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

For public television this fall. You're watching Iowa Public Television. Due to today's special presidential candidates debate market to market will be seen at 3:00 p.m. That's 3:00 p.m. today for market to market. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. Oh. Live. From the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. Election 88. The Democratic presidential candidates debate. The economics of America. Sponsored by the Radio Television News Directors Association and cooperation with the Iowa Broadcast News Association. And they are in TV radio. Welcome to the economics of America debate at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. I'm

Jacki King and as a member of the committee of Iowa broadcast journalists who organize this event. I'd like to thank our sponsors the Radio Television News Directors Association the Iowa Broadcast News Association and K our entire radio thanks also to the Iowa State Fair for hosting this event and a special thanks to Iowa Public Television for broadcast production and services. Now before the introductions I want to answer the claim that organizers arbitrarily excluded other candidates from taking part in this debate. Let me assure you that fairness has always been the goal of the debate committee. That's why we establish a neutral criteria for candidates to qualify. And we have considered each and every request for participation. Do you qualify for the debate candidate or potential candidate. I must have filed certain documents with the Federal Election Commission or must have organized formal exploratory committee in Iowa. Also individuals must have

received the support of at least 1 percent of Iowa's voters according to The Des Moines Register's Iowa poll. We understand that candidates who do not meet the criteria may not be happy with this process. But we know of no other system that would please everyone. And with that I would like to introduce today's moderator. A long time Iowa broadcaster and former national president of RTM DA Mr. Ross Van Dyke. Thank you very much Jacki. Thank you I too would like to welcome everyone to the economics of America debate a forum we believe will help Iowans be better informed about some of the presidential candidates prior to the Iowa caucus. It's. Getting down to the business let me introduce the candidates. And may I ask that there be no. And with that in mind starting on my immediate right Sen. Joseph R. Biden

Jr. of Delaware. Please we save time for the candidates to speak. Next to him We have former Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt. Who was Jesse Jackson. Was Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. And who was the former senator or rather Senator Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee the hooka Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt of who. Was an Illinois senator. It was where I remind those in the audience these men are going to be restricted to as little as a minute and a half at a time. If you insist on applauding they'll have less time to speak and express their views

on our panel via broadcast journalists sitting on my left. Creighton can I farm director of Kaye on my radio in China and oh. George why the news anchor and managing editor of w o ITV Ames in Des Moines and John Benziger news director of K M and S radio in Sioux City and the official timers for this debate are John delight and fellow Sherman the ground rules for the audience. This nonpartisan sponsored debate include the following. No smoking no campaign paraphernalia no camera flashes as we say no applause until the end of the debate. Any kind of interruption as we say might result in your candidate being deprived of that much time. We ask you please remain seated during the debate. Now we outlined these rules in the hopes that the very best of time used can be made of the time in debating the issues without distractions. And we thank you in advance for your cooperation. Now the format of the economics of

America debate calls for each candidate to give opening remarks. Next the candidates will answer panel questions. The third second debate calls for each candidate to ask one other candidate one question. And finally each candidate will give a closing remarks and again all questions must be on the economic issues. Now the order of turn German by random drawing as well as the seating order will rotate the sequence of churn throughout the debate and the order of closing remarks will be the opposite of the order of the opening remarks. So without further ado we begin the debate with opening remarks. Each candidate is permitted two minutes first. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. You're going to hear an awful lot of detail about economic policy today but I think it's important while we listen and speak to this detail. We keep a couple things in mind. First of all. When we talk about statistics we're really talking about people we talk about the farm

crisis in America we're talking about the farmer and his wife with his very moment somewhere in Iowa. You are sitting at the kitchen table with their bills spread before them knowing that there's no way to make it another day 180 such farmers a day or a gnat's position where their hopes and their dreams and their aspirations are going up in smoke. A second thing to keep in mind it seems to me is to try to figure out how did we get to be such a great nation in the first place. And it seems to me there's two reasons why we've done so well in the past. The first is that every generation of Americans has understood that its responsibility was to leave a legacy to the succeeding generation that was in fact a better more prosperous than the one that they inherited. And we're not doing that now under the Reagan administration. Under the Reagan administration we are leaving our children with a close to a three trillion dollar debt. We're making it harder for them to get to college. We are shortening their possibilities rather than lengthening them. There's a second reason why we've done so well as a nation. We've

