thumbnail of Debate 1988, President, Democrat; Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate; 
     Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse
    Jackson, and Paul Simon participated. 
  ; Part 2
Transcript
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
We're going grained other countries why shouldn't we sell our value added agricultural products like processed foods and beef and other products that we make so well in the United States. So I'm not satisfied with where we are. I want us to have more access to other markets. Thank you Congressman Gephardt. Reverend Jackson. I think the question about black land loss deserves at least a different answer. Nine hundred twenty six thousand. Black farmers in 1920. Now about 37000. First saw must need affirmative action. They have a double burden on a small family. But they're also black means often they can not get loans. Often they can not get access to the market. They need a strong affirmative action provision. Second that they need a commitment by the administration to give deference to the particulars of their predicament. Most of that land has not gone to other white farmers which is the big racial play. It has gone either to
the arts of the Con Ag was of this world they have gone into some land bank that's impossible to return all the land to those who almost lost it when they are black or white. I'm a long time low answer interest basis. It would be fab to say that black and white farmers finally. Must come together because unless they rise together to cut each other. Thank you Reverend Jackson. Governor Babbitt. I'd like to follow up Reverend Jackson's remarks about small family farms because I think we all try to say we're not going to protect family farms that we ought to put some incentives in the system to encourage more family farms to see if we can't actually start a movement away. From the consolidation of farms that has been built up over these Republican administrations. Now mandatory
production controls seem to result in the consolidation of agriculture we've seen it in the 50 percent loss of small farms under the tobacco program. We've seen it in Canada under the milk program we've seen it with rice and peanuts in the south and rather than locking in the big farmers with guaranteed subsidies and prices that come from a mandatory program. I'd like you to think about how it is that a targeted loan rate program with all of the big agriculture out left to fend for themselves creates a positive incentive for the return of small farms because then it's the little guy who gets the government supply bank you get. Senator seining. Comments in two quick areas. We talked to earlier about research one of the
fundamental things that is wrong is that we are making a huge investment in this country into military research how to build better and more accurate nuclear missiles and that sort of thing. We ought to be spending a lot more money in research and a lot of other things including how we can use our productive capacity in this country. And then second I would simply like to reinforce the need for enforcement of the anti-trust laws the anti-trust laws are just a dead letter as far as this Justice Department is concerned. And let me tell you it's hurting farmers now and it's going to hurt farmers a lot more in the future. Fewer and fewer meatpackers around where you sell your hogs. Where do you sell your cattle in the grain market. It's well documented. What is happening out in the grain market. We have to have an administration that understands the letter of the law
and the spirit of the law and then fights to see that our free enterprise system really is free. That's going to help farmers. That's going to help consumers. That's going to help everybody. Thank you Senator. Senator. MCCAIN We've had a good deal of heated populist rhetoric here today about who's toughest on the great giant grain trading companies and I can do it with the best of them. I think the real issue is how are people financing financing their campaigns and how they voted in Congress where special interest legislation comes up. It's one thing to kick the grain companies around. It's another thing to take on corporate interest and giant interests and vote against your own self-interest. I'm not taking political action committee money because I think it's corrupting the system. We've got some people here who are and who voted with special interests in Congress time and time again where Mike Dukakis is concerned on energy. Let me just say this as an advocate of an energy independence policy he must be getting his figures from the giant oil companies who don't want that oil import the
because they are net importers of oil and making a bundle on it. And Harvard University in his own backyard has said we're headed back to the bad old days of the 1970s. And 50 percent or more reliance on imported oil. I don't know how many people in this audience have a 21 year old son but I do and I don't intend to have my son die in an unnecessary war in the Persian Gulf fighting for someone else's oil. Thank you. My. Pockets. Well that's pretty good populist rhetoric Gary. But I think it's a little bit beside the point. It's also a fact. What you're proposing is a 50 billion dollar burden on this economy both agricultural and manufacturing at a time when we can't afford it and we don't need it. And a substantial portion of that burden will go into the pockets of the oil companies. But much of it will be borne by farmers and homeowners and workers manufacturers. We will lose jobs. Farmers themselves will have additional costs of nearly a billion
