Debate 1988, President, Democrats; Sierra Club Democratic Debate; Rev. Jesse Jackson, Illinois; Gov. Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts; Sen. Al Gore, Tennessee; Gov. Bruce Babbit, Arizona; Rep. Richard (Dick) Gephardt, Missouri.

A. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television groundwater contamination. Acid Rain hazardous waste all alien elements of the environment in which we live. This afternoon the nation's environment is the focus of a Democratic presidential candidates debate live from Iowa Public Television's Maytag auditorium. The debate is sponsored by the I want Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Iowa Wildlife Federation. Good afternoon I'm Gene Borg. I've been asked to moderate this program today which is called

Forum for our future. Today five candidates for president of the United States will discuss environmental energy and economics issues in a forum as you've just heard is sponsored by two groups dedicated to protecting and preserving the environment the Sierra Club and the Iowa Wildlife Federation. The format for discussion has four segments first of all opening statements by the candidates then questions from a panel opportunity then for the candidates to question each other and then closing statements. Since we'll be adhering strictly to our time guidelines today we ask that those of you who have joined us in the auditorium refrain from applause. Now Democrats and Republicans seeking their respective party's nomination for president were invited to participate today in the Sierra Club and the Iowa Wildlife Federation very much appreciate the time that those candidates who are here today are devoting to these important issues participating in the forum today our Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee

the past governor of Arizona Bruce Babbitt. Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri. The Reverend Jesse Jackson of Illinois and Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. The panelists who a question the candidates are Julie who chairs the Iowa Wildlife Federation conservation issues Committee. And Marty flew Hardy of the Sierra Club's political action committee and she also is chair of the Michigan Natural Resources Commission. Ready now for the first segment of the forum a chance to hear the opening statements by our candidates who are here today. Gentlemen we'll be following the same order in which I introduced you and that brings up Senator Gore first you each have two minutes. Senator Gore these environmental issues are ones that I care deeply about. When I first came to the Congress 11 years ago I chaired the first hearing ever held on hazardous chemical waste and the threat to groundwater. We looked at a little side in upstate New York called Love Canal which later became a national symbol

of that problem. I was one of the principal sponsors of the super fund legislation to address that issue and I've played a leadership role on virtually all of the other important environmental issues I currently serve as chairman of the largest in environmental protection group in the Congress. I know how important leadership is on these issues. The current administration has not offered leadership. The president started by appointing an Burford and James Watt the Bonnie and Clyde of Environmental Protection who went to prison for perjury in a separate proceeding I personally made a motion to hold her in contempt of Congress. They've not only appointed foxes to guard the hen house they've appointed Owles and weasels and all manner of predators that have a taste for chickens. George Bush personally led the fight against environmental protection regulations and has suggested devastating our clean water program. And isn't it ironic that since environmental protection used to be a bipartisan issue not a single Republican candidate accepted the invitation to come here. Their policies on the

environment as I've said before might as well be on the garbage barge floating around the Gulf of Mexico. We need a Democratic president who will offer leadership on issues like soil erosion important here in Iowa and in Tennessee groundwater protection important here and all over the country. Sound management of our public lands. Protection of forest land clean air clean water and the global issues that are now emerging the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer protection of the rain forests around the world. We need a president who understands the importance of the environment is prepared to offer leadership here at home and internationally these issues ought to be on the agenda of summit meetings for example. If you care about environmental protection I ask for your support because I understand the issue and I'll offer the leadership that's needed. Governor Babbitt back in the summer of 1986 I brought Hattie and my two sons and our bicycles to Iowa to ride across the state and RAGBRAI.

I remember stopping at the first Iowa farm that I had really ever visited loaded with economic statistics and price data only to find that the farmer wanted to question me about groundwater. He said our wells are contaminated and we don't know what to do about it. I'd like to address that question briefly in my opening because here's what I told that farmer I said we have the same problem in Arizona. It's an important problem. We found our drinking water contaminated with TCE pesticides. I began getting calls from mothers who are asking me is drinking water safe for my children. And I couldn't answer that question honestly except to say there's too much lead in the water and it can cause mental retardation. Nitrates do cause. Blue baby syndrome carcinogens do threaten us all. I finally brought the leaders of Arizona together from agriculture the cities the mines and said we've got to get started on this groundwater has been

neglected it's out of sight and out of mind. We don't go fishing in groundwater. We don't send our kids out to go swimming in groundwater and I've never met anybody who open a bottle of beer and relaxed to watch the sunset across a lake of ground water. But the fact is that it's there it's a resource we all live on the surface of the lake. And when we throw contaminants on the ground and allow toxic discharges it's all going to explode in our drinking water supply. What we did in Arizona was brought people together to negotiate a tough effective law prohibiting the discharge of toxics setting out a statement which says explicitly polluters will pay. We're going to go to jail and we'll use your money to clean up the mess and then giving citizens a right to enforce the laws in courts because you can't always rely on government to do it. Now what we need is that kind of action at the national level. We need a national groundwater law and we need to establish those

