Debate 1988, President, Democrats; Election 88, The Des Moines Register Presidential Candidates Debate; Michael Dukakis, governor of Massachusetts, Jesse Jackson, reverend and civil rights leader from South Carolina, Al Gore, U.S. senator from Tennessee, Dick Gephardt, U.S. representative from Missouri, Paul Simon, U.S. senator from Illinois, and Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona

A. Major funding for this program was provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. Election 88. The Iowa presidential debate. From the civic center in downtown Des Moines. A debate among Democratic presidential candidates organized by The Des Moines Register newspaper. Here is editor James Gannon. Good evening and welcome to the Iowa presidential debate sponsored by The Des Moines

Register. I'm James P. Gannon editor of The Register. And I'll be the moderator for tonight's debate in about three weeks. The people of Iowa will begin the process of selecting the next president of the United States. On the evening of February 8 the people will gather in twenty five hundred local meetings called precinct caucuses all across this state. In those meetings they will gather with their neighbors and they'll debate the merits of the candidates and they'll divide into groups supporting each candidate. The winner of this exercise in grassroots democracy will receive a powerful boost toward his party's presidential nomination. We're meeting tonight on the stage of the civic center in the morning with us this evening are the seven leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. Our participants tonight are. Michael Dukakis the governor of Massachusetts for Shaheen. Iraq.

Gary Hart former U.S. senator from Colorado to. Iraq. The Reverend Jesse Jackson of Chicago. Thank you. Richard Gephardt U.S. congressman from Missouri. Iraq. Bruce Babbitt the former governor of Arizona. I'm in the U.S. senator from Illinois. Iraq. And Albert Gore Jr. U.S. senator from Tennessee thank you.

Before we begin just a few words about the rules and format for tonight this debate will consist of four segments to begin tonight's discussion. I will ask one question of each of the candidates. Then we'll begin a period in which the candidates will question each other. Following that the candidates will discuss issues raised by our guest questioner from the Republican party whom I will introduce later. And finally we will finish with closing statements from each of the candidates. The order of the questioning in all parts of this debate has been determined by a drawing of lots. I will begin with Mr. Dukakis who drew the first question. One of the chief responsibilities of the president is the management of foreign policy. You have spent your career in state government with no direct experience in foreign affairs. With that background can you tell us what qualifies you to oversee America's dealings with foreign nations and why would you be better equipped at that task than some of your rivals here

who have had more exposure to foreign policy matters in Congress. Well Jim the candidate for the presidency who has had the longest foreign policy resume happens to be George Bush. He was the man that sat next to the president. It did nothing or practically nothing to stop the shipment of arms to the ayatollah and Iran for hostages. He's a person who went to the Philippines in 1992 and commended Ferdinand Marcos on his commitment to democracy. And he's a fellow that's had all the experience and spent all the time in Washington. It is an extended residence in Washington that makes you an effective leader in international affairs it's a sense of values. It's the ability to lead it's picking good people. It's being able to work with a Congress and respect the Congress and involve them in those decisions and understand that they have to be a part of them. It's an ability to explain what you're doing to the American people. I have some very strong views of foreign policy today especially as the presidents of those Central American nations meet. It is very distressing to me that this country is not only not

supporting the arias plan our best hope for peace in Central America. We are doing everything we can to destroy it. I think the next pres of the United States is going to have an extraordinary opportunity to go far beyond the IMF agreement to negotiate deep cuts in strategic weapons and a test ban treaty and to build a more stable more peaceful world. Now these are all things that I as president want to do and intend to do and feel very strongly about them I should add one other obvious thing and that is that our ability to lead internationally has a great deal to do with our strength economically here at home and if there is one strength particularly I bring to this campaign I believe it's the ability to lead on the economic front to build a strong and vibrant America to create good jobs for people. And that too will be very important in providing strong international leadership for this country. Thank you. Mr. Hart. In a meeting last week with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register you made the following statement. If I am elected I will not be the first adulterer in the White House. I may be the first one to have publicly confessed to that sin but I won't be the first end quote. Now that you've

admitted this mistake in your private life and apologized for it do you believe that voters in Iowa and the nation should ignore the questions of character and judgment and trust that this matter has raised. Jim the issue of character and leadership has been with us for 200 years. Clearly every four years we decide not only on a set of policies and ideas and experience but also on the character of our leader. We have never expected perfection from our leaders and I don't think we should begin now. There is a difference between private morality and public morality. I've held myself to a very high standard in terms of both. I was raised in a religious household. I am a graduate of a seminary Divinity School and I've tried very hard to live the best life I could live as a human being. I've made mistakes. I probably should have said in that interview that I'm a sinner of my religion tells me that all of us are sinners. I think the question is whether our sins prohibit us from or prevent us from providing strong leadership. The past people who have

