraising program in 1996.

Now, I think Al had the right point. It's the lessons that you learn. In 1990 I raised a lot of money for my Senate race. I raised too much money. I discovered that you can have too much money in a political campaign. I think that's what George Bush is going to discover.

Now, in Al's case, the attorney general investigated fully and determined that an independent counsel was not needed. And so the Republicans might make that an issue but that's the reality. But I think the question is what do you learn from this?

And what I learned is that you've had seven years to actually do something on campaign finance reform. And nothing has happened. I remember visiting the White House in 1993. Democratic Congress, both Senate and House, and urging the president to act on campaign finance reform. Now I don't know if you were in the loop or not. But the fact of the matter is that no action took place.

And when we say ...

GORE: Because all of the Republicans voted against it.

BRADLEY: What we need to do ...

GORE: And they controlled the Senate.

BRADLEY: Where was the effort made, Al, in 1993?

GORE: We got every single Democratic senator to vote for it.

BRADLEY: In 1993. Now the point here is that what do we do going forward. And how do we make this happen? Because politicians in Washington can talk back and forth about this forever and sound pretty good. But how do we make it happen?

That's why in this campaign, in every stop that I make, practically every stop I make, I talk about campaign finance reform. I talk about the abolition of soft money, public financing of elections, free television time. And I do that for a very specific purpose, Tim.

I do that because I believe that the people have something to say about this. I don't believe this is just Washington. And if the people understand they're paying higher taxes because of the way we finance political campaigns--little loopholes go into the tax code; that means that certain people pay less tax, the rest of us pay more.

...

RUSSERT: Let me move to another issue. You mentioned mistakes, Mr. Vice President. One year ago today, William Jefferson Clinton was impeached. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Bill and Hillary Clinton may ask the United States government -- taxpayers -- to reimburse $5 million in legal expenses. Is that appropriate?

GORE: I think they denied that. I think they denied that they will make such a request.

RUSSERT: So, it should not happen?

GORE: Well, I have no idea.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the taxpayers should pay for the legal defense of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

GORE: Well, look, they've denied that they're even asking. So it's not a -- you know, under the law -- as that article says, under the law they have the right to do it.

Would I do it in that position? No, I would not.

RUSSERT: Senator Bradley.

BRADLEY: You know, we went through a lot over the last year with impeachment. And while I don't think that what the president did reached the level of impeachment, when any someone, when any time the president lies to the people, he squanders the people's trust and undermines his own authority. And this was a sad time for our country and I don't think that the taxpayers should pay for the consequences of that act.

RUSSERT: On impeachment day, Mr. Vice President, you said that Bill Clinton will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents. Who else do you believe should be considered our greatest presidents?

GORE: Oh well, we all know who our greatest presidents are, from Washington and Jefferson, to Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy and all of the others.

RUSSERT: So, you put Bill Clinton in the same company as Washington and Lincoln.

GORE: Listen, I can ...

RUSSERT: It's a very serious question.

GORE: No, of course not. Of course not, but I think that his accomplishments are going to be regarded by the history books as far more significant than his personal mistakes.

And let me just review some of them for you. We've gone from the largest deficits to the largest surpluses. Instead of quadrupling the debt, we've paid down the debt and tripled the stock market. Instead of high unemployment, there's low unemployment. And within a month, Tim, or within six weeks, we're going to have the longest and strongest economic expansion in the entire history of the United States of America.

The crime rate has gone down seven years in a row, the welfare rolls have gone down by more than ever in history. Wages and real incomes are up. The wage gap has narrowed. You know, there's some people...

Let me just conclude.

RUSSERT: So this makes Bill Clinton one of the -- you used the word greatest. You stand by that?

GORE: I do. And I know that you and some others may believe that when the historians, many years from now look back on this period, that all of that will be eclipsed by the president's personal mistake. Maybe you're right. None of us has a crystal ball, but I doubt it.

RUSSERT: I make no judgments.

Senator Bradley, do you believe that Bill Clinton is one of the greatest presidents?

BRADLEY: Personally I'd pick Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson.

RUSSERT: Let me go to one foreign policy issue. In 1991, the Persian Gulf War. This is what Bill Bradley said as he voted "No," not to support the war.

"The Persian Gulf War is likely to become a bloody and long battle that could take up to six months and could destabilize the Middle East for decades to come." Senator Bradley said.

The ground war, as you know, lasted 100 hours. Was that a fundamental misjudgment on your part?

BRADLEY: Tim, I made the call as I saw it at the time. I was not against the use of force. The question was whether we should use force at that time or continue sanctions. I voted to continue sanctions. My sense is if they hadn't worked, there would have been a vote for force later, and I would have voted for it.