dollars imposed on him. And to repeat what I said earlier one of the few breaks the farm has gotten in this country is lower energy costs. We have 300 years of coal in this country and clean coal burning technologies. We can use right now we got 150 years worth of natural gas. One of the cleanest one of the most efficient fuels will get a lot of gas producing states that would love to provide that gas for the production of energy. We have opportunities for solar and renewable and cogeneration. We have as we've heard today billions and billions of bushels of corn that could be turned into ethanol mixed with gasoline and clean up our air and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We do not need an oil import tax. It's a bad idea. It's something that will hurt the economy this country and hurt the farmers of this country. Thank you Governor Dukakis. We've enjoyed the spark's event of that round. Now take a deep breath. The next round we will begin with Miss Katie who are Director question to Governor Babbitt. Governor Bobby you've stated your opposition to farm programs that would raise the market price of farm commodities in recent years the prices of many farm commodities have
been well below farmers cost of production. How would you keep family farmers on the land producing at prices below their cost of production without extensive government deficiency payments such as made through the target price and market loan programs. Well you see I've already explained to you that I believe that the loan rights support ought to be withdrawn from the big farmers. That's how I'm going to save money and that's why I'm going to raise loan rates for family farmers. But you see that also has another effect because if you pull the loan rate out from under those big producers I think they're going to be a little bit less eager to plant into the horizon. They're going to start thinking about costs and prices and I believe that some of that production will tail off precisely because I'm no longer spending your money to reward them for making an irrational economic decision. That's why it is I think it's important to target the support on family farms. Now if I might I'd kind of like to go back to Gary and Mike for just a moment. Gary you've
produced a budget. But my Try to oil imports the is the most regressive tax in the whole world. And whether or not the oil companies like it they're getting the goods they're getting two thirds of it. And I think you ought to go back and find a real revenue source. Now Mike you've told us what you're against gemstones tolls what you're for and I'd like to see a budget and then I'll be back to mix it up again. We'll have one more opportunity. To say that question Congressman Gephardt Congressman Gephardt. Even opponents of your Family Farm Act admit that it would be the lowest cost alternative and would raise farm income. However your proposal has been criticized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others who claim it would reduce U.S. farm exports. How do you respond to their criticism.
Well first of all the studies that have been done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture I think are suspect to say the least. In fact I think the fact and the influence of the big grain cartels and the big grain companies have been felt in the last seven years on the Department of Agriculture. So I don't much believe there studies. But let me say this about exports and what my bill I think does with exports as I said a minute ago. We have increased exports in the last year but we did it by getting less value back to the family farmer. I don't think that's a policy that works. The administration keeps saying let's get more export out into the world market and that'll help us ultimately. But if you're sending it out at a low low price then the farmer is not getting a return. Even a return sufficient to cover their cost of production. So the Harkin
Gephart bill gets prices up. Then it asks the president to trade negotiators to go to other countries and to try to reach sensible agreements so that we have world prices and supply management around the world so that farmers everywhere can make a living. I don't want to break farmers anywhere. And why should we be using food as a weapon to cut prices for farmers in other countries. One other thing you know low prices really don't mean that people are not able to have good food. We've got counties here in Iowa where where we have the highest hunger rate of any place in the United States. And these are counties where there is tremendous production of agricultural products at a low price. So the low price isn't helping the consumers it isn't helping the farmers and it doesn't help the farmers in those other countries. So what I look forward to is negotiation in order to get the same
kind of price levels and the same kind of supply management around the world so that farmers everywhere not just in America can do well. Thank you Congressman Gephardt. This is Woller. Your question goes to Reverend Jackson. Reverend Jackson during the farm crisis of the 1980s millions of acres of farmland have come under the control of lenders outside investors and large corporate operators. You've already told us about the barracudas syndrome. But I would like to know what specific ways that you would propose to get this land back into the hands of the working family farms. First of all the family farm just lost it in a systemic crisis. If we had lost six to six hundred farmers you could say it was a personal crisis. They were driven out. Prices were driven down and the conglomerates were able to deficiency payments to get subsidized
while these farmers got got pulverized. They were victims of a system if they didn't farm or unless they farm they could not get the subsidy if they farm. They drove prices down. Now we've had to bail out the farm credit system which I agree with. But then if we can bail out the prime credit system and bail out Chrysler and Japan because of systemic problems and bail out Europe and Japan bail out the family farmer is a part of the same basic commitment to correct errors when they find deficiencies. But that man is now in the land. Farmers beginning farmers or minority farmers almost who want to regain their land should be able to get their land back. At long term low interest loans those who have till the soil. Who saw them made them because the farm system the best in the rural of the first access on getting their land back. Thank you. Thank you Reverend Jackson.