not led a perfect private lives have turned out to be some of our best national leaders. I'd like to say I think there's another level of mortality is at stake here and that's the morality of an administration which is is really bankrupt in terms of its commitment to public ethics. I think character the issue that's been kicked around a lot this year has not been defined. It's a product of a life time. And it's really tested in adversity. My family and I been through some adversity but I can tell you as a public official I would never lie to the Congress or the American people and their business would never shred documents I would never sell arms to terrorists and I would never condone anyone admired in my administration who breached the highest standard of the sacred trust of the public duty. Mr. Jackson we all know that race relations have improved greatly in this country in the past generation thanks in part to the civil rights movement in which you played a leading role. But we also know that racism is not dead in America. Do you really believe that America is ready for a

black president. And what would you say to those who fear that the Democratic Party might be throwing away its chances to win the White House in 1980 by nominating Jesse Jackson. I watched America take tests across the years. We never know whether America can pass a test until the test is given. There are those who believe the market could not pass a test of public accommodations and. Have open access to whole tales motels Pogson Libres but we did that with those who thought we could not pass the test of otherwise act. We did it. Open house but we had their open schools but we did each time the task has really been put there American people have passed the test. I do not believe the American people. And so it reverses the damage on the question of race. It cannot rise to the occasion. That's the challenge of NATION. This day when evidence come we've always passed that test. I've been impressed right here and in

Minnesota and New Hampshire people responding to this great model challenge. I will not run from the question to a safe haven. I'm running a national campaign to raise campaign not a regional campaign. And if I am the best candidate if I deserve the people support because I have to with the people I expect to gain the support I have steward with the fam the farm steward with the workers. I have to with the peace activists I've stood to the most of it out children fully accept. The American ness of Jesse Jackson. And if that's the respect that I will win I'll be able to make a contribution to our nation. Mr. Gephardt. You've outlined a plan to impose strict production controls on American agriculture if farmers approve in a referendum. Under your plan the government price supports would be increased sharply and the acreage would be greatly reduced

and the government would tell each farmer exactly how many bushels he could market or sell the crop production would go down and food prices would go up. Tell us why is it a good idea to raise the price of food to American families and to make American farm products more expensive in foreign trade. Well first let's understand that there are a lot of people in this country that silently would like us to let the family farm die. The other day in the Wall Street Journal they had an article and said the farm crisis is over. I wish the editorial writers and the writers for that publication and others that are saying that. Would come out here to Iowa with us and go out and talk to the farmers and see actually what's going on. Unfortunately the farm crisis isn't over and you know farmers only ask for one thing they ask what everybody else in America ask for their hard work to pay off. And today farmers. Take their products to the marketplace and they're offered half of what it cost to produce them.

They can't even get a fair price for many of the products so my plan would allow them to get a fair price that's good for consumers and that's good for farmers that want to export their products because it's only when we can get a fair price for our farmers that we're going to get our trade situation worked out. How much of a food price increase would be we talking about under your plan. Well that's the point Jim not a lot you know there's about five cents of wheat in a box of Wheaties. There's about three cents of corn in a box of Corn Flakes. So even if the farmers got a fair price it wouldn't raise the price to consumers that much and I'll tell you one other thing the consumers of the country understand this and they understand that our farmers have given them the cheapest best food in the history of the world. So if you go out and ask consumers I think they'd say Yeah I think farmers ought to get a fair price Thank you. Mr. Battle.

Walter Mondale stood up in 1984 and said tax increases were needed to cut the deficit and you've stood up this year and said we've got to cut spending and raise taxes. You want to tax Social Security payments to upper income people and you want to impose a 5 percent national sales tax and you want to apply a needs test to all programs such as farms subsidies. Is this political courage or political suicide. Isn't this a program that might bring a Mondale sized defeat to the Democratic Party in 1088. Jim I think you said it exactly right. It's a program of political courage. You see I think the American people are ready for some truth and honesty. It seems to me that in every presidential election finally at the end the only two issues that count and they're both issues of character. The first is the candidates themselves. The people are entitled to ask is that candidate being honest when they avoid the issues.

The deficit threatens to destroy our very economy. Are candidates really worthy of our trust that they have character when they refused to respond to specific questions that relate to that deficit. Now the second issue of character is one that hasn't been described very much in its the character of the people in the audience the voters. And I ask all of you what does a candidate think of your character when that candidate steps up and says here's a whole array of programs but you don't have to pay for the future's free. I'm telling you you can have something for nothing. I don't think that's what characters about and I think that frankly every voter in this audience ought to ask tonight during the course of this debate is that candidate really displaying character when they refused to answer the questions before the election and tell you that they'll have a character to deal with him after the election.