principles. The polluters will pay citizens can enforce the laws and we will have a policy. Representative Gephardt back in 1980 in my own congressional district I found out that environmental issues are family problems they're real problems they're not just theoretical because it was in that year that we found out that in part of my congressional district we had a subdivision that was surrounded by dioxin Laden soil. And over the next five years we worked to try to get that dioxin soil cleaned up. I remember sitting in the living rooms talking to crying parents who were worried about the future health of their children and themselves. The Superfund help that I led in the Congress to try to establish the Superfund and to reenact it. I worked in the Congress on the hazardous waste Act of 1984. And I've worked on the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These are the kinds of initiatives that we've got a lead on if we're really

serious about the environment. But you know leadership is more than just commitment. It's telling sometimes people things that they don't want to hear but that they need to know. That's what I've tried to do in this campaign on environmental issues and other issues as well. I've gone to New Hampshire and talked about an oil imports the word isn't very popular. I went before a group of Southern legislators and talked about why we shouldn't confirm Robert Bork on the Supreme Court. That wasn't very popular there either. I've gone in front of the Latin community in southern Florida and told them why I'm against contrail and I have talked to my own constituents about acid rain even though of my consumers a lot of electricity weren't very interested in that. Acid rain has been one of the toughest problems we faced in the Congress and it's been hard to find the co-sponsors of the legislation we need. And Al you know we could have used your help on acid rain legislation last week in the New Hampshire environmental debate. You talked about

your commitment to do something about acid rain. If you had been one of the co-sponsors of the legislation like that like the Waxman legislation maybe you could have done something about it. What we need on these issues is leadership and telling people what they need to know not just what they want to hear. Reverend Jackson thank you. The Earth is our most sacred trust. This will be the most religious moral political forum they will engage in during this campaign season. The Earth really is the laws and the fullness thereof. We must make some real basic judgments. The first is that the number one threat to our environment is a nuclear race. We must choose the human race over the nuclear race. Second we must make the basic judgment that observation that after waste comes we won't think about the products on the took all that he had there early and he was a big spender he wasted time and

energy and resources but he ended up in the whole trough wanting now middle way of saying good I am and. Water and and soil and and ozone will wasting all will be in foolish it will end up wanting. We must now make some very basic the judgments about direction. One that's true prevention on at the source or containment. I'll clean up the pollution of oil and the contamination of our water that is on natural less prevent it own at the outset. Secondly let's choose recycling all the incineration as a matter of fundamental government policy research and development recycling is the way of the future. Let's ban the burn in reality if we simply solidify waste incinerators and then blew it I would not make any progress at all. Third the economic justice if the fall fair prices and supply management they will not be forced to

pause in the earth they will not be forced to use those chemicals to further poison the wallet. So let us have supply management. Well the and I know we're all in Brazil but was saving land or saving the forest. Lastly it is an international crisis when in fact when in fact a nuclear accident occurred it sure noble it was not just a Russian problem. The wind blew it was a European problem. It kept long it was an American problem. We live in one global village. Let's choose the human race over the nuclear waste and planet Earth a chance Governor to caucus. Good afternoon the last few weeks of crashes and of chaos on Wall Street have been a chilling reminder that we can't build a bright economic future for this country on a credit card. And if there is one thing the next president must do it is to help build a bright and vibrant economic future for this country that provides genuine economic opportunity for every citizen in this land. But you can't build that economic future without a healthy

environment in fact the two go hand in hand. Take the problem of acid rain for example. I happen to be the governor of the state with more acid in its rain than any other state in the country. Farmers here in Iowa have surplus corn. That's why we should be using clean burning corn based ethanol in our gasoline. Clean air for the Northeast prosperous family farms here in the Midwest. In New England as well as here in the Midwest we need clean and affordable energy. The people of Texas and Louisiana and Oklahoma need jobs. That's why I've been talking with two Texas companies about the possibility of natural gas in place of the Seabrook nuclear plant at Seabrook New Hampshire. Save energy for the northeast. Jobs for the Southwest. But we're not going to solve any of our environmental problems without very strong national leadership. For seven years the White House has done nothing about acid rain and I regret to say the Congress has done nothing about it either.

States have acted. We've passed acid rain control bills but we can't stop the stuff from floating across state lines. And we also need strong international leadership as well we're having an international summit on arms control in the 7th of December. A very crucial a very critical summit meeting. What about an environmental summit to deal with the very serious problems of international environmental pollution in the very near future. Good jobs and a bright economic future. A healthy and wholesome environment. Two important goals which together can improve the quality of life of all Americans in our next segment. Our panelists are going to be submitting questions to be answered by all the candidates in rotation every question to be answered by each candidate beginning with Reverend Jackson. Miss Fluke Harding. Over the next five years it's estimated that between 300 and 400 municipal garbage incinerators will be built in the United States. These

mass burn incinerators will release more lead into the environment than we have removed by switching to lead free gasoline as well as other hazard materials which will go into the air. In fact we may be merely switching the hazards of solid waste from one medium to the other gentleman as president. What action would you take to help solve the solid waste problem while protecting the public from incinerators toxic hazards or projections or if you must make the bird a basic judgement today. On several basic principles one is prevention and against containment. Let's prevent the poisons at the outset. We know that recycling also represents a chance to have a more healthy environment. It is a chance to create more jobs and the incinerator route represents a solidifying all of the ways and will poison in the air. The