Mr. Burkett you have a question for Senator sign Senator Sam. This question comes from the Federation of Southern co-op the new Phong credit should should count correct pace will be used by both to form of Holland ministration and the foreign credit system. But many farmers I work with are concerned that they will not implement the bower right section of this law. When a farmer in Mississippi still cannot get farm operate and land ownership was still what you take as president to address these credit problems faced by family farmers across America. First the bill that passed is a good bill. It is a step in the right direction and in addition every other step. If we don't get prices up we can have all kinds of fine regulations and statutes passed. We're not going to help the farm credit system appreciably. There are things in that bill that fall the leadership frankly here in Iowa and as I recall Minnesota you. You had them in a
mediation service in Minnesota along with with Iowa. That is a step in the right direction but a very fundamental thing and this is why it is important to have a presence in the United States who understands rural America and what rural America is all about. What we need are people who are out there for the Farmers Home Administration and the various farm credit agencies who really are going to try and help farmers. And I don't need to tell this audience that is not the case in too many cases today. That's not a hint to me back there. Jesse you've been talking about the barracudas. One of the barracudas I regret to say out there for farmers has been the United States government. That is one of the realities. And what we have to have is a press of the United States who sends
a very very clear signal to everyone working for the farmers Home Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the various credit agencies. Your job is to help family farmers and protect farmers. We need the right signal from the top. My hope is that under this administration despite this administration will will get a favorable response. The law is very clear. It is good but we need a president who really understands rural America and who's going to fight and we need for rural America. Thank you Senator Simon. Mr. Weiss will question Senator Hi Senator Hart. Paul remains a problem in countries around the world. And considering the U.S. grain supplies. How would you propose to address the hunger issue without disrupting third world efforts toward food self-reliance.
Well it's an it's an important question because a lot of Americans don't understand it all of us have traveled the country and in my travels urban people particularly say we've got these huge surpluses there are hungry people at home and abroad why don't we just feed them. Help the farmers and help the people in foreign countries. Well we've come to realize is that a number of those foreign countries must become and can become reasonably agriculturally self-sufficient and we ought to help them in the meantime their people shouldn't starve while they're getting on their feet. But the goal in those countries where the geography and the climate permits is to help them through agricultural technology and assistance and experts become as self-sufficient as they can can to feed their own people. And we shouldn't undermine their ability to create that agricultural self-sufficiency. Now there are nations in the world in the third world that don't have those conditions and cannot become enoughs agriculturally self-sufficient ever feed all their people there I think traditional food programs and new food
programs can be used not only to work down our own surpluses but to meet the moral demands of ending hunger. What I would like to do is to challenge Mr. Gorbachev in January of 1989 to join us in a joint humanitarian commitment to end world hunger by the year 2000. We can do that starting here at home. And together we can do it around the globe. Our farmers are the most efficient producers in the world certainly more than the than the Russians. We've come to learn. We ought to direct and target our assistance into those areas. One final comment. I travel to Central America 1983. What I found in Honduras El Salvador and other nations where farmers in those in those villages outside those villages with per capita incomes in the range of four five or six hundred dollars per year. And while American army bulldozers and machines and engineers were building runways and defense establishments to support the Contra war illegal Contra war which ought to be ended. Those villages were that
were standing there watching wondering why we couldn't provide the same assistance that helped them elevate their crop production build roads to get their crops to markets build schools and hospitals and medical centers for their children and generally help them raise their standard of living. In my judgment that would not only save us a lot of dollars it would also frustrate communism and end up saving American lives in potential wars in those regions of the world. So I would say in terms of our foods food surpluses Let's target them on the countries that cannot become agriculturally self-sufficient and other nations that can. Let's send them our technical assistance. Let's send some Iowa farmers. Let's send some Colorado farmers to help those farmers increase their crop production and feed their own people. Thank you Senator Hart. Back to Miss Haiti direct the question to Governor Dukakis. Governor Dukakis increasing farm prices could result in an increase in supermarket
prices. Here from one of the most urban states in the nation. How do you talk about this with the people of Boston thoughtfully and well and let me say this and other people for my part of the country care very deeply about the farmers of Iowa on the farmers of the heartland of this country. I remember when those news reports first came came on and on television and we saw farm families having their farms taken away from them. There was enormous sympathy and support for people in the northeast and all over this country. The family farmer has great support all across this country whether it's east west north or south. And I think that's something that we all ought to bear in mind. We care about family farmers we care about the future of agriculture. We do not want the production of food in this country to become the province of corporations and conglomerates. And we will support policies to do that. Now what is happening and I'm in a sense repeating what I said a few minutes ago.