It's the same. You have outlined a plan to balance the federal budget in three years but your critics say it doesn't add up. You want to cut military spending by 20 billion dollars but you also want to plan some costly new programs for jobs in health care and education. You say you will cut unemployment and interest rates which will make the deficit disappear. But presidents don't control interest rates the Federal Reserve does. And presidents can't abolish unemployment. So how can you keep your promise to balance the budget without facing up to a major tax increase. Jim I'm proud to have offered a specific commitment and plan to deal with the deficit and also invest in our people have there been distortions of what I've said. I understand that. That's that's politics. What I will fight vigorously is distortions of the values and principles and traditions of our party.

What does the nation need needs two things. Number one we have to move to eliminate the deficit. And I've suggested it as you mention cuts in Pentagon spending which will not impair the defense of this nation. Number two that we create more more jobs so that we have taxpayers instead of tax spenders. And I've outlined a specific series of things primarily in the area of trade to do that. Number three we get the deficit down. And then in sequential terms but interest rates drop and then the deficit drops more. And then as a last resort. Not as a first resort as a last resort if it is necessary then I will go to tax increases. But the tax increases should not be on middle income Americans ought to be on those who benefited most by the tax breaks under this administration the wealthiest of Americans. We have to and then we.

And then we invest in our people in education in jobs for those who don't have jobs in in the long term care for seniors. We need a president who's going to stand up not just as a gimmick in a in a debate but really stand up for working Americans and for those who are less fortunate than our society. I'm sure we'll hear more about all of this. All right Santa garb. Welcome back to Iowa. It's good to see you here to be back down. Thank you. Ah. I'll ask you a question about Iowa. You say you can't compete in the Iowa caucuses because the Democratic Party here is dominated by liberals. But what kind of an I've never said that. I never said that in. Iowa. Maybe I misunderstood you said something about liberals here. In any event the question is I want to ask what kind of a Democrat Al

Gore is. In 1986 the Liberal Democrat Americans for Democratic Action 88 gave you a 70 percent rating on your votes in Congress just as a comparison Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia got a 30 percent. Campaigning in the south you seem to have betrayed yourself as the least liberal of these candidates. And I wonder can you reconcile your moderately liberal voting record in Congress with a Southern conservative campaign strategy. Well first of all it is good to be back and I appreciate your invitation to appear in this debate. No I have never said that Iowa is too liberal I don't think the labels liberal and conservative really have the meaning that they perhaps once did. I do believe however as I have said on several occasions that the process represented by the Iowa caucuses is not the most appropriate way to kick off the process for nominating a Democratic candidate for president. Only 3 percent of the population in this state

participates in the caucuses and the person who wins has not been able to carry this marginally Democratic state for the last twenty four years. Now I believe that a boss like that in the general election we've not been able to carry this state in the general election for the last twenty four years. Now you know it reminds me a little bit. Well you look at what's happened. We lost 49 out of 50 states last time. 47 out of 50 the time before that. Forty nine out of 52 elections before that. It's a little bit like the story about the guy who kept hitting himself over the head with a baseball bat. His neighbors said Why do you keep doing that he said well because it feels good when I quit. Well I think it's time for us to take a different approach and speak not to a collection of narrow groups not 2 3 percent of the people in one state but to the entire country with solutions that are not ideologically based but which are aimed at the problems that face this

country. Solutions that will help us build a bright future for America. That's the kind of campaign I'm running. Thank you. That completes our opening round of questions and not a single Silkworm missile. It's time now. Time now for the candidates to question each other. Each of the candidates has drawn the names of three of his rivals to question. The first question is for Mr. Gephardt from Mr. Dukakis. Dick you've talked a lot during the campaign about unfair trade practices and I agree with you there out there. We have some difference of opinion I think the president already has the authority to go after him The problem is we've got a president who won't use that authority you've given him. But you yourself have admitted that 80 percent of the problem is right here at home and in rural America and small town America and many of the cities of Iowa in the Midwest there is enormous economic distress there as you and I have seen. What are we going to do about the 80 percent of the problem that you and I agree is ours to deal with right here at home.

Mike first let's understand that the trade rule part of this problem is an important part of the problem is there's a lot of people today in the establishment in this country that want to sweep that under the carpet. Again the Wall Street Journal yesterday said that this huge trade deficit that Ronald Reagan said was good for the economy is really just a fact of life. And we've got to put up with it. I was in Davenport Iowa this morning or rather Bettendorf at the G.I. case plant. I was in Davenport 12. Invent dark. Winter ride together we could save money. And we're in Ohio together two nights ago right. Mike. Twelve hundred employees two years ago today 9000 people are left. To them this problem is not a fact of life in those you know where those jobs went they went to South Korea and they went to South Korea because the government there is and Tyson are

corporations that come over but they don't want our products. They don't want the products we could make in that plant. A $10000 K car costs forty eight thousand dollars in South Korea as I've said. So this is an important part of the problem not how you know it's more than that. We've got to make good products. But there we've got to ask corporate America to stop the mergers and stop the takeovers and start investing in America again that's what we've got to do. Thank you. I'm just tired. You have a question for Mr. Simon. Paul McCall Gorbachev represents perhaps the most dramatic new departure in Soviet U.S. relations in 30 or 40 or more years. I'd like to know what you think he's up to. Should we block him or should we try to help him. And what changes should be made in United States foreign policy to adapt to the Gorbachev revolution. He is real. He represents change in the Soviet Union.