always thought of ourselves as a single nation with a unified economy one economy. But what's happened under this administration we find ourselves developing a bi coastal economy. We're out east where I live and out in the West. Things are going pretty well. Well the heartland of America is suffocating. So as we debate these issues let's put them in concrete terms and understand that when we talk about these statistics we're talking about people and the only way we're going to answer the problem is to reestablish a sense of community in oneness and reestablish a sense of idealism that has always moved us along in this nation. And lastly to move ourselves in the direction of taking every issue before us in viewing it in terms of how it will impact upon our children. If we do those two things we will once again re-establish ourself as an economic giant in the world with a sense of compassion and understanding for all of our American citizens. Now Mr. Babbitt.

A couple of weeks ago I met an Iowa farmer named Russ and direct. He told me that he was managing to hang on to that farm but that the only way they were making it was with his son in law working on the farm and then driving a mail truck up until midnight and his daughter in law was working on a full time job in a neighboring community. And he said to me he said Bruce I think we can make it through this. But what I don't understand is why with the rest of the world blossoming with economic growth. Created by Americans why is it we're having such a tough time stuck stagnating trying to get started to make it. That's the question for 1988 and for this debate. I believe that in order to take charge of America's economy and to get it moving again we need to make three basic changes. The first is what I call workplace democracy. We need presidential leadership to bring out the very best of the creativity in America's workers the

bringing labor and management together to say to management when you cut wages for employees you cut them for yourselves and when you give bonuses you have to give them bonuses to those employees because we have to bring people together in the workplace. The second change that I advocate is a universal needs test to take charge of government and to step up and take charge of that budget. Universal needs test is really a question. The question I'd ask of each and every item in the budget. Is it really necessary and is it really focused on people who really need that help. Third as Americans we must together resolve to end the neglect of our children and to invest in daycare public education access to higher education. If we do those things together I can say to Russ and Reagan his kids America can take charge. World leadership and create a future for our children. Thank you. Mr. Jackson the dominant theme of our day is economic

violence. Forty years ago Dr. King and Robert count of a kiln for the day it was racial violence overall says they can cut its hit's thought cut its senior citizens and in their golden years facing tragedy 38 million jobs leaving this economy. 600000 farms lost 38 million people with no insurance. Economic violence is a combination of merging corporations purging workers merging the economy on the cutting the American worker than on the playing field. We must fight for economic justice. We must have a new policy direction reinvest in America retrain our workers re industrialized nation put our foremost back on they off bombs and research for commercial development. We can do better. But a lot of the rection is in order. For example GM closed 11 plants in the event of

30000 jobs. The very next week 30000 jobs open in South Korea repressed labor on the cutting organized labor. We can do better. For example in this auditorium today on the stage. How many of you all know someone who owns a VCR. Raise your hand. Raise your hand. Hands down that's not one American made DCR. Not because we care because it's not our priority. How many know someone who owns personally a mixed message raise your hand. The point is we are making more all of what the world needs less dog. We must change our priorities and if we do we can achieve our greatness. Once again a nation does best what it does the most. Let's move from economic violence to economic justice for everybody. Thank you now. Please Mr. Crocker.

Thank you Ross and thank you all for giving us the opportunity to speak about the future of the aioe economy and of our economic future as a nation. A few weeks ago the federal government released its monthly statistics for unemployment and Massachusetts had an unemployment rate of two and a half percent. How did this happen. How is it that a state which 12 years ago was an economic and financial basket case today is being called the Massachusetts miracle. We did it by working together the governor the legislature business men and women workers and unions educators lots of good citizens working together building together investing together and the real question before us today in the weeks and months ahead of this campaign is whether we're going to have a president 1989 who knows how to build an economic future that creates real economic opportunity and good jobs and good wages for every American no matter who they are. Or where they come from or what the color of their skin. A president who

