Debate 1988, President, Democrats, Iowa State Fair Presidential Debate; Iowa State Fair Presidential Debate; "Joe Biden, U.S. senator from Delaware, 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, Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona

Have some reinstitution of safety regulation and a return to some of the provisions that we had before now where the banking system is concerned. I personally think that this has to be seen in the context of the world financial markets which are changing dramatically. There is no way to go back to the kind of regulation that we had before. However it is time to pause and take stock because we have seen some very serious problems developing in the savings and loan business in a lot of small rural banks. And yes we need to pause and take stock and reassert this special market niche of each of these institutions in the financial services market. But in all of this we ought to continue to understand that the overall economic environment including the current misguided fiscal policy is what has been placing so much pressure on these industries. Thank you now Mr. Gephardt. I think the Reagan administration has really subverted and ruined

what deregulation could have done and how good it could have been. No one ever said that when we deregulated deregulated the airlines that the government would have no role in safety no role in regulating in seeing that the system freed up could really work. It's the same with banking. It's the same with trucks. It's the same with food regulation and all kinds of regulation. I think it really goes to a question of basic values. This administration expresses a value of survival of the fittest selfishness that the society the government has no role in organizing in harmonizing in making the economy work for the people of this country as a result people are now having near midair collisions and the safety of the air system is called into question. Today we've got chaos in the trucking industry and people's goods are not being

properly moved from city to city. There is no government role in seeing that food is safe enough and we have people dying and getting sick from salmonella poisoning and other things that have come along. So it goes to a real question of values of standing up for the rights of people for protecting the safety of people. That's what the governments for. And then we elect a Democratic president. 1088 that's the kind of government we're going to bring back. Thank you and now our Mr. Simon. Some mistakes have been made in deregulation no question about it. But the real problem in the air field is not deregulation. It is an administration that really moves on safety that our air travel today is simply not as safe as it ought to be in the banking field. I have real concerns. Our thrift institutions to a great extent are built on confidence. And when you permit other companies to get

into banking and you permit banking banks to start selling stocks and other things inevitably I think you're going to see at some point an erosion of confidence. There's going to hurt our economy. Finally however what we need in the area of regulation is some strong enforcement of anti-trust laws and some stiffer penalties and some discouragement for this merger mania that has taken over this country. Last year a hundred twenty seven billion dollars spent not to create new jobs not for research but for one company to gobble up another company Total. Virtually a total loss for this country and the Department of Justice is doing almost nothing in the anti-trust field. One of the best votes I cast I was one of those who voted against confirming Ed Meese as attorney general of the United States and I'm proud of that. So when you guys. ILY.

Please let us turn to Mr. Bright. Well Senator so I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Simon and I have a similar feeling about it meas. But Ed Meese by the way is the reason I mentioned it is not to associate myself with Senator Simon which is a nice thing to do I like being with him. But to point out that he is representative quite frankly of the whole attitude of this administration this administration deliberately prostituted the notion of deregulation deregulation was designed to allow small outfits to get in to the business was designed to keep the Giants from gobbling everything up. But what they use deregulation for as a foil to do what they wanted to do all along. And that is to go in and union bust in the case of the airlines to go out and beat the devil out of the air traffic controllers. Beyond any recognition they've allowed the deregulation to be used as a cover for mergers and acquisitions that has brought about an

ability for those corporations not only to gobble up the most profitable portions of the businesses and sell them off for their own benefit but then go out and break the unions by insisting that there's a no contract in existence. In addition to that we find ourselves when they're using deregulations an excuse to do away with everything from oceans to the environmental protection requirements to go with the various businesses and so deregulation can work but it cannot work if it's used as a subterfuge to go to do away with the protections that in fact government is supposed to stand for between major corporations and people and the Shabak. Well economic deregulation is one thing but this administration has used it as a cover to abandon what I believe is a moral commitment of government to protect the health and safety of Americans. I saw an Iowa beef plant up in northern Iowa which had the most shocking accident rate that I've ever seen and an environment in which nobody was turning to the

employees or the government to try to do anything about it. That case is occurring all over the United States because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility. We see it with the airlines. We see it most shockingly in the environmental area. The EPA has identified 26000 toxic waste sites. They've cleaned up 12. In the last eight years. I calculate that will require 2000 years to protect the safety of Americans at that rate. Twenty five percent of our drinking water as impermissible lead standards and that affects the health and safety of our children. That's an issue of potential mental retardation. That's what's wrong. It would be easy to saw fire Ed Meese appoint a new tourney judge appoint a new director of Goetia and say it's your job to correct these things. Appoint a new EPA administrator and demand accountability. It's just that simple.