What he recognizes is the Soviet Union is a first rate power today militarily a second great power economically part of the reason for that is that massive investment in the military. He wants to move away from that. We ought to be exploiting that self-interest to do the same thing on our side. We are still a first rate power. Militarily we are a first rate power economically but we are starting to slip economically for the very same reason. It's in our interest to work together on this. And then we ought to find out where we can move where we can verify. And the first thing I want to do if I'm elected president the United States on January 20th 1989 is to say to Mr. Gorbachev if you're willing still to stop all nuclear warhead testing will stop all nuclear warhead testing that will be a substantial.

That will be a substantial step in the right direction. And then let's move into other areas some of which will take patients firmness some of which we ought to be able to move fairly quickly. We can verify ballistic missile testing for example. Let's get both nations to stop on that. And then we also ought to develop a relationship of candor where we stand up for human rights. And he understands that where we are clear that we disagree with what they're doing in Afghanistan. I think we can have a much improved relationship with the Soviet Union. It's Jackson. You have a question for Senator Gore. So to go and the southern region where you're focusing your campaign we both hail from. It's a region with the richest oil and the poorest people. Half of a nation of the nation's poor children and that region and caught it cost right to work laws like keeping wages down while

prices are high. What would you do to help us as a party in right to work laws in this country. Well first of all I'm happy to share that region with you if you want to expand it to South Chicago. But I am I'm focusing my campaign in South Chicago as well as in the south and the north and the east and the West in an effort to bring our people together and run a national campaign. It is true however that in the south these standards of living and the real level of wages are both lower than the national average. We need to focus first of all on education. It is the key to our future. And in the south as in the rest of this nation we must do a better job equipping our children to come in the future. Secondly we've got to focus on rural economic development that goes for Iowa too. Incidentally we've also got to have a better agricultural policy to give

farmers fair prices to straighten out the agricultural programs. And we've got to straighten out our overall economic policy because so long as we continue to borrow five hundred million dollars every 24 hours we are going to handicap the ability of working men and women. Everywhere in this nation to compete in the world marketplace. Now you ask about the ability to organize. That is correct. I have supported the labor law reform a bill I have been a co-sponsor of it. I believe that people ought to have the right to organize and ought to have the right to choose whether or not they have are going to form a union. Thank you Mr. Gephardt. Your turn to question Mr. Babbitt. Bruce we have a different approach to agriculture and I'm for the hard part say the family farm act you have a little bit different approach but I think we both agree that the status quo out there can't go on. People are being foreclosed. People

are leaving the land. YOUNG PEOPLE and I wouldn't think they have a future in agriculture. Lately a lot of publications have been saying the farm crisis is over. I want to ask Don't you agree with me that the only way you can think the farm crisis is over is if you're not a farmer. Dick I agree but your solution is wrong now. You see I think there's a real future for agriculture I think they're expanding markets all over the world. I think we can develop new products and uses here at home right here in the United States. And what I don't understand. Is why. In the face of that kind of future you're saying I want to have mandatory production controls that will drive up prices for consumers the most regressive form of taxation that you can possibly impose. I like a better way is to focus the farm program on family farmers to get the big corporations out. To say no more 10 million dollar checks to agribusinesses in California.

No more million dollar checks to the crown prince of Liechtenstein. You know it's not only not in Iowa it's not even in the United States. And I just I just think that's a better way of dealing with agriculture rather than imposing a regressive tax. Driving up prices at the food store in order to benefit big agribusinesses we can target those subsidies and then we can get on with the business of rebuilding the world and creating demand and saying American agriculture is going worldwide. We're not going to pull up the drawbridge. And turn into protectionist advocating tariffs quotas oil import fees and protectionist agriculture. Your positions right. Your policies are wrong. Mr. Barry. YOUR TURN NOW. A question for Mr. Dukakis. Mike I've been an advocate as a governor and now as a presidential candidate.

The concept that I call workplace democracy which says that the real way to get at these economic issues not protectionism is to bring out the best in American workers to honor and respect and reward and give them a piece of the action. Now the way not to do it is corporations like General Motors which drive down wages give themselves bonuses. And my question is this don't you think the General Motors if they were aware of these concepts of workplace democracy could have avoided closing down a plant in Framingham in your state where you lost 2000 jobs. Well they haven't closed down Bruce's suspended operations and we expect that they're going to be back in the spring. But. I think the concept of workplace democracy makes great sense. And you're to be commended for advocating it it's something that I've worked on as a governor I'd love to work on as president. One of the things that this administration has done over the past seven years is to divide us polarize to pit management against labor East against west north against south.