will roll up his sleeves and go to work. To put our fiscal house in order to invest in good schools and good skills to invest in the new technologies that will rebuild our basic industries and create new opportunities for our farmers. A president who will invest in regional and especially rural development. A president who knows how to build a real partnership for economic growth. And for economic opportunity all across America. I believe I have the strength and the experience and the credibility to be that kind of president to provide leadership that will bring people together. Leadership is tested leadership that knows what it means to work with people in communities that five years ago had unemployment rates of 14 and 16 and 18 percent. And today are enjoying full employment. Leadership that will ensure that this country and its leaders will respect the law and respect the Constitution. That's who I am and that's what I believe in. And I hope I can win your support.

I know. Mr. Gore. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be here and I think it's appropriate that we're talking about farm and trade and economic policy today here in the heartland of America because one of the ironies of our present situation is that several states on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are doing well for specialized reasons. People here in the heartland in my home area of the South in the Rust Belt and here in the Farm Belt are not doing nearly as well. We must do better than the solutions we need are not to be found in a collection of narrow interest agendas. Nor can they be seen from the narrow perspective of one of those states that is doing well on the coast with a problem. The problems are broader than that and the solutions must be bigger than that. The next president for example must rebuild a consensus in favor of responsible fiscal policy. There are many steps which must be taken in order to reduce the budget deficit. Let me single out one related policy with which I think deserves

more attention. Eight in each year's budget. We are devoting enormous sums to the arms race. If the next president can seek a verifiable and meaningful arms control agreement we can redirect large sums of money away from the arms race and toward deficit reduction investments in environmental protection and health care and education. Similarly when we talk about making America more competitive we should see and understand the close connection between competitiveness and education. We should make a national commitment to creating the world's best education system. And when we talk about creating jobs let us remember this afternoon that 95 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. We should have policies that focus on small business development. And when we talk about agriculture let's not just talk about one small part of the agricultural marketplace as the only active farmer in this race I know that the entire agricultural economy is suffering. We need changes

like improvements in the Conservation Reserve Program rural economic development and better farm credit policies in all of this. We must focus on the broad national interest and lift the economic fortunes of the entire country. And now Mr. Gephardt. Well first of all we don't have a national economy today. What we have is a series of regional economies in places where defense spending is high. There's prospered but in places like Iowa where factories are closing and farms are being foreclosed there is pain and anguish and apprehension. The heart of America's heartland is being torn down and it's happening because in the last seven years we've been challenge only to ask what we can do for ourselves. Our economy is in trouble not just because of failed economic policies but because of failed values. We've got to ask again what's right and what's

wrong. It's wrong. It's just plain wrong to be spending billions of dollars on Star Wars and other vast military systems and just adding the cost of the deficit and never facing up to how we're going to pay for it. And it's wrong. It's just plain wrong to be spending millions of dollars on mercenary soldiers in Nicaragua who are killing children when we don't have enough money in our own budget to help children here in the United States. And it's wrong. It's just plain wrong to pit one region against another. To leave the Iowa farmers out in the cold and leave the oil workers in the Southwest without a job. I think that in the days ahead we've got to recognize there's a profound danger at the heart of our society and our economy. And it's that we've lost our moral compass. It's time to ask a

basic question. Isn't it time that we had a president a president again who really doesn't lie to the American people and asks us to do what's right for our country not just for ourselves. Martin Luther King Jr. once said what self-centered men have torn down other centered people can build up. I believe that. And I also believe that only when we bring out the real spirit of America can we rebuild our economy and give all of our people opportunity again and. He already exceeded his time and place. Finally Mr. Simon thank you. This afternoon this should be more than a political Miss America show. Let me suggest that in the next hour and a half all of us on this panel should agree on three specific

things where we recognize there are economic needs in this country. Number one we're spending too high a percentage of our national income on weapons. Number two we have to make education a much greater priority. Number three we have to face the problems that our older Americans face so they don't need to face those years with fear and their families with crushing debt. I'd like to add other things like a good vigorous family farm program and a program that would guarantee a job opportunity to every American but I recognize these are more controversial. But in response to those three specific needs let me ask my colleagues on this panel this afternoon if we couldn't agree this afternoon to do these three things. Number one no matter which one of us is elected president on January 21 1989 if the Soviets will