We've decided I guess as a nation temporarily out this is going to change in June of 1989 that we're going to engage in a massive program of food subsidies. It's really what's happening. It's really what's happening. And instead of trying to provide our farmers with a fair price that at least covers the cost of production and hopefully does a little more what we are now doing is subsidizing to the tune of 20 to 25 billion dollars the cost of food in this country and of course some of our exports. I don't believe that people of my region of the country want food subsidies. I think we're prepared to pay a reasonable price for food. And since that 20 to 25 billion dollars is adding to a massive federal deficit which we all know is causing great economic uncertainty and having a devastating effect on our ability to build a strong and vibrant economic future for our country it doesn't help us as consumers to be engaging or spending our tax monies on those kinds of subsidies for the sake of a few pennies more on a loaf of bread or in a box of cereal. I think we all
know that only 25 percent of what we're paying in the supermarket gets back the farm or anywhere on average so we're not talking about vast increases here. So I think the people of this country are prepared to pay reasonable prices for the food that will at least provide for a fair price for farmers and I think if given the choice they'd rather have that than another 20 to 25 billion dollars on a federal deficit that is already too big. Is raising interest rates to farmers and homeowners and first time homebuyers and all kinds of people in this country that would benefit from lower interest rates and in reducing that deficit would move us a lot further on the road toward general prosperity for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Governor Dukakis. Now the next one of those one minute rounds. One you can respond either to questions already asked or respond to answers given by another candidate. And we will begin with you Governor. Mike I only wish the 25 percent of what I pay for my food were actually going to the people who grow it.
What you buy. I think that a lot of our discussion today has been characterized by by differing views about the future. My view of the future of this farm belt is optimistic. I believe we're going to see the day when our kids are eager to come back to a farm because they all know that there's a real price in an expanding market. My view of this matter is simply this. There are markets out there and we ought not to be talking about contraction about losing jobs and shrinking the economy. We ought to be looking out there aggressively world markets that uses at ethanol. And you see my farm plan talks about maintaining prices by targeting that loan right by saying the loan rate only available to family farmers does a lot of good things and gets the big guys out.
It will help the supply side because they won't make so many supply side decisions when they don't have that government subsidy and it will foster a return to family farms because the only support will be a family support and we'll get some motion back to a real strong vibrant farm economy. Thank you Governor Babbitt. Congressman Gephardt I'd like to talk again about food prices to consumers. You know in the last few years prices for farmers have been going down and farmers have been going broke but I haven't noticed any of the prices in the grocery store going down. And that really is the point. There's so little of what a farmer makes in any product we buy that you can double what the farmers getting and it is going to affect consumers that much. In fact the studies we've seen at the University University of Missouri and Iowa State say that Harkin Gephardt would only increase consumer prices by 7 percent over 10 years. And one other thing you know I think that John Deere workers in the
J.I. case workers or at least the ones that used to be there in the Quad Cities wouldn't mind paying two or three cents more for a box of Wheaties. If they still had a job at their plant in the Quad Cities. Thank you Congressman Gephardt. They don't stop by themselves very often. Reverend Jackson. He ran out of something to say. I want to pick up on. The spirit of his conclusion. One thing that we must do as Democrats is to stop the rural swamp urban consumer Pleyel which keeps both of them weak rural farmers. When they ask for fair prices and supply Medicine Man there's a turn of the land. All right. Urban consumers we're asking for fall fair
wages and Mochis and a ton of their jobs. Right. And they must come together. Urban consumers must know that they are not paying higher prices because Hamas are taking something from them as a matter of fact. Farm prices have gone down consumer price have gone and so farmers and urban consumers should not be fighting each other. They should come together on the Baracuda because that's jamming both of them. Yes is the GM Angi in the city is an Conagra and Cargill and the countryside that a lot. Never again should we allow race and sex and religion and region and few pennies to separate us from each other. Farmers and workers united will never be defeated. That becomes our challenge. Thank you. Reverend Jackson. Simon.