big companies they choose incinerators all the recycling they're now making big investments in that direction. We must make it fun the mill judgment today. And so as a Federal Government policy in terms of research and time and effort to make recycling even more feasible. Second is the question of economic justice. We do know that if family farmers for example able to get supply management that allows them of course to be free of use and the kind of waste products that can poison the earth on the other hand young American rule will see environmental protection as a growth in the stream. Why not. I civilian corps of environmentalist Youth Conservation Corps to clean up the environment and get jobs. We need leadership to make that happen. Senator Gore. Well this problem is similar to the problem we're facing with our economy. We have no

leadership and we're consuming too much. There are only three ways to deal with solid waste. One is the method referred to incineration. Second is landfilling it just putting it in the ground burying it. And the third is recycling separation of some kinds of ways from other kinds of ways recycling the ones that can be used the ways that can be re-used and taking the generally hazardous waste and treating it in a very separate and more careful way. Currently about 6 percent of solid waste is incinerated. But the predictions are by the late 1990s that figure could rise to 25 to 30 percent. Incineration has been seen inappropriately in the past as an easy alternative to landfilling as we became more aware of the problems with landfills such as the leeching of these materials into the groundwater and as more and more states run out of space for landfills. Officials have turned toward incineration but

a lot of the early plants were not very well constructed and a lot of the plants currently in use put ash into the environment that contains very harmful substances and we need a much better approach to this issue. We ought to have a nationwide inspection program of the incinerators that are currently in operation and we ought to have a nationwide emphasis on recycling on the reduction of the amount of waste generated in the first instance separation of the different aspects of the waste stream and dealing with it in terms of reducing the volume rather than just relying more and more heavily on incineration going to caucus or respond next to the question which deals with solid waste How would you as president deal with the solid waste problem. Well the same time protecting the public. I think we're all united in our commitment to recycling to reuse to reducing waste at the source so you don't produce it in the first place. And a president can do a great deal about that for one thing those of us at the state and local level have to deal with these problems every day and every week

can't by ourselves create a national market for recycled waste. That's something that only the president working with the Congress can do. And one of our problems today is that while we want to recycle we want to compost we want to do as much of that as we possibly can. There is not yet a large national market that can take this stuff. So we need presidential and congressional leadership to do that. And I would hope as president that I could provide that leadership and help to create that market. The problem right now is that governors and mayors especially in our urban industrial states really have a very difficult time dealing with the existing waste stream we don't have that market at least not big enough to make a difference. We're running out of landfill space and the landfills that we have are in many cases seriously polluting our groundwater and our environment. And so at least in the case of my own state we will use resource recovery but we have the toughest environmental standards in the country we are requiring scrubbers on old as well as new resource recovery plants and we will insist on very tough environmental standards. But at this point.

State and local chief executives have to act. We can't let the garbage pile up on our streets and so at least for the foreseeable future we'll have to have some resource recovery if we can get the kind of national leadership we need and we want then we can be composting recycling doing source reduction and that ultimately is the way to deal with our solid waste problem in this country. Governor Babbitt your response. I read somewhere that each year we throw away enough iron and steel to supply the entire American auto industry with all of its needs. Now that's an incredible figure but what it suggests to me is that we really have to think carefully about this stream of waste that we're generating every time I go to a grocery store or to buy a package of something I'm always struck by the fact that you buy the container Plus the package plus a cellophane wrap plus probably something that is put in at a counter and then something more when you check out. I would probably need a national policy to kind of look at how it is we lower the amount of that volume. We must be tough about simply saying you have an obligation to

neutralize toxics. There are a lot of other ways of reducing that strain. The Japanese and some cities of demonstrators pretty clearly I think that you can get that stream down by 30 40 50 percent. One specific thing that I think we could do is look at this idea of shared savings. Governor Dukakis says well there's not enough of a market for glass paper all of the things that can be recycled and he's right. One reason there's not enough market is because we don't factor in the savings from the land dumps that you don't have to develop all the precautions in the whining and all of that. If we had a national program to take those savings and pay them directly as subsidies for the people who recycle I think we could get the thing going and in fact it wouldn't cost any more money. Representative Gephardt I think there are four things that we can do in this area that would be helpful first done of the Solid Waste Act of 1984. The Congress and the president can bring forth regulations which would give us

national standards for dealing with these problems. It should be done with the input of the states. It certainly should be done carefully but I think if we're going to have a national strategy it should be done through those regulations which are already authorized under that act. Second we need to do something about recycling as everybody has said since 1970 the Congress has had the ability to make limited grants to states for help with recycling projects in research since 1981 none of those grants have been made. We do have a tough budget problem and you'd obviously have to find a place in the budget for it that will be easy. But I think there is room in the future for trying to move in that direction. Third incineration if we're going to have incineration it's got to be done consistent with the Clean Air Act and the emissions regulations that that exists there. That's probably going to take some inspectors as some of the others have said on a national basis but obviously incineration should be consistent with what we're trying to

do with cleaner emissions. Finally research on waste reduction. We ought to be putting taxes on hazardous materials especially household materials and using that money for a research and development project to find substances that could be used around the house that are less toxic. It wouldn't cause a lot of the problems we face today. Our next round of responses to a question will begin with Governor Babbitt and the question comes from Mr. The problem of groundwater pollution caused by leaking landfills agricultural chemicals industrial contamination and other sources is a growing one. While the complete scope of the problem is unknown. Water supplies for millions of Americans are threatened. As president would you advocate for the use of health based rather than economically based standards for controlling the problem. And what steps would you take to protect groundwater sources in clean up existing contamination. Well my experience in Arizona is that there's a lot of support for doing something about this