agree we will stop all nuclear testing. It's verifiable it. It would be a significant step away from the arms race number two. But we will massively attack the problem of adult illiteracy and provide significant funding for intensive preschool education in disadvantaged areas. We know from tests in Ypsilanti Michigan and elsewhere that if you have that intensified preschool education there is a dramatic change in the dropout rate in the teenage pregnancy rate and the crime rate. Let's do something about. And third What's pledge that we will have a self financed program that moves on the problems of long term care for all older Americans. If we could agree on these three things today and in future counter encounters agree on additional things we would begin to provide this nation an alternative a

constructive program. Let's start on it this afternoon. It is time now for the final questions. Each candidate will have one and a half minutes to respond to the question. Each of the other candidates. But then add a minute I have a comment on that same question if they so wish. The first question comes from our panelists. Write it out. My question is Mr. Babbitt. You're back in the middle of the industry that has contributed quite positively to our United States exports and quite positively has had an influence on our balance of payments. My question is What are your proposals to continue these positive contributions and will these proposals operate within the gap negotiations without subjecting United States agriculture to even more financial problems. The first problem is the Reagan agricultural policies the president has

announced that he intends to terminate agricultural support programs. I think that's morally wrong. That is a death sentence for the American family farm. What he's really saying is that he'll stand by while Iowa becomes nothing but a giant plantation operated by sharecroppers under a Cargill sign. And that's wrong. Now Gephardt and others have proposed mandatory production controls at the other extreme. I think they're well intentioned but I don't think they'll work. I think agricultural production controls are isolationists they'll destroy American markets abroad. They'll drive up food prices at the grocery store. I think there's a better way to take the existing programs and make them work. And you make them work by getting that agribusinesses out. We've got to stop this process of sending 10 million dollar checks to farms in California and to say that that low rate program ought to be based on a unit of production called a family farm

and then it ought to be moved not down but up so that we can say to family farmers that program is meant it's the reflection of a purpose that began with Thomas Jefferson to keep people on the farm and to keep that farm healthy. Thank you Mr. Jackson any comment on that question. Yes the most fundamental issue is that follows a working and producing and this earth prices for their production. Farmers want parity and not charity. 600000 farmers have been driven from their land with no place to go. Now there is a move in the Congress to in a sense they all out the farm credit system which I happen to support. On the other hand these two agents about government have three and a half million acres of land that's taken from the farmers. Recovery must be defined not by how many big pharmas get some more subsidy but by how quick we get those

600000 most they'll land back and then go beyond that. Supply Management. Agriculture is an international industry. We must have an international commerce on food and agriculture so as to stabilize prices worldwide establish a floor beneath which no farmer will fall. Farmers won't parity and not charity. If we give up the farm a chance we give ourselves a chance when I fight for the family farm because I characterise it state we as a nation turn out backs on the hands of the fed us and that is a condemnation of us as a nation. The farmers deserve a chance. If we can bail out and help Chrysler bailout European bailout Japan to an 18 billion dollar cost overrun by B-1 bombers we can bail out the family farmer. Thank you Mr Cochran's. I think there are four things we have to do if we are serious about preserving and strengthening the family farm

first we help have to help those farmers that are in trouble financially to get through this credit crisis. I think the bill which the House Agriculture Committee has reported out is a good one I support it especially those provisions which will prevent foreclosure when foreclosures are more expensive than restructuring the loan for that farm. Secondly we need a balanced program of Supply Management and reasonable price supports. But as both Bruce and Jesse have pointed out a program that benefits family farmers not corporate farmers or limited partnerships on hobby farms. Thirdly I think we have to aggressively explore the pot the possibilities and opportunities for new uses for agricultural crops Gasohol is the most obvious one especially at a time when dozens of our metropolitan areas will not mean that meet national ozone standards this fall but there are many exciting new possibilities possibilities that could open up real opportunities for our farmers. And finally we have to invest in rural development. Of course a healthy agricultural economy is the most important single thing we can do for rural America. But in