Simon. But first I want to say to Jesse if you paid a dollar and a quarter for this little box of Wheaties is going in the wrong grocery store. Oh. But I'd like to underscore a point. I'd like to underscore a point that Jesse made that I think really is important because frequently in these discussions we pit farmers against consumers. We're in this ballgame together. Fortunately consumers in the United States pay less as a percentage of our income for food than people in any other country. And with the exception of the people who unfortunately are falling through the cracks under this administration. And and there are far too many of them by and large Americans live better than anyone else. But let me just say to consumers who may be watching this if you think farm prices or grocery prices are too high now you get rid of the family
farm and you see that family farm diminish more and more and you just wait to see what happens to prices. I think Americans understand that. Thank you. Senator. We are here today to speak to farmers but Miss Katie raises a very important point and that is our willingness to speak for farmers because that's what a president must do. What I try to do is travel the country in particularly is a product of rural America is to speak to urban audiences non farmers consumers about the plight of the farmers not only in Iowa and Colorado but across this country and make the very valid point very Jeffersonian point that Paul Simon makes consumers have an interest in for preservation of the family farm let the production the productive farm land of this country fall into the hands of a couple of dozen giant corporations and then the consumers are going to find out what high prices are. And I tried to bear that message to the urban dwellers of America
for three quarters or more who live in cities who consume the products of this land in the state that I come from. I find them willing to listen. I find them willing to accept In fact I find them cheering a proposal that will keep a broad base of family farm ownership and production in this country not only in their interest but in the interest of a solid American economy that is self-sufficient and food production that must be a goal of the next administration. Thank you Senator. Governor Dukakis. And let me continue with this theme. Dick talked about those workers in the quad cities that have lost their jobs and what would have happened if we had a healthy growing agricultural economy. Remember too that the steel for those tractors is made in Pittsburgh. The fuel that is used to fuel those forges comes from Texas. The computers that make sure that that steel is of first rate quality come from my part of the country. All of us benefit in an economic sense as well as the people of one nation. When our farm economy is growing and
expanding and is vibrant again our family farms are thriving and prospering. And I think that's something that the American people instinctively understand it's very very important none of us gain from what has been happening. And as candidates for the presidency we do have a responsibility to take that message to every corner of this country but I think people in this country understand that they sympathize with it they support it. They know that their future their jobs their prosperity depends on a prosperous and healthy farm economy. Thank you Governor Dukakis. And you want some time to follow the clock that in the final round of questions we're going to give you one minute and to respond to say your question is directed to Reverend Jackson. Yes. This question comes from Richard Johnstone from Lamar Colorado. On behalf of the Rocky Mountain farmers union Reverend Jackson he says cheap feed grains have severely undercut the value of our grass and hey here in Colorado. Cattle prices have been pretty strong but with
the experts say the experts say the cattle market cannot hold up past this year. What would be your policies but where would your policies do to stabilize the livestock industry at a profitable level. First of all just to expand upon his own observation in the last 10 years Sixty five percent of the Cal growers in this state are now the business. The same is true for the farmers hog farmers. The costs were involved. We made five recommendations one that we should have found crop prices and supply management and return the land that is a key to it. Second the fat dairy prices just as we have fat prices for other products. A shift in the research from just large Federalists spurred this funding to that of livestock but those in family farm was the third to revamp the federal poultry inspection system as well.
But above all in force and to trust legislation on these conglomerates who stand to gain by keeping grain and feed prices down when they keep the prices down they keep the farmers down. The dairy farmer down the poultry down eventually drive them from the land. I repeat again I've said all day today I'm very concerned about a few come this controlling and the real sense of being subsidized by the government and then they control the elevator. They control the process and they control the ship and they control third world countries they end up controlling us all. We must have a commitment to an effective livestock program. Reverend Jackson and Mrs. Wagner your question to Congressman Gephardt this question comes from Francis Horrigan a dairy farmer who chairs the Vermont Senate Agriculture Committee. Congressman Gephardt on January 1st dairy farmers took a 50 cent per hundred weight
cut in milk prices which is one more in a series of price cuts required by the 1985 farm bill. These cuts are based on the theory that if we lower the price far enough farmers will stop producing so much milk. Do you believe in the theory that lowering farm prices is an effective supply management tool. And if not what would you do about balance. Supply and demand in the dairy industry. Well the situation in dairy is much like other commodities and what we've done with the present farm program is that we are trying to get price down. I disagree with that. The Harkin Gephart bill has a specific section that affects dairy farmers. First they can vote on whether or not they want a higher price and greater supply management. I suspect that dairy farmers would vote for that in Vermont and all across the country and incidentally in Vermont and New York. Dairy farmers are going out of business at a faster rate than almost