Thank you Mr. Jackson. Let's not focus on the AT ME. He's the mailman. Mr. Reagan is the postmaster general. That's who appointed them. Look at the relations in the Reagan from last of the deregulation means release the powerful to the vile the way he has deregulated for example foreign policy that's over having the Iran Contra scam circumvent the U.S. Congress that's deregulated foreign policy. He's deregulated the business of human care. That's why there are so many more people who are vulnerable. Case in point. 1980 the budget the Housing and Urban Development. Thirty two billion dollars. There's about 10 billion dollars. Now we have houses that cannot get serviced. And those that remained all been tempted to sell them off in private enterprise. More deregulation in the situation. Women have been left deregulated and vulnerable more than I have abomination is female. Yet more women to work. Making

less money more when the heads of households cannot get basic daycare provisions for their children. More of our children have a desire to go to school. They cannot get scholarships. They must get loans. So on the issue here is the deregulation of the commitment to human care. This administration has abandoned its obligation to regulate justice and regulate standards and regulate order and peace. Thank you and I Mr. Hickox let me address the transportation issue and I hope what I say my friend L can agree with least this one time and I think you will. It isn't what we have been talking about precisely what happens when you have a weak presidency and a weak administration which doesn't understand that a first class transportation system is what the people and the

economy in the economic future of this country needs is there anything more important to our economic future than a first class transportation system and a balanced transportation system. Nobody who voted for deregulation voted for deregulating safety voted for cutting thousands of air traffic controllers out of their voting for subjecting ourselves to what we've been going through these last few months and years. Of course safety has got to be the concern of the president of the United States that's an executive function. That's what we elect a president to do. Secondly we need a balanced transportation system air transportation all by itself will not move the people of this country. I think we've got to invest in highways I think we've got to invest in rail. Passenger train service. Once again in this country especially in certain parts of this country. And finally as Paul pointed out a number of others have here. We need an anti-trust policy. If you're going to deregulate. Then you have to enforce anti-trust policy Dick I was in the St. Lucie up with the other day somebody told me the

pros 84 percent of all of the flights out of St. Louis. No wonder it took us forever to get on the plane. I mean you can't you can't deregulate without a strong any trust policy I don't think we've heard from the Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department Paul in the last four five six years. It's close it's close. Gentlemen. I think I think if we very keeper answer short we can get in one more question from the panel that will come from Jordan right. Mr. Gephardt will be responding first to this one. The national debt seems to be moving away from us at about the speed of light right now. As president how would you bring that debt under control can it be done without blowing holes in the economy. Well Satan has seven years to get into this mess and it will take is more than one or two to get out of it. I think our goal should be to try to get 30 billion dollars a year off the deficit in the next few years assuming that we don't fall

back into a recession which would make the goal of a more balanced budget even more elusive. If we can do that I think that we can get the budget toward balance. How would I do it. First I think we've got to cut spending. One of the ways you can do that is with the passage of the park and Gephardt save the family farm act. It would cut 12 billion dollars of spending this year and allow farmers to get a fair price for their products. Second I'm for an oil import fee not because it's popular in a lot of places in the country because it's the right national policy for this country. It makes me angry that we're beholden to countries in the Middle East today that we've got our kids over in the Persian Gulf and the only way we'll become more independent energy is if we get a price for energy that allows the development of alternative energy fuels here in the United States like ethanol from here in Iowa in the Midwest. Third we got to lower defense spending we cannot have

this ridiculous defense budget that's gone on over the last few years buying every weapons system that comes down the pike. Finally tax reform is likely to bring in more money than we thought. So those four things can get us toward the goal of the next two years then let's see where we are and what we need to do in addition to that to get toward a balanced budget. Thank you Mr. Simon. It has to be a major priority and a president the United States who indicates that he will deal with this vigorously right when he takes office can among other things bring down interest rates. One of the realities is when the only good thing about a 2.3 trillion dollar indebtedness is each one percent you and reduce interest rates you reduce the federal expenditure. Twenty three billion dollars. Second. We are going to have to say cut back on some spending in the Defense Department is an area where we can cut back without impairing the defense of this