I think that's the wrong way to go in this country I think the next pres the United States has got to be somebody who can bring us together who can help us to understand that there is a great deal more that unites us than divides us. And that's particularly true in the workplace. You and I have been in lots of plants as governors and now as candidates the presidency we've been in very good places and you and I know that those are the places where management and labor not only get along but those guys and those women on the shop floor actively involved in what's happening. And they share in the profits. Those are the best companies or the companies that are doing the best they produced quality products. They're the ones that are competing internationally and I believe a president can have an enormous impact on them by his example by the tone he sets and more importantly by what he does both with the Congress and with management labor in this country to bring us together. That's the way we're going to build a bright future for this country that's the way we're going to create jobs in Waterloo and Cedar Rapids and Davenport Buke Sioux City and Council Bluffs and more and that's the

way we're going to bring real economic growth and real opportunity for people back to America and compete effectively in what is a very competitive world economy. SIMON You have a question for Mr. Harkin. Gary you have indicated your three priorities are military reform and lightnin gaijin and in strategic investment initiative. I have made is my three investment priorities education jobs long term health care. Long term health care is a major need. How would you fund such a program and what do you favor doing to meet this very very pressing need for our society. I think the two initiatives this country must take is first of all bring the 15 percent of the United States that is not protected by health insurance. Under the umbrella. We have not only the immorality but immorality earlier of homelessness and hunger. We have the

immorality of lack of health care for millions and millions of Americans too many of whom are children and elderly people. A second I think we can use corporate purchasing power in the marketplace to force the providers of health care to become more competitive and drive prices down. Among those who are hurting the most are the senior citizens in this nation who can not only afford cannot afford shelter they cannot afford the daycare centers and increasingly the health. The nurses the doctors necessary to maintain their health and they are living longer and the prices are going up. I think we must as a nation provide comprehensive health insurance that includes long term health care and both in the public and in the private sector. I think we ought to have the ability for working individuals during their productive lifetime to set aside a certain amount of their income perhaps met the match by the federal government or with some tax incentives tax credits or whatever to set aside a specific amount for

their own long term health care. But we also have to make that care more affordable to them. And that means the federal government working with the states and the private sector to develop not the expensive retirement communities but middle and lower income retirement communities that have their own health facilities within them. Senator Gore. A question for Mr. Jackson. Reverend Jackson you have proposed the elimination of a whole series of military programs not only the ones that are better known but also the stealth bomber the new F-15 cruise missile program and a whole series of others. I'm wondering what the impact of such a limitations would be on arms control and a few years ago three years ago you proposed a unilateral withdrawal of our Pershing 2 missiles and ground launched cruise missiles in Europe at that at the exact time we were attempting to negotiate the with the removal of the Soviet Union's missiles in the same category there. That negotiation turned out to be

successful. If your proposal had been put into effect do you think that the Russian missiles would still be there. The fact is that the chiff and Soviet policy did not take place because they were threatened by the Reagan administration. On the other hand to go but you have took the initiative on economic development as their priority. The flip side of is when the Soviets stopped testing and and the cloying missiles it was not a sign of they have a witness but it was a new signal for a change in the direction. Fortune of this administration respond to that new challenge. Something we our military with the strong we have guided missiles we have misguided leadership. Our military is strong. We have strong military policy. We lost 250 Americans in Lebanon. Because the policy was weak. We are squatting all up and down the Persian Gulf at the cost of. A million dollars a day was a captain in

Louisiana because. Of policies we were trying to overthrow a government in Central America. The policy is weak funding of MBA and an end goal and we're now more in Mozambique. Our policy is weak. My appeal is that we end up with. A foreign policy that is not led by military threats but led by a foreign policy a doctrine that's consistent support international law support nation human rights and economic development. As the alternative to poverty. What we need in foreign policy is not new missiles but clear coherent and courageous leadership I think you. Have a Congress. Get. Your question now please for Sen. Simon. Paul both of us share a very strong commitment to helping people who are on public assistance or a living in poverty to lift themselves out of poverty with good jobs at good wages and good training.

I met today with four mothers on public assistance in Cedar Rapids. All of them were Kirkwood Community College all of whom are working to get an education and the skills they need to get good jobs in the private sector good wages and support themselves and their kids. You want to create a new WPA at a cost of billions and billions of dollars. We could provide training and daycare and the future for these mothers and save money at the same time doesn't it make more sense to do that. Than to spend billions we don't have and make work public service jobs. First of all you inaccurately described my by Bill and my proposal and I'm pleased. My proposal has been praised for example by William Wilson the distinguished black sociologist who has just written the book The truly disadvantage. He's praised my bill as the only thing that he has seen that really deals with this problem of the underclass in our society. We're going to pay people we're not to let people starve. So we will pay them e them for doing something or doing nothing.