any place in the country. So I think farmers would vote for that if they do then we set the rate up the support rate up they get a higher price. We would engage in greater supply management and we would keep dairy farmers in business. The present policy I think is not announced but I think the present policy is to get rid of dairy farmers. I don't like that policy. I don't think the American consumer should like that policy. And when I'm president we'll pass the Harkin Gephardt Bill and we'll turn and run. Congressman Gephardt Mr. Burkett your question to Governor Babbitt. A bad day. The proposal in Congress to raise excise taxes on consumer goods and services such as gasoline diesel fuel tank batteries alcohol tobacco and telephone services. Do you support an increase in gas taxes as a means of raising revenue. I am one candidate who has tried to be honest about these issues because I believe
that we're not going to have a farm economy we're not going to have a strong growing prosperous American economy unless we deal with this budget deficit. Honestly now we have to do that by talking about what programs we would cut not across the board but in a way that preserves the important programs. And I think we need to be honest about raising revenue. Now we've had a discussion about the oil import fee. I think it's the most aggressive tax of all that it sends the benefits to the oil companies excise taxes that you suggest are a partial response. But I'll tell you frankly if we're serious about our economic future and about the programs we care for and about reversing the destruction of help for those who really need it in creating a real future. We've got to be a little more honest about this issue of taxes. I advocate a progressive consumption tax. Mike Dukakis is going to jump in right here
and say it's not a progressive tax. It is. Thank you. Because you exempt poor people from the fact that you missed the showers. Question to Senator Hart Senator Hart. The average migrant farm worker family survives on an income of less than half the federal on an income of less than half the federal poverty level. They often live in substandard housing with inadequate health care. They are exposed daily to highly toxic chemicals sometimes without adequate protection. What would you do to improve the situation of American farmers or families. I think there have to be national standards strictly enforced by the federal government to protect the well-being of migrant workers in this nation that includes their housing and shelter care for their children and education of their children. Health standards in terms of the working conditions and opportunities for a decent standard of health care and overall supervision of those that employ them
to make sure they're not being taken advantage of. I'll say something here that probably is not totally acceptable to everyone but I favor raising the minimum wage in this country. Unlike others here who voted against raising the minimum wage I think it ought to be $5. I think we ought to get people on to work and off welfare. And I think one way to do that. One way to do that is to give him a decent compensation right now there are tens of millions of Americans who can work at the minimum wage 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year and still be well below poverty. That is unacceptable. We're going to have to raise the floor of income and standard of living for the people who have been left out and are at the bottom of the ladder and we can start with the migrant workers and others who are on the very fringe of our society in terms of both the income they have and the protections they have. That is the federal government's responsibility. Thank you Senator. Hi. This question to Senator Simon please.
This question comes from the Land Stewardship Project headquartered in Stillwater Minnesota. Senator Simon federal farm policies that encourage maximum production often conflict with environmentally sound farming practices thereby penalizing farmers who are good stewards of the land. How would your program address this conflict. As I indicated earlier I think we have the wrong kinds of conservation programs and ultimately we're going to be reading maybe early the next century not about a shortage of oil. Not about a shortage of water. I'm not suggesting aren't serious problems in both areas. We're going to be reading about a shortage of topsoil and we ought to be doing everything we can to preserve that for future generations and we're doing an inadequate job of it now but clearly has to be one of the two priorities. Number one prices it can give farmers profits. And number two genuine conservation and I think those genuine conservation programs have to be
tied in with farm payments. And here I think we have to recognize one of the inequities Bruce has referred to it. 72 percent of the farmers earn less than $40000 a year they get less than 10 percent of the farm payments. One point three percent of the farmers earn more than $500000 a year. They get 13 percent of the farm payment. We have to have more sensible policies and policies that encourage genuine conservation you can continue that. Your final statement Mr. Sidey you have the last question to Governor Dukakis. Governor Dukakis rural economic development has become a buzz word in this campaign. Everyone seems to be foreign. I would like to get more specific. How do you define rural economic development. Does it mean federal aid or tax incentives to a Fortune 500 company located in a farm state. Does it mean a similar aid for a big shopping mall it
will compete with small town stores. And what about the wage level and the quality of those jobs. We seek to create in rural America Society in my state there is a county which is called Franklin County it's county seat happens to be greenfield it exactly the same mix. But we both have a greenfield and we both have a Franklin County unemployment in that county and some of its towns in 1982 was 18 20 and 22 percent today it's three and a half. That's because of a focused effective program of rural and small town economic development. I propose the creation of a National Economic Development Fund of a half a billion dollars one seventh of what we're spending on Star Wars 100 hundred million of that to be focused in on the special problems of rural America loans grants to expanding companies to new companies. Most of those small and medium size that create good jobs at good wages not minimum wage jobs an opportunity to rebuild the infrastructure of rural America to provide training all of the things that go into sound and effective rural development.