problem. We put together a tough effective ground water law. We clearly have to have health based standards. I think a good law says purely and simply. It will be a crime to discharge toxic contaminants onto the surface of that lake namely onto the ground. That's step one. Now the most difficult one of these issues is an oil issue and that is how about pesticides and nitrates. What we learned in the course of passing our law in Arizona was that there's a lot of good news first of all there are lots of alternatives in pesticide management. You can ban toxic pesticides because there are alternatives. There's a thing called integrated pest management. Lots of really interesting concepts if you simply say we're not going to put toxic pesticides that are water soluble into the ground. That's the beginning nitrates are a tougher problem. But they can be managed because we're putting way too much nitrates on our soils. And I believe that a good law that is put together with farmers and with the universities in

the concerned parties can bring that down. Now the problem that we've discovered is this there's no national attention to these issues. There isn't any risk assessment we haven't established a list of toxics. We don't have a ground water law. That's I think now the urgent issue is to build on what the states have done and to get on with clean up I mean we identified 20000 toxic side two is cleaned up 10 I believe a president has to do better. The question relates to ground water quality Reverend Jackson. The first that is an economic and there's a moral dimension to this. There's the moral imperative that we take care of the water that we be good stewards and good custodians of the water. There's an economic dimension in a real sense if farmers do not have fair prices. You cannot get supply management then locked into chemical companies that give them stimulus for more production data over production. Reality is that

chemical goes into the ground then into the water then the fish and wills and wildlife and people. And really since if you had a family a farm actually in force there would not have to overstimulate the earth its like the fragility it drugs for women and it exhausted the woman's body as well as destroyed the children. So we should not destroy the body of the earth we need not overproduced when the AIDS supply management so far must be able to make a good living. On the one hand and not have to engage in self destruction on the other. The same forces that was a lesson of Supply Management in this country and that it was also so I'll say in Brazil let's have supply management and not exhaust a farce as well. That's why this issue is at least and that a national issue that is on the one hand economic. But there's the modern imperative to preserve the earth the land the ass and the water and the ground.

Representative Gephardt. I think we need a national effort to deal with this problem and I think today we have a patchwork of both federal and state initiatives and I think we need to do something on a more comprehensive national basis I do four things. First I think we need to identify the problem chemicals. We need health based standards. And then we need to take action specific action against hazardous materials that really ought to be banned chemicals that really shouldn't be in the market and that we really don't need. Second I think we've got to put some effort into research into the extension service to help especially farmers know better what to use and what not to use. I don't think we've done near enough in getting out proper information on or on the chemicals that really do cause problems third. I think we need to do some more research and some more work in helping farmers to do alternate cropping to use more natural methods in their agricultural work so that we don't.

Create so many of these groundwater problems force what's already been mentioned is probably the most important of all. If we don't change the agriculture policy in this country you can do all the research and all the extension work you want it is going to do any good. The heart can get parts save the family farm act is the acid test on whether you whether or not you're for Supply Management. If we can enact Harken Gephardt we can allow farmers to limit their supply in bushels instead of acres which would give them the ability to decide which land to use and to get off of this high volume agriculture which needs a lot of pesticides and chemicals to make it work. Governor Dukakis I share the feelings of a number of the members of the panel about how we should approach this problem alternatives risk assessment all of the things that are necessary if you're serious about preserving our groundwater. Bruce Babbitt mentioned integrated pest management and a new approach to the problem of growing crops and doing so with a minimum of chemicals. We have worked with our farmers in my

own state and we're finding that you can dramatically reduce the amount of chemicals you put in the soil. Use these new processes of integrated pest management and grow very very good crops and do so in a way that provides if anything even more income and more prosperity for our farmers and we should be doing that all over the country I've met farmers here in Iowa who are dramatically reducing the amount of chemicals that they're putting on their farms and they're doing very well so that kind of assistance to farmers is particularly important. I'm also concerned about the quality and supply of our water in many metropolitan areas in this country we have serious water supply problems. And for years we've treated water supply the way we used to treat energy. The more you use the less you pay. We've got to change that. We've got to bring an ethic of efficiency and conservation to the use of water. We have industries that use a lot of water they can recycle that water. You don't have to throw it away they don't have to put it in the ground they don't have to put it in the waste stream. So there are many things we can do both standing courage ng uses of water to use and reuse that water and secondly to change our price structure

so that the more you use the more you have to pay that we will. That's what we were forced to do in the energy crisis of 1973 when it came to electric energy. That's the same kind of ethic of conservation and efficiency that we're going to have to commit to our use and our abuse of water. Senator Gore. Well first of all I'd like to compliment the Democratic leadership in the Iowa legislature for one of the most innovative laws protecting groundwater in the entire nation. It was a difficult battle and they had some very difficult compromises to strike but it is now being looked at as a model by states around the country. Nationwide we need that kind of leadership and more. I mentioned that I was chairman of the largest environmental protection group in the Congress. Last year we initiated and completed a nationwide study of this problem of groundwater pollution. We had hearings all over the country and we have now produced legislation on one of the original co-sponsors of the bill now pending in the United States Senate. The basic facts are these 50