addition to that all rural counties and small towns and farm communities are entitled to a broader and more diverse and stronger economic base that will provide good jobs and new industries in addition to that healthy agricultural economy. Can we do it. I'm sure we can I've seen it happen in my own state and I'm sure we can do it all across America. Thank you Mr. Gore. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The problem with what Governor Dukakis has just said is that it contains no specifics whatsoever. I believe that farmers have had enough rhetoric and promises and need new ideas and new approaches specifically I think we should enlarge the Conservation Reserve Program to take environmentally sensitive land out of production at a faster rate and take some of the pressure off supply and improve prices. Specifically I think we should expand the role of the ag extension service and use it as the leading edge of the wedge in rural economic development to expand economic opportunities in farm and

agricultural communities specifically Third we ought to understand the close connection between the problems on the farm and the misguided fiscal policy which has been followed by this administration. And we ought to understand that if we're going to recapture foreign markets we have to have a strict policy of no more foreign embargoes no matter what. Next we ought to try to negotiate specific international commodity agreements the common market for example in Europe is close to tearing itself apart because of the massive subsidies that they are now pouring into their agricultural exports. If the next president the United States has experience in international negotiations and is capable of engaging our trading partners and competitors and seeking meaningful international commodity agreements we can make progress. And finally specifically we need to apply the same standards for Farm Credit as are currently applied for credit to small businesses in that way we can improve the health of American

agriculture. Thank you Mr. Gephardt. Everybody here is going to agree that we need to get exports up that we need to improve the farm credit system that we need to find new uses for agricultural products those are easy things to agree on. But the acid test of a farm policy in 1988 I think comes on two points. First are you for doing something to get a better price for farmers. There is no substitute for giving farmers a fair price for their product. In 1948 when the farm program was in trouble Harry Truman put in controls supply management to get the price up. In 1960 John Kennedy did the same thing and any farm program that doesn't deal with that is not a farm program that allows farmers the right that everybody in this country wants to be able to get a fair price for their product. The last thing I'd like to say is that a lot of people say that the

Harken part save the family farm act is wrong because it's a mandatory program. Well let me tell you something. The program we've got now is as mandatory as any program could possibly be. If a farmer isn't in the program they don't get the government checks. Farmers here and I with this year will get more money from the government from their corn than they'll get from the marketplace. That's wrong. Every other industry in this country can cut down their supply to keep the price up. And that's why the Harkin get part bill to save leaf save the family farm act is the best farm policy. And those questions that are presented by it are the acid test of whether you really want to help farmers or not. And Mr. Simon someone who lives at rural road Kanda Illinois population 400 understands a little bit about rural America and the values of rural America. I grew up working on a farm my wife and I owned a farm at one point.

What we need are several things number one. And restructured agricultural part program that really is family farm oriented. Number two much greater use of what we produce and the bill that I have in that in that I'm the chief sponsor of the Senate. That would increase the use of ethanol to 50 percent of the gasoline sold in this nation. By 1992 has to be 10 percent ethanol would raise the price of corn about 80 cents to a dollar a bushel not as high as it was a few years ago but an appreciable improvement over where we are now. Third instead of sending so many weapons to developing nations we ought to be expanding the Food for Peace program. It would help those countries and it would help Iowa and Illinois farmers rural economic development I happen to agree with Mike Dukakis that we can do significantly better in providing alternative methods in addition to lifting the agricultural income. And

finally let's get our fiscal house in order so that we get interest rates down. That would be of appreciable help to farmers primaried in the United States today is eight and a quarter percent prime rate in Japan today is two and a half percent. A president who gets a hold of our fiscal policy can be of tremendous help to farmers particularly if that president understands rural America. And finally Mr. Biden thank you very much. I come from a from a border state whose primary industries agriculture and I learned something a long time ago being a city boy in that state. The farmers are pretty smart. Farmers know more about foreign policy than most anyone else knows about farm policy. And I thought the essence of the question was whether or not we are going to continue this agricultural miracle part of which rested upon phenomenal export capability that we had. We all agree on the issues relating to price and issues relating to debt