nation one iota. Just having competitive bidding would be a very welcome change in some areas that would save a tremendous amount. About it. We don't need every ridiculous weapons system and that comes along. We can cut back on Star Wars for example eliminate that there are some a number of things that can be done that really can save substantially. And finally what you have to do is to put America back to work. Each one percent you reduce unemployment you reduce the deficit. Thirty billion dollars. If we were to cut our unemployment rate in half we would still have a higher unemployment rate than Japan then Taiwan then Switzerland and several other countries. And if we were to cut the real unemployment rate in half we would eliminate the deficit. And Mr. Bright.

Very much the answer to the question sir is yes we can be done and it can be done in a way that will not undermine economic growth. And in a sense this is the litmus test for Democrats the one thing the American people don't believe about us is that we're fiscally responsible. The fact of the matter is Reagan's run these deficits up they don't believe we're responsible that's why any Democrat who proposes any new program better be prepared to say precisely how he or she is going to pay for it. And that's precisely what I've done. Every program that I put forward in fact I indicate where I pay for let me be very specific how I cut the fiscal budget right now. First of all I would convert all our existing quotas to terrified auction them off that would raise a billion dollars. Secondly is that of talking in an amorphous way about cutting the Defense Department the only way it makes a difference is if you cut systems I would cut the Star Wars system. I would cut the emic system. I would cut the B-1 system. I would cut part of our surface navy fleet the systems because that's the only way you can make any money. Thirdly I would raise five point seven billion dollars in excise taxes by

taxing cigarettes and liquor in order to pay for the drug program in the health care program I propose. Fourthly by changing the agricultural program the way I suggested would save two billion dollars by targeted to family farms. And thirdly there are ways in which we can raise additional money clothing tax amnesty. Tax amnesty I think will raise about 2 billion some among us think will raise a hundred billion. But then again I've been around a long time and I know in the Senate we talk about waste fraud and abuse solving our problem. It's a little bit like saying tax amnesty will solve our problem. The point is with specificity the proposal I put forward reduces the deficit Thirty billion dollars this year and every year thereafter in increasing numbers while paying for all the programs that's what we must do. Be specific. Now Mr. Babbitt the honest answer is that we must both cut expenditures and raise revenues on the expenditure side. I advocate what I call a universal needs test. It's a question is that program really targeted and is it really necessary. If you ask that question of farm subsidies

you could get rid of subsidies to corporate agribusiness those 10 million dollar checks focused that program on family farmers. That question asked to housing assistance and mortgage subsidies would say we don't need to be paying mortgage subsidies for people to buy ski condominiums in Colorado. Those ought to be targeted on first homeowners. And why is it that we're spending money for three new generations of missiles when we can't even send mine sweepers out of an existing inventory to the Persian Gulf. Now on the tax side. None of us have been very candid about the reality and that includes me and it includes all the candidates because the plain fact is that we do need to raise revenue and we can't do it by talking about cigarette taxes and tariffs and tariffs on oil and that kind of thing. I think the American people are waiting for some honesty. We have to raise revenue. I propose a

progressive consumption tax which would be enacted contingent upon spending reductions. I believe that the two linked together are the only honest straightforward answer to that deficit issue. Now Mr. Jack. If you are lost in a blind alley you don't need a technician opposition paper. You need a leader. We should get out of this mess the way we got and then Mr Reagan came in office he doubled the military budget in peacetime and triple our insecurities reduced taxes on the corporations and on the wealthy. We must cut the military budget without cutting defense. That means cutting the MX missile system it means cutting the Star Wars system it also means reviewing the the NATO's relationship with European nations a much stronger now able to pay a share of the burden. That's almost 40 percent of our military budget.