percent of the drinking water in this nation comes from groundwater in states like Iowa. It is 80 percent. Ninety six percent of all our water total is in the ground water and yet we have treated it as if the old saying out of south out of sight out of mind was appropriate. Now we know from studies that it's becoming increasingly polluted. We know that action is needed at the federal level there are now 16 different laws that relate to different parts of this problem. We need a national effort from a president who understands the problem and is willing to late. We must make prevention a national goal. We must work with states to give them the tools and the information they need to address the problem. We must stop the irresponsible polluting of the groundwater. We must stop the sources that are now continuing to contribute to that pollution and we must emphasize prevention as arced as our top priority and most effective strategy. Is Florida your question to be directed first at Representative Gephardt. This question in involves global warming. Scientists have long warned

us that the so-called greenhouse effect could cause widespread panic changes a rising of the levels of the Seas and other potentially disastrous environmental impacts coastal communities could become inundated and widespread famine could result from the melting of the polar ice caps and the shifting of rainfall and weather patterns. The greenhouse effect is caused by the warming of the Earth's atmosphere by the build up of carbon dioxide and other gases which traps solar radiation. The principal cause of carbon dioxide buildup is the combustion of fossil fuels upon which the world's economy now depends. Given the conflict between energy usage and the potential devastation inherent in global warming how would you use your presidential authority to address this problem with industrialized and developing nations. Well I think on this issue we have a model in front of us that we ought to be following and

so far we haven't. But again it takes presidential leadership. We've had recently an international conference on the ozone problem the lessening of ozone in our atmosphere. And a few months back we had an agreement signed on the ozone problem at an international conference and we need to do the same thing with global warming. I think we know what the problems are the problems are caused by emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. And so in a cooperative way all over the world in the years ahead we have to find alternatives. We have to find ways of producing energy that will not cause such a problem with the thick blanket of matter that is causing this warming problem. So what I try to do as a president is to follow that model try to have an international conference and I would try to work with other nations to begin to solve the problem it won't be an easy problem to solve. In fact it's one of the toughest that I think we face ozone was one where we

had some a dent a file causes and they were fairly easy to move on. This is going to be a lot tougher it's involved with economics it's involved with energy policy and it's going to be very difficult for every country in the world to deal with it. But it's going to take leadership and the United States as usual is the leader and we've got to call the conference and get on with it. Senator Gore. Well with all due respect I appreciate that response but the problem is a lot more complicated than that let's just look at the ozone part of the problem. Yes this international treaty is an achievement but it will only reduce the amount of chlorofluorocarbons the principal culprits by 35 percent. The scientists tell us that we will need to reduce them by 85 percent just to stabilize the amount of damage being done to the upper atmosphere into the ozone layer. Moreover it is not simply a problem of carbon dioxide carbon dioxide represents less than half of the total greenhouse effect. Ironically chlorofluorocarbons which we've just discussed is one of the main

factors also they even though the total volume is much smaller than CO2. Each molecule is 10000 times as absorptive as a CO2 molecule. And so we must have much greater action on reducing chlorofluorocarbons I think we ought to have a world wide ban on the principal and worst chlorofluorocarbons that are contributing both to ozone depletion and to the greenhouse effect of chlorofluorocarbons CO2 which must be reduced by conservation which should be a tackled for other reasons anyway. Nitrogen oxide methane. There are other contributors as well. Another aspect of it is deforestation we have got to have international leadership to halt the destruction of rain forest and other forests around the world. I propose debt for Environment swaps to promote sound environmental practices in the Third World. But in fact this problem of the greenhouse effect is going to be one of the most severe environmental challenges we have ever faced in the entire history of humankind. We must have leadership and determination

and an international effort to halt this problem. Reverend Jackson something just showed you why he should be our national chemist. I want to be our next president. A fundamental we must make some choices about sources and forms of energy. They will all with a plan that on foreign energy in the Persian Gulf and foreign capital because we are energy and capital vulnerable our military is made vulnerable and therefore our troops are floating up and down the Persian Gulf today with their lives on a timetable that's controlled by the Ayatollah who is looking at their back through American made weapons and sole sources of energy becomes a critical factor. Secondly let's look at forms and sources in this hemisphere. The most scientific use of coal from which we get

methanol and quantum which we get ethanol and solar and and coal generation and conservation. We can have better energy closer that's more efficient and in this hemisphere. So the RIP practical level we're less dependent upon foreign sources of energy. And the most basic scientific and moral level we use all the forms the more safe and less dangerous fly in Thai atmosphere. Governor Babbitt The question relates to the greenhouse effect and how would you as president use your authority with the industrialized nations and the developing nations to lessen and reverse this effect. Well it surely must be on the international agenda it hasn't been. We're going to have to start here at home because we don't have an energy policy I think. Jesse made that point well I saw a cartoon a few months ago which summarized our Persian

Gulf policy as follows. It says we're spending money we don't have to defend ships that aren't ours to ship oil we don't use for allies who won't pay in pursuit of a policy we haven't formulated. And that's the issue I think of all of us going to the local hamburger stand and buying fast food in styrofoam cartons that are releasing chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. And then I think of the times when we were working on conservation when we upped the auto mileage from 13 to 18 miles per gallon. You know that one act saved more energy than all the oil we got from the Alaska oil fields. That achievement saved more than twice the amount of oil that we're bringing in from the Persian Gulf and that's just a way of underlining that we must have before we go to the international conferences a real conservation policy here at home. Governor Dukakis presidential leadership and international summit.