restructuring to varying degrees but it seems to me the real acid test to use the phrase used by someone earlier is whether or not we are going to be able to have a domestic agricultural policy that does not curtail or eliminate a sound export market. The fact of the matter is Iowa farmers export between 500 million and 700 million over half a billion dollars of other agricultural products to Japan for example. The first person is going to get hurt in a trade war will be the farm it won't be the guy sitting up there running the major corporation. It will be the former. So you got to do several things. One of them is to have an aggressive export policy while you are doing all the restructuring and ways to do that already increased appeal for a D program to get our State Department into the game and understand that we should aggressively pursue those markets and diminish Third World debt because they're not buying our products now because they have to pay every dollar instead of buying an Iowa farm or something.

They're paying to an American bank to pay for the interest rates on the loans they get they undertook in the 70s but there's much more to say and we'll get a chance I guess is this was a time now for our next question. And that comes from our panel as George why is Mr. Jackson you answer first on this round sir. Several of you noted Iowa is in the heartland of agricultural production in this country as large as our agricultural production is we have an industrial production that is three times that size. In this state and in many others workers are being told to take a pay cut. Not in pennies but in dollars or the plan's going to close. Plants have closed. My question is this has business ownership become greedy or have workers been greedy in the past and priced themselves out of a job. The person that workers have been victims of economic violence corporations multi-nationals have been sick to use to close plants and get tax deductions

incentives to export jobs export capital export tax base. For example some people angry with South Koreans and Taiwan leagues for taking our jobs they're not taking our jobs. GM and GM taken jobs to them. The number one exporter from Taiwan is not Taiwan is G.E. which also owns NBC which advertises by America. While they take American jobs to a market where you have oppressed labor and sell a job back here at high prices without force they get an even playing field for the worker must do two things one the man in trade negotiations labor rights along with human rights workers and these three coppers make livable wages they can buy what we produce and then they can. It will reduce the incentive to take our jobs away. On the other hand if we commit more money for research we can end with a better product on the market. Why are the Japanese

the South Koreans make NBC all right and we're not making them. It's not a reflection upon our intelligence lack of character lack of thought Rick shows misplaced priorities and downright corporate greed. Thank you. Now if you take out one of the reasons we've gone through this terribly difficult period over the last six or seven years is this country is because we shot ourselves in the neck and we did it by running up record federal budget deficits. Deficits in an amount that we had never seen before which not only are causing a severe difficulties here at home the kinds of things that have driven up real interest rates and kept them high but drove the value of the dollar right through the roof. It was almost like saying to people overseas you send us your goods and we'll give you a 50 percent discount and correspondingly will put a 50 percent tax on everything that's exported to the United States whether it's grown or manufactured. And that

very very serious and destructive fiscal policy which began in the early 80s under this administration has done a terrible job on manufacturing on our basic industries on our ability to compete whether it's our farmers who are trying to export our manufacturing industries who are trying to stay competitive. Well the value of the dollar has come down but we're still picking up the pieces of that wreckage. How are we going to straighten it out by getting our fiscal house in order by mounting a strong and aggressive National Economic Development Program and by helping those workers who are displaced who are laid off with good training with notice with new skills and with new jobs and new industries that can create new opportunities for themselves and their families but let's recognize that we did a terrible job on ourselves in the early 80s and now we're reaping the whirlwind and I hope the next pres in the United States is going to be somebody who can get that fiscal house in order and get our affairs together so we never ever again go down that road. Thank you and now let's turn to Mr. Gore.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The question is an extremely important one. And what Governor Dukakis has just said is fine as far as it goes. Indeed the fiscal policy of the current president has been extremely misguided. But we must recognize that there are other factors involved as well. In truth there has been a long term decline in our rate of productivity growth. In truth we have been facing new and more vigorous competition from overseas steadily since they began rebuilding at the end of World War 2. Yes we must change our fiscal policy. The next president must focus the mandate of the election on rebuilding a consensus in favor of a responsible fiscal policy and there are ways to do that but we must do more as well. The question referred to lower wages. We can't compete on the basis of lower and lower wages. We must compete on the basis of sharper and sharper minds. The world is becoming a more complicated place. The world economy is becoming increasingly integrated with the futures of with a future of one