I've seen it work it's worked in my state it's worked in other states. It can work here in the heartland of America. Thank you. Thank you. Governor Dukakis the time is gone quickly. Now you have the opportunity for two minutes of your last shot at this wonderful heartland audience and all of those watching us today and we will begin with Senator Simon those who wrote our Constitution had a dream to form a more perfect union. It is very interesting. In the rural communities in which we live and we really didn't talk much until your final question about rural economic life outside of agriculture in small communities we learned to care about each other and that's one of the things we have to learn as a nation once again with a president who really leads us. But we also have to recognize the economic importance of agriculture. And we're not going to we're not just talking about farmers. We're talking about a lot of other people. Chief Executive Officer of
Navistar used to be International Harvester was in my office. I asked him how many people did you employ four years ago said ninety seven thousand said how many people do you employ today. He said 15000. Those aren't farmers. But they understand what is happening to rural America and so do I. I've milk cows I bailed hay. I live in rural America. I understand what is happening and I understand we can do infinitely better. And I have been there helping rural communities and farmers not just in election years. I've been there year after year after year and I will be no matter what position I hold in there fighting for farmers. What you want in a president is someone who has a vision of a better nation and a better world. Part of that vision ought to be a healthy agriculture and a healthy rural life. If you want someone as
president who understands rural America who lives in rural America and who is willing to lead for a better rural America I stand ready. Thank you Senator Simon. Governor Babbit your closing statement. We've had a good debate and I think it should be clear that all of us share the same goals and provide a much much better alternative than the disaster of the last seven years. But the plain fact is that I've tried to explain to you tonight that I have a different view but I want to be frank about telling you that the mandatory production controls embodied in the Gephardt approach I think have serious problems and I must tell you I can't support that approach. For three reasons. Yeah I understand that. You know I do have a different view and that you do feel strongly but I didn't come here to
pander to the prevailing view. I came here to try to be honest about why I'm different. I think that approach risks destroying our export markets. That means an enormous contraction in agriculture means that 40 percent of the land in this state will go out of production and it means that the farm suppliers and the implement makers and the entire economy of the farm belt will begin to shrink by 30 to 40 percent. I worry about the fact that the benefits in the form of increased prices go not only to family farmers but they go to all those agribusinesses all over the United States at entrenches their power rewards them provides them the base from which to expand their grip on American agriculture. I understand that that's the prevailing wisdom and I respect that. But what I've tried to do is tell you that I see a different future a future based on optimism. I believe that your kids out there all over this state face an
optimistic expansionist future that we can find markets that your kids are going to come home from states all over the union to a prosperous future with expanded trade. Larger markets new products and they're in the meantime we can keep the family farm safe and prosperous and provide income by targeting the resources we do have on family farms. That's my plan. I hope you'll consider it. Thank you very much Governor Babbitt. Governor Dukakis. I'd like to end my portion of this discussion by saying thank you once again to the farmers and the farm families and the people of Iowa and of its cities and rural towns and of its farms and farm communities. This has been a wonderful experience for me and my family and when somebody asks you if we are to begin and I'll and begin with these carcasses you tell them that the guy from Massachusetts deeply believes that this is one of the most important experiences we've ever had. I too am an optimist.
I think we can build a future for this country and for its farmers and rural communities and cities as well as bright and vibrant and promising and growing that will create economic opportunity for every single one of our citizens. I'm committed to that. I bring a record of economic growth and development and achievement to this race. And I hope you'll support me. But we also live in an increasingly smaller and more complex world and the next president the United States is also going to have the opportunity to shape a foreign policy that reflects American values that's important to the people of this country it's important to the people of rural America. A president who is committed to ending Contra aid and ending our failed and illegal policy and Central American. President who will take advantage of the best opportunity we've had for meaningful arms control and arms reduction and a halt to the arms race in generations. I want to be that kind of president. And with your help. I want to go to the White House and build a more stable and a more peaceful world a prosperous America one in which every citizen of this country enjoys the American dream and does so for himself or
herself and their family and for their community. Thanks for having us. This has been a good afternoon and I've enjoyed it. Thank you Governor Dukakis. Senator Hart. My family and I are glad to be back. As I said in this state two years ago my foreign policy can be compressed into three words price price and price. But I would like to talk to Iowans today not as farmers but as Americans and citizens of the world. You are going to select not the secretary of agriculture. There are others here probably more qualified for that than I am and I'll certainly keep them in mind. You are going to select the president of the United States and the leader of the free world. Your concern not only with our foreign policies but whether or not we have taken the trouble had the courage not only to have a vision but dispelled that vision out a vision of restructuring this nation's economic foundation investments in food and energy production in our manufacturing base.