These are all important if we're going to deal with what in many many ways may be the most serious environmental problem we face in our lifetime and on this planet maybe in the history of mankind. But a number of us already I think Dick and Jesse especially have talked about alternatives and that really in many ways is the most important the most significant way that we're going to deal with this problem let me talk about just one alternative. We have something called a photovoltaic cell. It is quite literally takes the sun and trans. Transforms it into electric energy. Now this isn't some kind of 21st century Buck Rogers technology we're manufacturing photovoltaic cells right now in my part of the country one of the parts of the car. This is potentially a 4 billion dollar industry and we are shipping photovoltaic cells and photovoltaic panels to third world countries where in many cases because they don't have elaborate electric grid systems they can distribute energy to these photovoltaic panels can provide energy in villages in many third world countries. Yet the budget for research and development of photovoltaic energy under the current

administration has been cut and chopped and virtually destroyed while the budget for research in the nuclear energy has been increased dramatically. How much sense does that make. We should be putting federal funds into photovoltaic energy research this is a non polluting environmentally benign form of energy takes the sun turns it into electric energy. That's the kind of exciting and imaginative alternative which will help us to deal with this problem. Reverend Jackson respond first to the next round of questions and the question comes from Mr. design. Over the past seven years the federal budget deficit has increased dramatically. Many federal programs have been cut or eliminated in an attempt to reduce it. What would your budget priorities be. Please include those here as you would seek to reduce expenditures. First of all let's look at how we got this tremendous budget deficit. President Reagan doubled the military budget in two years time August that we were militarily inferior but were in fact militarily superior. Secondly he

cut the taxes of those who are most able to pay them. Result is increase expenditures on the one hand reduce revenues on the other. We should get out of the mess the same way that we got in. First of all let's keep a strong military we are strong militarily we're not made stronger by a stall wall system a half trillion dollar plus commitment makes our budget deficit even great and makes us more vulnerable. We're not made stronger by craft task force it's 40 billion more dollars when you already have 12 making a 13. So at one level less cut excess military and keep a strong defense on the other hand the wealthy and the corporations must pay their share. Estate taxes for the wealthy six billion dollars. They would still be wealthy but the nation would be stronger if we kept income tax bracket but those making 200000 above at 38 percent. Jim writes as another twenty two billion dollars corporations paid the same level they paid in 1980

another 20 plus billion dollars. I say let those who have gotten the tax breaks who made the money pay their taxes. Balance our budget and give us the economic strength and integrity again as a nation governor to caucus budget priorities. Well quite obviously there are two things that we have to do three things that we have to do if we're serious about reducing the deficit and getting this country moving again in any serious economic way. And at the same time committing ourselves to the kinds of priorities that we're talking about today in the somebody was balanced nine budgets in a row I have had a lot of experience when it comes to cutting deficits and balancing budgets First you have to make tough choices on spending. Star Wars super carriers new missile systems that we don't need. Three hour spaceplanes from Washington to Tokyo so we get investment bankers from our capital their capital in three hours these are not things that are priority items on the federal agenda. Secondly we've got to be serious about a national economic development program that in an environmentally sensitive way can encourage and improve our

economic performance. If unemployment today in the United States was 4 percent not 6 percent the federal budget deficit would be 70 billion dollars less. Finally we have to raise revenue. Now no serious candidate for the presidency can rule out new taxes. But when tax compliance in this country has dropped 81 percent when we aren't collecting a hundred and ten billion dollars a year in federal taxes so that aren't being paid. The first thing a serious chief executive doesn't want to cut the deficit is to go after that revenue that isn't being collected. There are many many states in this country that have demonstrated that revenue enforcement works. And the next president of the United States had better be somebody who knows how you go out and collect those unpaid taxes before we impose new taxes on people who are already paying. It's not only dumb fiscal policy it's grossly unfair to the vast majority of Americans who pay their taxes pay them in full and pay them on time. Senator Gore. Well it was interesting that Vice President George Bush was asked that question and one of his responses was that he would cut by more than two thirds the amount of money spent on promoting

clean water in the United States. Here we are in an environmental debate and I think that it is worth pointing out that when it comes to environmental protection the kinds of improvements we need the kind of leadership we need often does not involve spending a great deal more money because many times the progress depends upon simply enforcing the law that is already on the books. This administration has failed to do that. We ought to follow the principle that the individuals or corporations who are responsible for pollution ought to bear the expense of cleaning up that pollution. Now if we have that kind of law enforcement we do not have to look at environmental protection as the kind of budget issue that involves a lot of other programs. Now what about our overall set of priorities on the budget how can we deal with them. I personally believe that one of the central challenges of our age is to control the nuclear arms race if we have a president with experience in foreign policy and arms control who can seize what may be an historic

opportunity to read direct the arms race control it and reverse it. We may be able to make substantial savings in the amount of money we're pouring into the arms race every year. Next we need a new strategy for promoting growth here at home to become more competitive with better education etc. and a global strategy for economic growth. If none of these measures and of course new revenue cannot be ruled out it has to be on the table available as an option. Representative Gephardt this is the question of 88. And when you listen to the candidates you'd better listen closely because whoever gets elected is going to have a big impact on your life. I've been more specific on this issue than I think most any candidate in this race I have said exactly what I'll do. It's one thing to say well we need some more revenue I hope we can get it. It's another thing to say where you're going to get it because it's clear that to get the budget deficit down and to have any new spending priorities you've got to bring in some revenue. That's why I've called for an