I'm for paying them for doing something after they're out of work five weeks. Don't wait till people are people who are on welfare don't pauperize them help them right away and screen them as they come in. If they can't read and write. Let's get them into a program immediately. We tolerate a higher number of adult illiterates than any industrial society in the face of the earth. If they if they have no marketable skill Let's get them into a program for a marketable skill. What's invests in our people and lift them in the process. And everyone's going to be ahead. And as far as costing billions of dollars the first year of the program the net out way is one third of 1 percent of the budget. We we can do this. We can create a much much better society giving everyone the chance to work and I want to see you join me in that program. Thank you.

Very much. I want to bring up my son work with community college and have you talk to those mothers question that that is something different. Mr. Gephardt please. From Senator Harkin yesterday John Jacobs of the Urban League told many of us what we already knew and that is Reaganomics has created two Americas. More specifically what he told us was that black America continues to fall behind. Now many of us have known that and our party has tried for 20 or 30 or more years to do something about it. The poverty in which black Americans find themselves is increasingly intractable and structural. What different policies do you think we as Democrats ought to adopt to break that structural poverty. Well first Kerry I think we have to have a president in this country who says to the American people that selfishness and greed get mine now. Survival of the fittest is not the highest value and ethic of this country. That's what we've had for the last seven years.

We Democrats are going to bring a president in 1988 who's going to say to the American people. We've got to care about one another again. We've got to send a message of compassion of worrying about whether everybody's okay because it's only if we're all in the boat that the boat can really sail. So that's the first thing we're going to do. Second we've got to be specific We've got to put something behind that. First part of that is welfare reform and programs for education and training so that people can get out of a cycle of poverty and into a job. But if we can get them there there's got to be a job at the end of the line. The best social policy the best social program is a paycheck and a job. That's why I talk about trade. So I talk about energy policy changing agriculture policy. We have to change the policies of this country so that when we get people to that point there is something there for them we don't we don't defeat

them and we don't frustrate them. We're going to do that. We can make that happen. But to do it. The Democrats have to take back the White House and we're going to do that November of 1088. Reverend Jackson. Your question for Governor the caucus of the caucus I was. Flat at this week when I saw a commercial on television by. A Congressman Gephardt stand that. The real issue is not that the steroid conscious of taking jobs from us but multinational taken jobs to them. He said we have to stop merging and purging and reinvest in America. Indeed it is. And. So. Since I came back immersed I want to take advantage of public TV tonight. How would you ship a multinational corporations. A merging corporation of

encouraging workers to invest in America expanding our market share as a reward a tax incentive system. We all know what's happened over the past seven years and why we virtually destroyed ourselves internationally. The president persuaded the Congress in 1901 that you could raise defense spending and cut taxes and balance the budget. We sowed the seeds for our own destruction the value of the dollar went right through the roof. We virtually killed our markets overseas we killed industries here we invited producers to come in here what in effect was a 40 percent discount and we're now just picking up the pieces on the other hand with the dollar. We have the best opportunity we've had in decades to rebuild the industrial base of this country. This is a great opportunity for a new president who understands how you bring management and labor together Bruce. You invest in good jobs at good wages how you work with communities and especially distressed communities

distressed states here in the Midwest across the country to bring manufacturing enterprise back to provide grants and loans to those companies providing they're creating good jobs. There's nothing intractable. About poverty in this country we're seeing in states all over this country people who have lived in poverty for five 10 15 years of working and earning. It's something we can do and as a nation we must do. But with this kind of advantage there is no question in my mind that we can rebuild the industrial base of this country if we are President we have a president who understands how you do that. That assumes a very different kind of economic leadership. What we've had over the past seven years we can bring jobs we can bring jobs to the Midwest manufacturing jobs once again if we put our hearts and minds and investment in those jobs. Mr. Gephardt. You have a question now for Senator Kerry. You and I have both spoken about affirming democratic values and standing

up for the people that need is the most. Today is the 15th birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. and he stood in our society for equal rights for civil rights for compassion for justice for peace. I think that's the unfinished agenda of America. My question is how can we as leaders summon America again to try to reach the dream of Martin Luther King Jr.. It's very interesting because I saw a quotation from Dr. King today. I've been asked a lot why I got back in this race and whether it wasn't some sort of ego trip. As usual he put it best he says. Leaders always want to be drum majors. You remember that Jesse he said. The difference is whether you're a drum major for yourself or whether you're a drum major for change and progress. He said he wanted to be known as a drum major for justice. Joe drum major progress drum major for equality and

opportunity. I think that is the lesson of his life and I think it's a challenge for all of us. I went down to the March a year or two ago Jesse because I felt our party had lost that initiative that brought many of us in the public life to begin with a commitment that for many of us were represented by John and Robert Kennedy or many others by Dr. King. And I think somehow we have lost. We have not been able to communicate that to the next generation. One of the things that troubles me about our party the most is that we've lost the young people of this country at least temporarily. It's because we're not challenging them and we're not asking them to give something back to their country. I support a voluntary national service. And I think the young people of this country is the father of two of them will respond to that kind of challenge if we tell them unlike Ronald Reagan who said go out and get what you can take everything you can from America. If we say give something back to America they're poor black people. There are elderly people there are homeless people there are illiterate people who need