It also means we're wasting money and losing credibility in the Iraq war trying to overthrow a government funding Savimbi in Angola or normal in Mozambique flagons ships in the Persian Gulf. We need to have a military budget that correlates with obvious interest and not with fascinations all with misadventures. Lastly corporations must pay their share of taxes. The wealthy must pay their share of taxes. They have the cushion they owe it to America to keep America strong. Lastly we must put America back to work. The alternative to welfare and the Spanish is work. People got the job. Revenue goes up they pay the taxes the deficit goes down and the step respect goes up. Put America back to work is the surest way to end the debt crisis. Mr Dick Arkan's I think I'm the only person at this table today who has to balance a government budget and I've balanced nine budgets in nine years I know

of only three ways maybe three and a half ways to balance a budget. First you have to make the hard choices on spending. The number of us have already talked about. Secondly you have to improve your economic performance as Jesse just pointed out and as Paul pointed out if unemployment were just to drop 1 percent pull the federal budget deficit would be thirty six billion dollars less. And if you do those two things then interest rates will come down and down substantially and that too will save you a substantial amount of money. Finally we have to raise revenue. And I don't believe any responsible candidate for the presidency can seriously say that he'll guarantee that he won't ask the Congress for new taxes at any time in the eight years that are available to him. But we are not collecting today. And these are the Internal Revenue Services figures not mine. One hundred and ten billion dollars a year in federal taxes owed that aren't being paid in say one hundred ten million I said one hundred ten billion.

I begin with a one time amnesty but that's just the first step in a strong and visible revenue enforcement program that also encourages voluntary compliance and treats honest taxpayers as value customers in Massachusetts today and we've had great success with revenue for us. You get your refund back in nine days. That's the way you encourage voluntary compliance that's the way you treat your taxpayers as valued customers. If we can go out there and do that we can collect billions and billions and billions of dollars in unpaid taxes. And it seems to me it's only the fair thing to do to collect taxes from people. Paying for you impose new taxes on the vast majority of Americans who are paying their taxes and paying them on time. And finally Mr.. Mike I found something to agree with in that answer to collecting taxes more efficiently is a good idea. But I also agree with Joe Biden that your estimates are way off. And also I heard something else that you said which I disagree with.

You said you said we must raise revenues. You said we must raise revenues. Now if we have a recession when the next president takes office in January of 1989 that would be the very worst thing to do. I agree that no president no candidate for president should rule out new revenues. But we should focus on economic growth. We should focus on better ways to stimulate the creation of more jobs and bring in more revenue. We should focus on better ways to cut wasteful spending for example the A6 attack plane for example the level of expenditures that are now required for the Bradley fighting vehicle and on the domestic side too if we eliminated unnecessary routine chest admission a chest X-rays on admission. That would save two billion dollars per year. And finally if the next president is prepared to pursue arms control in a meaningful and verifiable way we can make dramatic savings that could be used to reduce the deficit as well as make the investments

that we need in human resources. Thank you very much and that concludes the panel question portion of the economics of America debate. We now begin one round of candidates questioning the candidates receiving the questions were chosen by a random drawing 30 seconds aloud to the candidate asking the question. One minute allowed to the candidate responding to the question. And the first candidate question is directed to Mr. caucus by Mr. Simon Mike. The increase in defense expenditures from the already high level in Massachusetts since President Reagan is in office is a 59 percent increase. That's a pretty healthy welfare check so to speak for the state of what Massachusetts. How do we work on the whole problem of conversion. I've seen to it that people who maybe put out of work if we cut back on defense expenditures find the chance for a job.

Well as you know Paul to begin with only about 5 percent of the new jobs we've created in the past 10 years are defense related so most of the jobs that we have in my state have very little to do with defense those that we've added but there's no question that whether you're talking about Massachusetts or Illinois Missouri or Tennessee or Texas or any of the states that rely on defense spending for jobs that conversion has got to be a part of the process as we move from defense spending to what I think all of us here at this table would prefer to see funds invested in for important civilian job creating economy building investment. And that's part of the job of the next president to develop that planning process to work with communities to work with those regions that are going to be affected those communities are going to be affected. But you yourself pointed out and rightly so that when the Urban Development action program was inactive by the Congress that you went to work with your communities and use those funds to build your economy to create new jobs develop new enterprises. That's exactly the kind of thing the next pres of the United