nation intimately connected with the future of all others. We must see these economic problems in their international context. The next president must be prepared to work more closely with other nations in promoting economic growth on a global basis. Similarly we must provide strong leadership for the removal of unfair trade barriers overseas and focus on those specific factors here at home which can make the difference in making America more competitive again. Thank you and now Mr. Gephardt 90 seconds this question is the question of the 1988 campaign. Everywhere I go in meetings people get up and ask the question. They say How can we keep 10 and 12 and $15 an hour jobs in our country when we compete in a world marketplace today where other people around the world are willing to work for a dollar or two dollars an hour. The answer to the question is that we can do it. But to do it we've got to have leadership. And we've really got to make this country good again strong again.

Ronald Reagan tried to make us feel good. Now we really have to be good. And the first thing we've got to do is to educate our people make them strong invest in people the 25 percent dropout rate in our schools is a disaster and it's got to be turned around. Second we've got to manage people better. I've been all over the country I've been a lot of factories and what I see is not a people problem or a worker problem. Too often we have a management problem and we've got to turn that around. Third we've got to have better cooperation between government and business and labor. The free market doesn't work. We've got to get together solve our problems see the competition. Face it need it. Next we've got to have a national vision to solve these problems looking through a regional prism at what works in one part of the country may not work in another. And finally we need a tough trade policy that says for the first time to other countries this is a world market and we all want to be treated fairly in it. If

you can come to this market we want to be able to go to yours and if we can we'll compete because we're going to make America good again. I think you're going to get hurt. Time now for Mr. Simon. First it should be pointed out that our number one trade deficit is with Japan and today the average Japanese worker is making more money than the average American worker. What do we do. Number one we have to encourage manufacturing in this country in producing once again. This whole concept that we're becoming an information society is flawed. Let me tell you the Silicon Valley's in the information base of the country's going to follow the manufacturing base. We have to revitalize the manufacturing sector. Second we do have to face up to our fiscal problems. We have to do it quickly. Third education is part of it. And some of it is very very concrete for example we're the only nation on the face of the earth where you can go through grade school high school college get a Ph.D. never

have a year of a foreign language. It's a very simple lesson in business. You can buy in any language if you want to sell you have to speak the language of your customer. We haven't learned to speak the language of our customers. And then one of the great mistakes in that horrendous tax bill that passed last year I was one of three to vote against that bill I'm proud of that. One of the great mistakes was we reduced the amount that a corporation can deduct for research. Anyone who believes that we can build a better finer America by cutting back on research. You're living in a dream world. We can do infinitely better if we have a president who pulls things together. And part of pulling it together is also not having 18 different agencies handle trade. We need one person in charge. Thank you and Time now for Mr. byte. Thank you. Industrial growth. You know it's I think not a very useful exercise to talk about who's at fault the worker or management but it is a useful exercise in my view to

suggest that a president should do about it. And one of the things I think everyone would acknowledge. Is that the next president should call into the White House sector by sector. The Chieftains of labor and the captains of industry and say What do you need to be able to get things done better. For example one of the reasons why we have such a serious problem right now in terms of trade is many of those third world countries that used to import 40 percent of everything we made those third world countries are importing nothing. And the reason they are not is because they have a staggering debt their pain exorbitant interest rates to international banks and American banks. And instead of sending the dollar to an American manufacturer they're sending a dollar to an American bank. If I were president I literally would call in the leading bankers in America and say you know you're never going to collect that interest. Write it off now. Stretch out the principle and give American industry a chance to breathe. Second I'd tell American managers if you're going to want people to take part of the burden then they must have part of the reward

that's why I believe employment stock option plans in giving workers a piece of the corporation is one of the most important things that could be done. Thank you and finally Mr. Babbitt. A couple of years ago when the managers at General Motors went out to their employees and said for us to compete you're going to have to take wage cuts. They closed down nine or 10 plants they dismissed I think 30000 employees. Those same managers then went back to their board of directors and said we've solved the problem and we're entitled to one hundred and seventy million dollars in bonuses. I believe that's a prescription for alienation greed lowered productivity and an American disaster. And I believe it's the obligation of the next president to create workplace democracy to say. Do what is my time up I don't think so. Sounded OK are we back in action here.