oil import fee I think it's good energy policy I think it's good environmental policy. And I think it's good budget policy. And Mike while we're here I know that this may be our last debate for a while so I guess we're going to have to do this again but you know your idea about better enforcement on the tax laws is really more happy talk news. It's not a solution to the problem. They had the budget meeting the other day in Washington and they added this as a part of their budget plan they said at the most it would bring in two billion dollars. Now to sit here and to say that we're going to solve our budget deficit problem over the next five years by better compliance and by tax amnesty which did have an effect in Massachusetts and which everybody's far is just more happy talk news it's what Ron Reagan has given us for the last seven years. I know we don't want to talk about specifics on revenue but we've got to an oil imports or anything else is not fun to talk about it. But let's put our specific ideas on the table.

Let's not talk and they generalities and let's people let's let people know who's going to really move to solve these problems and who's just going to talk about it about what all this talk about environmental programs and I'll simply disagree with you it does involve commitments to resources because environmental protection is just window shopping. It's just window shopping unless and until we can get serious about this issue. Now we've heard a lot of proposals here but I don't think any of them even even come close. Al Dick voted for Gramm-Rudman Gramm-Rudman. Here's the problem. Gramm-Rudman slashes it every environmental program in the book because they haven't had the courage down in the Congress to say what counts to finger priorities and say some things matter more than others. Now we have to raise revenue and Dick and oil import fee is happy talk doesn't even come close to the magnitude. I'll acquiesce in your description of Mike's an internal revenue

collector in every bedroom. I think your characterization is adequate. Reverend Jackson and raise income taxes. He's at least getting close to be an honest and square in with you. But I think we need to do both we need all of us to talk about 200 billion dollars to say how we make cuts. Not just anecdotes but principles and say how they apply to environmental programs. We must have a broad based tax increase. We have to do the two of them together because there's too much at stake to continue this kind of anecdotal flimflam that we're hearing here today. Is foolhardy do you have a question to be directed first to Senator Gore. This one is on clean air to Argent public health problems today are smog and acid rain acid rain once thought to primarily affect trees and lakes has now been proven to cause serious health effects. Well the federal law requires that urban areas that suffer from

unhealthy levels of Smaug and carbon monoxide must clean up their air by the end of this year. It's clear that many areas won't meet that deadline. Acid rain is primarily caused by industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen while Smaug is produced by motor vehicle and factory emissions. Two part question. As president would you use your authority to require stricter emission controls for areas that still have unhealthy levels of smog. And would you make a declaration that acid rain is an interstate problem. And if so what remedial steps could be taken to bring it under control within a short period of time. Yes I would. In response to the question let's deal with acid rain first. I'm a co-sponsor of the legislation that has emerged from the Senate committee originally sponsored by Senator George Mitchell. I believe we ought to mandate a reduction of 10 to 12 million metric tons by the end of this

century by the end of the 1900s. I believe that is a reasonable goal I think we can reach that goal. We've had a lot of talk about research into the causes of acid rain and perhaps there are still some uncertainties but the principal cause is known and well established in the scientific data. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide or NOx represent the principal causes of acid rain. It is not a regional problem confined to the northeast in my home state of Tennessee we have some very. Acidic lakes and the Smoky Mountains are now suffering from the effects of acid rain. It is a national problem and it much must be addressed on a national basis with presidential leadership binding deadlines binding reduction of the emissions which cause acid rain we can make progress on this issue. Now on the issue of smog there are a number of cities around the country that are having a very difficult time meeting the deadlines at the end of this year. I think that we have got to keep the

law in place. But now the environmental community and the relevant committees in the Congress are presently considering a temporary extension of that end of the year deadline coupled with tough provisions to make certain that the standards are met soon after the deadlines. I support that measure. Governor Babbitt. I would not consent to any extension of the smog deadline unless it is specifically linked to reduction plans with the understanding that they will be enforced. I learned about the acid rain problem when I became governor of Arizona. It's not just a northeast problem it's a national problem we began to find acid problems in our lakes and in the landscape of the southwest. The problem was a copper company's copper smelters they originally took a position in Arizona that since they've never been asked to comply with the law they didn't see why they should have some young governor harassing them. But we finally brought them in control actually close one of them

down to Douglas to make the point that they must obey the law. Then I looked over my shoulder down into Mexico to discover that a new smelter was being built at a place called NOC Asari which the day it began operating erased every single gain we had made all over the southwest in the preceding years. That's when I began to understand that this really is a national and an international problem. We're downwind from Mexico. Canada is downwind from the United States. And nothing's being done in Congress and I think all of us ought to simply say this. We will have an acid rain bill. It will be a real simple one it will say all emission sources will meet new technology standards. It's bogged down in an interminable quarrel among all these guys about who's going to pay. Well I thought I heard these people saying polluters pay and you could pass a kind of bill in a minute. Then we could go to the Mexicans and the Canadians have an international conference and say we've done it at home and now we're prepared to talk from a position of strength and integrity about what we need to do elsewhere.