States will have to do if he is as you are and I am strongly committed to moving from our excess and open and let's move along most of it into our time is running out on us and the next candidate question is directed to Mr. Simon Mr. Biden. You talk all the time about how you're proud of the vote against the tax bill one of the reasons some of us voted for the tax bill is we thought that we as the only way to eliminate the loopholes that existed and I read in The Des Moines Register your interview where you said quote Once you tell somebody you're going to give a tax shelter for example the one on commercial real estate then you should not go back and say Sorry we didn't mean it. My question to you is do you think this tax loophole should remain in why are you so committed to tax loopholes. I am not committed to tax loopholes First of all I voted against the tax loophole originally. But I do believe it's like when you hand somebody a thousand dollar bond. I don't think you go back and say later sorry this is only worth

$700. We had to change the law prospectively people who have invested under certain promises by the federal government the federal government ought to keep those promises. That tax bill was a monster. And I'm proud to voted against that. And I wish the Iowa primary were after April 15th he said of February the 8th. So a lot of people and I would understand what happened to them while the very wealthy of this nation had their taxes reduced. One third of middle income Americans including a lot of Iowa farmers really got gouged with that tax bill. Now the third candidate question gets directed to Mr. Jackson by Mr. back. Reverend Jackson My question is about grammar and all of the senators and congressmen here at this table voted for Gramm-Rudman which says rather than make choices about priorities and budget reduction I will walk away from that issue and just cut everything equally sick children having the same

priority as say presidential libraries. My question is What's your view of Gramm-Rudman And how would you set priorities in budget reduction Gramm-Rudman as Mr. Simon say was a must. There is no substitute for courageous leadership. One who would lead America must at least be eligible for the second volume in Profiles in Courage. Those would be senators must make sound judgment and to level the playing field as it is. Locks the wealthy and their wealthy then their wealth and the poor and the poverty for example now have an AIDS epidemic. Other epidemics occurred judgment had to be made. It probably does have to be made. We must for example commit ourselves now to targeting support for those with the weakest links in the chain. A real commitment to women and children prenatal care daycare education from. From daycare not to take down those who support a gramme right Mahalo

as the men met Sybil leveled the playing field and supports the rich and locks a pool in the basement. Thank you and now Mr Jackson it is your turn to direct a question to Mr. Vice. This is a tough one here. All of our serious snow day is a move afoot now to help bail out the credit system which I support as I said earlier. But there are three and a half million acres of land into government related programs alone. These farmers are beginning farmers the new start of farmers and minority farmers all up in affirmative action spaces should get priority over this land and not just real estate developers. Number one number two related to that would you in fact support an international food and agricultural conference.

So actually establish a floor beneath which no farm will fall. Reverend Jackson the answer the second question first the answer is yes. May answer this first question. And that is your point that there are three and a half. There's millions of acres and thousands of farmers have had their land taken away because they couldn't meet the payment and now what we're doing is we're going out and the Farm Credit system and selling that very land at a lower interest rate in effect subsidizing the two cartels to out-of-state investors to syndicates. I think we should sell the land back to at the lower interest rates the very farmers from whom it was taken the effect on the federal government is the same. These people are not out of business because they were bad business people and bad farmers they were out of business because of bad farm policy. And I think they should get the chance not some cartel out of Chicago or New York or Los Angeles at a lower interest rate I think you're right on both points and wrong Gramm-Rudman.

Now our next candidate question is directed to Mr. Babbitt by Mr. De Kock one of the things we haven't mentioned as much as I would hope today is the relationship of good daycare and child care the economy of the future. I think we all know that our economy is changing. Our families are changing whether we like that or not. More single parent families and more families where both parents are working. You've been particularly outspoken and eloquent I think on the question of child care and daycare. I wonder if you'd comment on the relationship of that to our economic future and especially to creating the real economic opportunity for more and more Americans who are going to require childcare good childcare for the youngsters. Mike I think your question in some measure answers itself you you point out that it is an economic issue. I think child care is an issue of workplace democracy. If we're going to say to single parents it's your obligation to go out there and take a minimum wage job earning 68 hundred bucks a

year you can't possibly be serious. If you're going to load a day care obligation of two or three thousand dollars a year that they have to take out of that 68 hundred before they've ever paid the first utility bill. So it's an economic issue. If we believe that people should take charge of their lives we want to give them incentives to work. That's the place to begin. But it's also a children's issue a moral issue an education issue. The first grade in this society is too late. We need to begin early. Half of all education takes place before the first grade and that's why I believe the first priority in domestic programming should be a federal daycare voucher available scaled the income tax. Every working parent in this country without any exception. Thank you and our next candidate question is one directed to Mr. Gephardt by Mr. Gore.