our help. They particularly need the help of young people. Our party must challenge them. Thank you Mr. Battle. QUESTION Senator Gore please. Well it's good to see you back you know I thought that I might start putting your picture on milk cartons. You know they they were asking about you in Birmingham and New Orleans last week at the. Debates there. Now my advice is to stick around. I'll tell you some of our star courses are doing pretty well so I thought if I said. Now. That I think you've got a question why not have to answer real quick. You've used up your time. OK I do have a question. I'd like to get back to this budget deficit and the need to be honest about cutting expenditures. I've advocated a concept called needs testing which says that will find cuts and focused programs on need whether it's farm programs and parliaments or defense spending.

My question is this Do you advocate cuts in defense spending. And if so how would you apply these needs testing concepts to target the cuts that you would make. Yes I advocate savings in the defense budget and I've talked about programs like the Bradley fighting vehicle to take one example and procurement reform to take another example and to apply the concept of needs testing to Pentagon spending is unusual but let me just take a stab at it. I think we ought to use the principle of competition. I think that we ought to have in the big contracts as well as the small and medium sized contracts an emphasis on competition so that we don't have these sole source beds and we don't have the revolving door and so forth. Now you used the word honest quite a bit and I really don't want the impression to be given that someone who doesn't agree with a regressive 5 percent national sales tax on a working

Americans and that would hit the poor the hardest of all is somehow not honest. I don't think that someone who disagrees with a proposal to tax Medicare for example is not being honest. Now you talk about the need for testing for it. For Social Security you know one of the principles that has been involved there is that people who receive Social Security are made to feel that they've worked for it. They've paid in and they receive the money back in fact that's how it works. If we made it like a welfare program and allowed the benefits to go only to those who could demonstrate that they were needy then that dignity that senior citizens now have when they receive Social Security checks might really be threatened. So I really hope you'll reconsider something. I don't need equal time to respond to out one of the ones that

come out I have done qualifiers at work will come back to that you'll have another shot I'll be back right now it's right now it's Mr. Simon's turn for a question for Mr. Jackson. Jesse you have contributed a great deal by going throughout this nation talking to high school students about the problems of drugs. We also in the field of education need to move on to other areas. One is the whole question of adult illiteracy I respond mentioned earlier. The other is preschool education where we know clearly from tests in Ypsilanti Michigan New York University that where you have an intensified preschool education program you have dramatic changes in the dropout rate. Teenage pregnancy rate the crime rate. What's your program what should we be doing on adult literacy and preschool education. First of all let me express the big headlines the last two days in the papers about

how. Corps can use has been cut amongst young people children in school. I met with the Coast Guard officials in Miami just yesterday two days ago. 86. They seized 10000 pounds of cocaine. It is seven twenty five thousand pounds of cocaine. The time they were seizing more cocaine. This administration cut. A hundred million dollars to coast got budget. Now they're putting up in my balls these ships. The people who cut it and save it from the same administration want to cut 100 million from 100 million of the Contras February 3rd. That's a reversal in values a bad education lesson for the American people. Secondly we need to make a judgment whether we invest in Head Start and daycare on the front side. Then jail care and welfare on the back side. You don't pay one way on up.

In Chicago August and September you recall the school strike. We just couldn't find the extra money to pay the teachers. I went to Christmas Day with my children 4000 strong young men and I did a data breakout one year high school scholarship. Twenty one hundred dollars one year of state five thousand one year penitentiary $20000. It makes more sense to invest in teaches than NGL ones less educate our children. As a matter of basic American values. You may resume your dialogue with Mr. Babbitt. Well. Maybe it would be in the interest of fairness I will do exactly that I was prepared to ask another question but I'll give you an opportunity to respond as you started to a moment ago good already.

OK I expect you are. But but let me let me make a specific request for something that I'd like you to include in the answer. I've looked at some of the proposals that you've put out and there is a lack of specifics and some of them too. To what extent do you want to tackle the security benefits you talk about the melons and the Rockefellers. But is the cut off. What is the cut off and how much tax will be applied to middle income and lower middle income citizens. To what extent do you want to put a tax on Medicare paid to receive by senior citizens many of whom are not of age. I will I will that's not that I don't. That's my overtime period you had started the clock won't you yet. I'd like to get his answer all right but on Medicare a lot of those folks that you're proposing to tax are really having a hard time paying their medical bills already so give us a little more specifics on on how that tax works.