Most of all in the education and training of our children and our workers a vision that incorporates the domestic economy into the world marketplace that resist the temptation of protectionism for short term political gain. In the interest of opportunity for ourselves and other people around the world for long term human gain a vision of a foreign policy that engages us in the third world instead of as the policeman rather as the helpers and the friends of emerging nations and finally a vision that addresses the realities of defending ourselves in a dangerous era by reducing it by meeting the Gorbachev challenge of reducing nuclear weapons and reforming this nation's defenses. I think you want leadership that not only tells you what it stands for and how to get there but also how to pay for it. That's why I've put a budget out. That's why I think everyone running for president ought to put a budget out what we're doing here is seeking your support because America cannot be strong without a strong farm base but a strong farm base cannot be strong without a strong America. That's what the issue is. The issue is
to integrate this nation's economy into the world market place to give opportunity for American farmers American workers and American young people. That is my policy and that is why I need your help. Thank you Senator. Congressman Gephardt. As we end this debate I'm reminded that a lot of people want us to believe today that the farm crisis is over. The Wall Street Journal the other day loudly proclaim that. But I don't think the farm crisis is going to end until the family farmers get a chance to decide what the policy should be. A lot of farmers say to me I like the Harkin Gephardt Bill but I don't think they'll let you pass. I'd like to ask who they is. I think I know who they is. They is the establishment it's the Reagan administration it's the big grain companies that like the status quo and don't want anything to change. And
you got to understand that this is an economic battle it's a fight between people who have one set of interests and people who have a another set of interests and many of you may think that you can't match that other set of interests that you can't. You don't have the power you don't have the influence that the other side has. Well don't you believe it. You don't have to accept that definition of progress that says the family farm has to die. Or that rural schools have to close or that young people have to leave Iowa to find jobs somewhere else. You can change things that Tom Harkin and I and the others that support the bill can't do it alone. We need you on February the 5th of February the 8th. Your voice is going to be as powerful as anybody's voice in this land. And on February the 8th if you'll stand up with me we can confound the critics. We can surprise
the establishment and we can let family farmers decide their future. Again this has been my fight and I hope that your fight too. Thank you very much. Reverend Jackson. Reverend Jackson. You're told that you cannot win and that is not true. You're told that you can win alone. And that is not true. It's been said I cannot win then and that is not true. The fact is there is no. Farm solution to the farm problem. That's a political solution a coalition solution to the farm crisis. The fact that you must allow you to converse with other people who have the same or similar predicament urban workers who are fighting for a fair price. Fair wages are right. It's not enough of them. You want fair prices but it's not enough of you.
I was growing up my grandmother could not buy a blanket. She cannot afford credit. She took out strips of old cloth coats and shirts and dresses and sheets and laid them on the bed. A lamp on the cot while they were caught. They were just re. To the wipe up your with. They had no function but that no one would take a strong hands and hard strong strain. Of course she would turn those raids and strips into a quilt. A thing of beauty a thing of power from which you are right but your patch is big enough. Work is your right but your patch is big enough. Women who will. Hire minimum wage and pay equity. You're right. But your patch big enough you two most scholarships as opposed to loans. You're right those who want peace in Central America and freedom in South Africa and teach the Middle East. You're right but your patch big enough France. We put those patches and pieced together a rural
urban. Black white brown coalition. We turned to each other. And not only each other. We can win today you give me the most cherish forever. Give me the most votes and we'll show them how. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Reverend. Jackson. I would like to thank all of you. I would like to thank all of you as candidates. You've been most gracious the panelists for participating in this forum and certainly you as an audience. I would like to extend our appreciation to the Animal Farm unity coalition the league of rural voters in the prairie fire rural action for sponsoring this forum and other contributions sponsors including the American agriculture movement incorporated. The trickiest committee for voter registration and education far made pioneer hybrid international incorporated
the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. The farm alliance of rural Missouri the land stewardship project National Catholic rural life Conference National Farmers Union National save the farm coalition. We are grateful to the Iowa Public Television Network and C-SPAN for this live broadcast. As we close I would just like to urge again citizens of Iowa attend the caucus on February 8th and those of you all across this great nation who care about land and water and good food in our economy. Get involved in the critical issues of this election year and choose wisely the next president of the United States. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public
Television
Series
Debate 1988, President, Democrat
Episode
Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate
Episode
Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon participated.
Segment
Part 2
Producing Organization
Iowa Public Television
Contributing Organization
Iowa Public Television (Johnston, Iowa)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip-37-343r26z7
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-37-343r26z7).
Description
Description
Reel 2 of 2, UCA-60
Created Date
1988-01-23
Asset type
Episode
Topics
Politics and Government
Rights
IPTV, pending rights and format restrictions, may be able to make a standard DVD copy of IPTV programs (excluding raw footage) for a fee. Requests for DVDs should be sent to Dawn Breining dawn@iptv.org
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:01:51
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: Iowa Public Television
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Iowa Public Television
Identifier: cpb-aacip-cc4c669a14a (Filename)
Format: U-matic
Generation: Master
Duration: 02:00:00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Debate 1988, President, Democrat; Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate; Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon participated. ; Part 2,” 1988-01-23, Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 5, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-343r26z7.
MLA: “Debate 1988, President, Democrat; Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate; Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon participated. ; Part 2.” 1988-01-23. Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 5, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-343r26z7>.
APA: Debate 1988, President, Democrat; Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate; Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon participated. ; Part 2. Boston, MA: Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-343r26z7