Well Dick there is one obvious question. All of us have agreed this afternoon that the principal cause of the farm trade and economic problems is Reaganomics and the centerpiece of Reaganomics was the unfair and inequitable and poorly designed tax bill of 1981. All the rest of us who are in a position to vote had the good sense to vote no. When that vote came why in the world did you vote for Reaganomics in 1981. Well first of all Al as you well know I led the fight on the House floor for the Democratic tax bill which I worked on in the Ways and Means Committee with all of the Democrats and the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately after a good fight and we worked and worked and talked a lot of members we didn't succeed. We came a few votes short. And so then as you know the choice was whether you vote for any tax cut at all

or you vote for the Reagan bill. My feeling was that if we didn't have a tax cut at all in 1981 that we were bound to have a recession and as it turned out we did. But the recession that we had was not as bad as it would have been if we had had no tax cut at all. Since then I led the fight for tax reform which got rid of a lot of the most egregious tax loopholes that were caused by the 81 bill. So I think you've got to look at what was the right thing to do at the time and what's been done since and who is leading it who is trying to get something done who is trying to make the tax code better. I think I've done that. Thank you and the final kind of a question we reversed down there. The question is directed to Mr. Gore by Mr. Gephardt. First of all I'd like to know if if I get to 52 percent in the polls in New Hampshire where you

start attacking me like you have Mike Dukakis today. But. But the second question is really again about children. I was at a meeting in California about two or three days ago and I met with people who have been working with physically and emotionally abused children children who are on drugs children who have dropped out of school. They talk with passion and they talk with experience and they talk with wisdom about the problem at the end of the meeting. One of the woman women there said you know Congressman you talk about economics all the time but you never get to children you talk about deficits but you never talk about children. My question to you is what should the next president's agenda be for children and what's the most important thing we should do to help have strong productive children in this society. I've been deeply involved with that issue in my 11 years in the House and Senate.

I was a principal sponsor of the infant formula act I've worked hard on welfare reform and some of the priorities I think we ought to establish for children include welfare reform to remove the current incentives for one working parent to leave the home and to remove the disincentives for families to go back to work because they're afraid they'll lose their children's Medicaid benefits if they go back to work under the current system. Next we ought to be concerned about the problems of the homeless because the fastest growing category among the homeless is children and families with children. And we ought to understand that the fastest growing group in poverty generally is children. Next we also ought to have a massive literacy program and set a goal of 100 percent literacy by the year 2000 because all the studies indicate that children of illiterate parents are more likely to become illiterate themselves and have trouble getting into the job market. These are only a few of the items that would be on my agenda for America's children.

Thank you very much out of that and as a candidate questioning and we move to the final segment of the debate for each candidate now has two minutes for closing remarks. We start in reverse order we start with Mr. Simon. Thank you. We need a president who understands our economy who cares who can lead. We need a president who can appeal to the noble in each of us. Recently I was on a call and radio program and a woman called and she said you know I'm out of a job don't you. I said No ma'am I really don't. She said the blacks are getting all the jobs. We need a president who creates opportunities for all of us instead of dividing us. We need to be pulled together once again. With its insensitivity to the less fortunate. This nation has been drifting in the wrong direction. You know having Robin Hood in reverse you have a shrinking middle class a few people moving out.

Many more moving down those tax bills that have aggravated that reducing the tax for the wealthiest of Americans from 70 percent to 28 percent. And again I was one of three people in the Senate to vote against that. The only candidate on this table or on the Republican side who opposed that tax cut but that's just part of it. We've also had a dramatic increase in interest expenditures. Who pays the interest. By and large is people of limited income who receives the interest. The more fortunate among us. Harry Truman was right. Deficits help rich people. I want to protect the economy of this nation but I also want to protect the income of the average American. We need a prosperous America but not just for the favored few. I want an America where the average American is the big winner not the lobbyists for the powerful. Yes I am a traditional American.