Question has two parts it is would you seek stricter emission controls. And secondly would you use your authority to. Strengthen and disk and declare clean air as an interstate problem. Governor to caucus. DEAN This is not the time to continue this dialogue on revenue and taxes and revenue Forsman but I hope one of these days will sit down with his colleague and friend Byron Dorgan a respected former tax commissioner of North Dakota now Congressman and I believe someone who supports Congressman Gephardt the chairman of a bipartisan task force which has demonstrated very clearly without an amnesty Dick that we can raise one hundred five billion dollars over the next five years and thirty five billion dollars annually thereafter. So an effective and vigorous revenue enforcement effort led by a president who knows how to do it. Quite obviously we have two problems here and I think there are ways to solve them very clearly. Some of which we've already heard. I talked earlier about the use of

ethanol mixed with gasoline as a way to deal with the smog problem in Denver this winter. People will only be permitted to buy oxygenated gasoline which is a fancy phrase for gasoline mixed with ethanol. Why because they have a very very serious smog problem we have dozens and dozens of metropolitan areas that in my judgment ought to be required to do the same thing as a condition for any extension of the Clean Air Act. We have five. What is a billion bushels of corn which are in surplus all of which could be turned into ethanol. Let's use it and let's help our farmers at the same time. Acid rain is an issue which all of us have been working on for a long time I think we know what causes acid rain what goes up must come down. And as a governor of a state which is vitally affected by this I believe that a president who cares deeply about this working with the Congress can put together a national acid rain control bill that will work and work effectively It also would be important for our relationships with our neighbors to the north the Canadians a very unhappy with us and it's about time we responded to them as well as our own serious environmental

problems. Reverend Jackson. Let's establish some very basic principles. First of all the acid does not come down from the heavens it comes from the smoke stacks. The principles are a prevented in the first place. Choose recycling old incineration and see the economic value and creating the jobs as in recycling as a part of our future through us as opposed to incineration which provides us fewer jobs and more health passes. Presidential leadership must afford the vision of a way out. Secondly it strict controls to be sure but it's not Suburban and the state in the state is indeed at the National this is a global village will not get as serious as we ought to be. If the route went out the native that Russians were. Make an ass of the rain polluting our contaminating ouse streams and killing fish and wildlife and people we would call full

alert. The Russians engage in chemical warfare well who ever pollutes the at will become tennis the water and push dogshit in the earth is wrong immoral unjust illegal must be dealt with and dealt with forthwith. I say this lastly we as a nation must see the value in the waste of everybody with a car going nowhere fast. Let's have the vision of a massive energy efficient transit system where Americans make the steel American labor rail make the cause drive them more transportation more family stability and less pollution. That is an energy economic and a moral alternative. Stricter emission controls are Representative Gephardt and is it a national problem that is acid rain. Well first on extensions. I agree with Bruce Babbitt that if we're going to have an extension there should be a specific plan in place that would move you toward the goals.

Let's go to the next question and that is how do we help the states meet those goals. The biggest problem in pollution is automobiles as has been said. But to get a real answer to the automobile automobile problem we need to have an energy policy and that goes back to what you call the happy talk solution. If we had an oil import fee it wouldn't be a happy talk solution it would be a happy solution because it's one of those things that can kill about three birds with one stone. It brings in money for the deficit. It cuts down dependence on foreign oil. And finally it makes it possible to bring into the market place fuels like ethanol that will never come into the marketplace and to stabilize the price of oil. I know nobody wants to hear about a nickel or a dime more on a gallon of gasoline because it hurts us a little bit now but it helps us a lot down the road. That's what we need in this country long term solutions to real problems and an oil import fee is a specific part of that kind of a long term

solution. With that we could do what Brazil has done 80 percent of their automobile fuel comes from alcohol fuels. But we're never going to do it in this country until we have the courage to have an energy policy and the foundation of that policy has to be the pricing of oil. Until you do that you're never going to have ethanol and you're never going to really attack those long term pollution problems. Mr. cell you have a question to direct first to Reverend Jackson. The American Farm is in crisis over dependent on toxic chemicals and energy intensive present farm techniques have resulted in groundwater contamination and soil erosion mightily not experienced in the Dust Bowl here. We clearly have a non sustainable food production system. What is your vision of agriculture in the coming decade. First of all we must preserve and protect the family farm because they are the best caretakers for the soil. They appreciate the saw as a divine gift from God and they take Kevin a very precious and whole the way

the non farming farmers who see the farm as real estate as a tax write off as as a playpen and not the caretakers of our soil. We allow it to erode. It does not matter to them that it put toxicity in the soil that exhaust the soil because they are not a part of those 300000 who have victims of pesticides deaths illnesses because they did not plow it. They did not pick the fruit crop so we must preserve it from the fall most family farmers need a bailout not not a handout. Hardworking American citizens who deserve economic help. If 6 6 the 600 farmers had gone out of business you would say they made a mistake. The 650000 is a systemic crisis. I see if we can bail out Chrysler. We can bail out New York and Japan and Europe we can bail out the fan the Fama and fan prices. Supply Management and the return of the land. We can bail out the farm credit system.

We can bail out the family farm and you have those who farm the land for a day on the land they should have that land back Governor Babbit look into the future on agriculture. I want to get back to dick on my characterization of the oil import fee as happy talk. I change I just think it's bad for this reason the oil import fee is.