GORE: Was it a mistake?

BRADLEY: I think that my judgment is that it turned out that it worked well. But I made the call and I'll stand by that call.

RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, one year ago, Saddam Hussein threw out all the inspectors who could find his chemical or nuclear capability. One year. He now said just yesterday, "You're not coming back." When is the administration going to get in there and start inspecting? And two, do you believe that over the last year without inspections Saddam has developed and improved his nuclear and chemical capability?

GORE: Well, we're going to prevent him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction with the sanctions, which will remain in place; with the measures to prevent the flows of technology into Iraq. And let me just say, Tim, that I want to see him removed from power, but if Bill's vote had prevailed in the Senate, he would still be in Kuwait. Bill opposed going into the Persian Gulf War. He opposed our participation in Bosnia, our participation...

BRADLEY: I didn't ...

GORE: ... in Kosovo.

BRADLEY: I didn't oppose our participation in Bosnia.

GORE: ... opposing

BRADLEY: There was a vote on the Senate floor ...

RUSSERT: Let me just stay on track. No inspectors for the last year. Are you concerned he's had a full year to develop his nuclear and chemical capability and how can you assure the American people he hasn't taken advantage of a year without inspectors?

GORE: Well, we have the sanctions in place, Tim. We would like -- we just won a vote in the United Nations two days ago to reaffirm the world community's insistence that he abide by the UN resolutions and to get inspectors back in there.

RUSSERT: He has said no.

GORE: He has rejected it, I understand. But we're going to insist upon stopping the flow of technology.

RUSSERT: Will you force inspectors back in there?

GORE: Well, you know, there is no way to--absent his agreement, we have to rely on other measures. We're enforcing the no-fly zone and we're enforcing all the sanctions. There has been more military action taken from the air against Iraq in the last couple of years than there was ...

RUSSERT: Senator?

GORE: ... during the period of the war.

RUSSERT: Senator, would you force Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors in with the threat of military force?

BRADLEY: Well, I guarantee one thing I wouldn't do. I look at the resolution that just passed. I think the only reason the Security Council should have acted would be to tighten sanctions.

BRADLEY: And what this did was loosen them up, putting in not the old inspection group but a new inspection group controlled and effected by different countries.

I happen to think that it's a very serious mistake. We should not have gone in that direction.

RUSSERT: Will you threaten military force to get the inspectors back in ?

BRADLEY: I would reserve the right to do that, of course. The question is -- you'd have to read the intelligence reports, you'd have to read where we were at a particular time. You don't commit in a political campaign you're going to use force until you're able to see what the situation is on the ground.

...

RUSSERT: Senator Bradley, absent your marriage to Ernestine and the birth of your child and grandchild, what's the most defining moment of your life?

BRADLEY: I think the most defining moment of my life was when I made a decision to leave a small town in Missouri and come east and go to school at Princeton. I mean, that was what changed my life.

RUSSERT: Vice President Gore?

GORE: My decision to go into the U.S. Army and serve in Vietnam.

RUSSERT: If you could put two things in a time capsule which best represent this American century, what would they be?

GORE: Franklin Roosevelt's speech that included the phrase, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," and the signing of the Social Security Act.

BRADLEY: I would say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that opened up our system and allowed us to take a step forward of our collective humanity and the passage of Medicare.

RUSSERT: We now have asked each of the candidates to talk directly to the voters and the viewers. Senator Bradley, you have 45 seconds.

BRADLEY: I think that we offer different styles of leadership. I think that's what the people have to choose. When I was in the United States Senate, I'd take big complicated issues like taxes, international trade and put a structure of reform around those and push that reform. I would take issues that were considered volatile, like race, and try to play to our better angels.

And each time I did that, someone would come to me and say, "You know, that's a political risk." And I said, "Yes, but that is the risk of leadership."

In this campaign I think that we see that I would try to do bold things again in terms of the toughest gun control proposal that any candidate has offered, in terms of making health care, quality health care, access to it available to all Americans.

RUSSERT: Senator Bradley, thank you.

Vice President Gore.

GORE: I think one of the issues that has emerged in this presidential campaign, in both parties, is who has the experience to keep our economic prosperity going, to make the big decisions on the budget and economic policy correctly.

Secondly, you know, the American people need and deserve somebody in the White House who is willing to fight for you.

For 23 years, I have been a fighter for working men and women. I'm not afraid to take on special interests. I stand on principle. I believe that we can make this country a better place. There's only one position in the Constitution where the individual has a responsibility to fight for all the people, and that's president of the United States.

I ask for your vote and your support to fight for you as president.