I'm a pay as you go Democrat traditional Democrat. I want a government that cares. I want a government that doesn't divide us. I want government the Greens about the kind of an American the kind of a world we can build. We live in a good and a great country but my friends it can be a better country with your help we're going to make it a better country. Thank you sir now Mr. Gephardt. There's one thing that we sometimes lose sight of in these economic debates and it's probably the most important thing of all. The issue isn't just numbers in statistics it's people human lives dreams and hopes. Pain and loss. The other day I was in front of a high school class in New Hampshire and I asked the students how many of them wanted to give part of their life to public service. Not one student raised their hand at the end of the class the president of the student body came up to me and explained he said Congressman the reason none of us want to participate

anymore is because none of us believe in any of you anymore. When you reach the point where the youngest among us who are supposed to be the most idealistic or the most cynical and something is very wrong in America. And there's something very wrong in America when you go to Davenport Iowa and you see that one of five houses is up for sale because the families can't make the payments. That's not just an economic statistic. That's a moral failure. We have to change our economy and to do that we've got to change our president. But more important than that is changing this attitude of indifference and selfishness that's flourished over the last few years. The next president has got to challenge just to be good as well as great. That's the way America was when I was a boy growing up in St. Louis. I remember sitting on the porch with my parents and summer nights

the air was hot and muggy but it was full of dreams. It was right to dream those dreams because we knew we could realize them but now in towns like Davenport the porches are empty and on too many front yards there are for sale signs and the dream has been lost. I want to change that. I want those youngsters in New Hampshire to dream again to believe in America again and to want to give something back to this great country so that every one of us has a dream and the right to believe that we can fulfill that dream. Thank you Mr. Gore. I hope that you have enjoyed this debate today. I've enjoyed it. Debates are not simply about agreement. Democracy is not simply about generalities. Democracy demands a vigorous discussion of new ideas and the differences we have in our approach to making this country a better

place. The Democratic Party is not just a collection of narrow interest agendas. Nor can our problems be seen through the narrow prism of only one of our states. We have a fork in the road right before us in this 1988 election. We have to choose whether we're going to continue the current path or strike out an on a different path toward a brighter future in order to do so we must see this as one nation the next president must be prepared to unify us must be prepared to restore respect for the rule of law in the White House and pursue a meaningful and verifiable arms control agreement in the world. I believe the time is now. When I first announce for the presidency someone said Why don't you wait. That's the same question we've been addressing during this debate this afternoon. Can America wait for answers and solutions for the challenges of the future or are we prepared to move now. I think the time is now to regenerate a sense of national

purpose in this country a sense of national purpose which only a president can provide. The time is now to rekindle the spirit of America and begin to build a brighter future in order to do so we must heal the divisions in our country and the most serious division is not between North and South are black and white. The most serious division is between those who say wait and those on the other hand who look at the very difficult problems and feel within them a commitment to make a difference. That's the side I'm on and that's the side I'd like like you to be on as part of a winning campaign. And I'd like to close by asking for your support in this race for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Thank you. I believe the next president of the United States is going to confront two major challenges. The first is whether or not we can build an economic future for ourselves and our children and our families. That is bright and strong and vibrant in the creates genuine economic opportunity

and good jobs at good wages for every American not just some people in some places but every American everywhere in this country. And that will require a president who can build a partnership for economic growth and economic opportunity all over this way and a partnership for people and for the future. But there's a second major challenge that will face the next prez the United States and on this Senator Gore and I agree totally. We have the best opportunity for meaningful arms control and arms reduction we've had in our lifetimes. And that opportunity gives us a rare rare chance to build a peaceful and strong and bright economic future for ourselves and people all over the world. The president self just the other day talked about the possibility of agreements in Europe and deep cuts in strategic weapons and reductions in conventional forces just imagine what it would be like for ourselves and for people all over this world if the next prez of the United States could achieve those goals. You know my parents came to this country 75 years ago seeking the American dream and they found it

for themselves and for their sons. And one of the things they said to my brother and to me all the time was that those of us who had had the opportunity to share that dream to live in this country had a special responsibility to give something back. I believe in the American dream and I want to help make it come true for every single citizen in this land. That's why I'm running for the presidency. And that's why I hope I can win your support. Now Mr. Jack. All that we've heard today amounts to why we must stop economic violence foremost get off of their land. Lack of support for women and children I use in schools public affordable housing in the face of such an ominous challenge. We must not surrender 1984 and 85 million Americans have the right to vote chose not to vote use the religious franchise you gave up. You cannot surrender. Don't try to look and Opus anaesthesia for