Well you see the problem is this. If we're going to be honest with the American people we really have to talk about priorities and what I'm saying is this. Surely we can afford to say to the wealthy people in this country you don't need exactly the same benefits as middle class and low income people. What I'm saying is we've got to have the guts to use this need tested concept in order. To have the money. To. Use for programs that are really necessary. The hollowness of the kids. Now my proposal is this. Social Security Medicare uniform programs everybody gets the same benefits the melons and the Rockefellers we do Paanch ought to pay taxes Where's the cutoff where it is in existing law and it affects the upper 20 percent of high income Americans. Now if we don't have the courage to do those things we're never going to have the resources to devote to day care to the homeless and to the people who really need it. You see in the final analysis it's a progressive concept. It's what liberalism

is all about and it's what the Democratic Party ought to have the guts to stand up for. This is a caucus and your question please for Senator Kerry as a follow up to the dialogue you had with Paul. I agree on the importance of long term care policy. You know a lot of things we've got to do. But as Gary pointed out there are nearly 40 million Americans today most of them working Americans most of them working Americans who have no health insurance whatsoever. I think we're the only industrial nation in the world other than South Africa. Pretty bad company. That doesn't provide basic health security for its citizens. What specifically do you think we ought to do would you support the Kennedy bill would you go beyond that. As you know I've proposed a plan in my own state for universal health care but it seems to me this is something that is long overdue for people of this country of 40 years. Harry Truman first proposed what would you do to guarantee basic health security for all of us and I quote I

propose 976 was a combination of what was called kiddie care comprehensive health care for every child in America. Prenatal through the age of six including nutrition including inoculation including all health services and catastrophic coverage for every other American financed by the federal government through payroll taxes in a variety of other means. I think that's a basic commitment. Coming back to the morality of the moment it's a practical concept. We find out that if children are raised in the early years to have adequate nutrition if their mothers are cared for before they're born they are not violated if they're given the kind of health care this nation can provide then they're going to be healthier citizens they're going to put less demand on the system later on. So just from a practical financial point of view it makes sense. Beyond that I I can't understand how Ronald Reagan goes to bed at night when there are in fact a dramatic increase in children in poverty in this country. We have children that are hungry children without children and children without the basic

necessities of life. That to me is true immorality in this nation if they can afford M-x missiles and B-1 bombers can afford to provide health care for its children. Your turn now for a question for Reverend Jackson. For about 30 or more years after World War 2 this nation led the world in terms of economic political and military leadership. Now we have a true global market a true global economy. And as others have described this nation is falling behind I think Mr. Gorbachev frankly realized his problems before we have. What do you think we ought to do in that global marketplace to regain international leadership what fundamental changes in American policy ought to be made to make us the leading economy of the world once again. The first multinational corporations should have incentives to reinvest in America. Retrain our workers reinvest Lauzon nation. And research and development. Second the bankers have made investments

in third world countries in Latin America and Africa. And now. We're going to give some of that debt and deficit. If Latin America is about one third of its grain from us. Now Latin America can't buy it. We can't sell it. Plus an out of business will make better sense to reduce debt reduce our deficit and export grain and tractors and medicine and infrastructure for that million Latin Americans in exchange with 14000 Contras. That's how they grow economically and at the same time. Last thing the issue of research and development. Tonight if I might just for a second how many of you in this audience. On on ABC all raise your hand. Hands down. How many of you on hand.

Because we make and we. Will make money. Using your own time it's your turn to question the. Question on the tax question and you have. The Reagan. Tax the wealthy and corporations the Bush economics. He's only himself. Given. To. The rich. Now it seems that tax those who didn't get an invitation to the party

shall we not tax the wealthy and the tax back. Jesse you and I are a lot closer than you might imagine see. You want to tax the rich and I want to take their benefits away from me. Now you see it's really exactly the same thing. Because if we can begin to give out benefits whatever kinds of programs farm programs and title mints you name it to people who really need them and have the courage to talk honestly about saying to the people who are well-off You don't need those benefits we didn't construct a system in which we buy support by giving benefits to people who don't need it. You can take that money back. And use it for things that we care about. Now we have to cut benefits and increase taxes that's part of that honesty question and I think we agree on. I advocate a consumption tax because I think it's the right

tax to dampen consumption to stimulate savings and investment. And I'd make a progressive make a progressive by exempting food shelter and clothing. I've lowered the bottom bracket of the income tax to offset it. And for those who don't pay taxes I'd send them a refund. It's a progressive tax. And I'll tell you one other thing. Don't tell everybody how bad including the drug dealer who goes down to buy a Mercedes. Everybody would say OK Mr. Gephardt. Question from is it a caucus. Mike I think both you and I agree that workers work hard every day to make good products but sometimes our corporations lately have been falling down. You heard a little earlier that Jesse agrees with me that we've got to do something about mergers take over. Mike do you agree with me that we need star schools and not Star Wars. That was Ted Kennedy's line and I think we both of us did well. Now. Let me just say good things come from Massachusetts including great present.

Mike if you'd stop talking about that miracle it would be America. Now. Time's up. Let me let me just going to take it nationwide. That's not that's all of it.