your pain. Don't violate your family. Don't move towards suicide. There is hope. Ah so what happened to Selma Alabama 1965 I see it happening in Greenville on this day. We must go another way. Challenge the military budget that's the largest item and make it make sense. Challenge the wealthy. Challenge the corporate behavior. Make them be fair. Make can be just. If you really want change you have to change directions not just presidents. So now let us fight for economic justice. And fight together not fight each other and we must fight let's fight the plant gate closed on workers without notice. List one of the shipyard that dumped products made by slave labor and on the kind of organized labor. Let's find a school where youth with a good mind could not gain interest because it can get a scholarship could not get a loan. If we must fight let's fight the family farm auction and stand with that family. If we must fight live slay

fight in some hospital together for some one some man died in the emergency room because they don't have a green or yellow card. The group sass to a bed that was empty waiting for the rich to get sick. Let's do justice and this love America and let the real America stand up and stand up for all of its people. Thank you very much and God bless you. Now Mr. Battle. I believe this debate will focus and has focused on the major issue we confront in 1988 and that is simply whether or not we as Americans can find the leadership to take charge of our economic future to seize the opportunities that are coming upon us from all over the world and to make room for everyone. You know a burst of real economic growth and productivity and I've outlined during the course of this debate three fundamental changes that I think we need together to

have the courage and the resolve to make workplace democracy which is about productivity and change in the workplace and coming together in aid of productivity. Universal needs test which is a way of getting hold of government and addressing priorities and restraint in that budget. Investment in our children. We as Americans must resolve to end the neglect of our children and to begin using presidential leadership to invest in their future. A couple of days ago I was out in a shopping center campaigning I introduced myself to a couple of young people. One of them looked at me and he said it doesn't make any difference why should I be involved. You all make promises that you don't keep. You all raise expectations only to dash them. And I couldn't help but thinking that I share that frustration. I thought of Michael Deaver on the cover of Time magazine sitting in the back of a long

limousine auctioning off the majesty of the United States government to the highest bidder. But I responded to that young man I said simply this. We can do better. I understand your frustrations but rather than lowering expectations we must raise them rather than dropping out. We must participate because together we can change direction. We can raise our hopes we can open up a world of opportunity a new future all of us together. Thank you. Thank one morning you can thank you now Mr. bike. Thank you very much. I'm proud to be with these six other people up here. We agree much more than we disagree. I was trying to think how I close here today and it seems to me there's two things that are to come through very clearly. Number one the United States economy has to be revitalized not just for the sake of America but for the

sake of the whole world. We are the world's last best hope. If our economy phase will Japan take over the protection of the free world. Will our European allies do that. The answer is clearly you know we must succeed not only for ourselves but for the world. The second point that comes clear to me is that the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has always stood for growth and for hope. And somehow that's been lost for a while in the minds of the public and maybe even among those of us in the party. And I started thinking as I was coming over here why is it that Joe Biden. Is the first in his family ever to go to a university. Why is that my wife is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college. Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright. Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest.

Those same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse. Is it because it is more car. My ancestors who worked in the coal mines in northeast Pennsylvania know come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours. No it's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because it in work is hard. It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand. That's what my party's always been about. We provide people a platform upon which to stand. That's what government is for. Ladies and gentlemen. There's an old communion him in my church and it goes like this it says. And he will raise you up on eagle's wings and bear you on the breath of dawn and make the sun to shine on you. It's time to build a platform upon which we can raise America up on eagle's wings and bring a breath of a new dawn over parts of America have been left behind and shed light on people who need our help. This is an exciting time to be in our business and no better time to be president.

I hope you'll consider me. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you all. Thank you all of the candidates who do appreciate the fact that they were here took part in this debate. We also want to thank our panelists for being here. And just a couple of more words. Our thanks again to the debate sponsors the Radio Television News Directors Association Yaba Broadcast News Association and UK R&B radio. And a special thanks I thank you Dale Jr. and debate coordinator who put this all together. Good afternoon and thank you from the Iowa State Fair. Do you. Get. Anything.

The. Good. News. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television.

But.

Oh. Yes. There.

It is.