OK I think it's the obligation of the next president to provide the leadership for real workplace democracy to bring labor and management together to outlaw golden parachutes to say if you're going to have a risk free existence you need a risk free existence for management and employees to outlaw greenmail to promote profit sharing to promote gain sharing and shared ownership and to say we can compete. If we all come together and do our very best and to limit the greed and the speculation and concentrate on making real goods and services. That's what I call workplace democracy and I think it's the key to America competing in America taking charge of its economy. Thank you gentlemen now. Our next kind of question that comes from John Benson line seem to be split down the middle there.

Some say the farm crisis is easing. Others are dismissing this is happy talk although indicators do show some improvement to just takes on small businesses continue a downward trend. And my question for Mr. Dukakis what could your administration do to reverse this and bring help to hard pressed small town businesses. I'm repeating and expanding on what I've said on a couple of occasions already but this is such an important topic that it deserves lots of attention and lots of work. The market by itself is not going to turn around rural America. I know that I've seen what happens when people neglect and abandon rural counties in my own state and other states and you know it here in Iowa. We need an administration led by a president working closely with a Congress that builds a partnership between Washington and states and local communities that involves business and labor and our colleges universities and our educators. Mayors city councillors and local officials and citizens all over this country and

especially in those states and regions of this country that are hurting and hurting badly. We're going to have to invest some public resources we're going to have to bring the private sector in. We're going to have to do the kinds of things that a number of people up here already have said about educating and training and retraining. We're going to have to focus federal resources in on these areas of special needs if we're going to create centers of technology in this country we should one criterion for deciding where those centers go out to be the economic need in the state of the region that is eligible for that particular center that's the way you build the kind of strength in rural America that will create new jobs good jobs and better jobs. And while I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy agricultural economy is essential in night judgment. If we're going to protect rural America from the ups and downs of what is often a very stern stable agricultural economy. We have to build in desserts of either an economic base. That's something I've done that's something that the next pres of the United States

must do. And I believe the Congress would support him. And I think the nation would support expired. Mr. Gore. Well again Mr. Chairman with all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts we need some specifics. We need some specifics. Because the general rhetorical approach of simply saying that federal resources must be devoted to small business development is not going to get the job done. I was the I was the original sponsor and author of The Small Business Innovation Research Act which targeted research funds on small business development and allowed them to participate in the new technologies that are coming on the street. Secondly I believe we need to reshape the operations of the Small Business Administration. We have had an administration presently that has tried to eliminate the Small Business Administration. I will appoint someone to head the SBA who understands that entrepreneurship and small business development ought to be one of our nation's highest priorities. Next we need to

build infrastructure in agricultural communities so that small businesses in rural areas can be more profitable and so that we can attract more jobs there. Specifically the Highway Trust Fund has been bottled up artificially by this administration. I'll change that policy they've done it just to give an artificial appearance of improvement in the budget deficit. Anyway those funds are collected for a specific purpose. They should be targeted on the purpose for which they're intended to be spent. And finally we need more availability of capital to small businesses and to entrepreneurs. I believe that we need to reshape our nation's policies starting with our fiscal policy so that we can make that capital available to small businesses. Thank you and now Mr. Gephardt out here in the Midwest Missouri Iowa Nebraska the greatest symbol of the failure of Agriculture is when you walk down the streets of small and medium sized towns and you see plywood on half the storefronts as you walk.

That's a symbol of failure the failure is primarily because of the failure in agriculture it's the farmers the corn and we in soybean farmers out here in the Midwest are going down then the stores in the small towns by definition are going down. The only way we're going to get small town America small business is back in business is if we can get the agriculture sector of this country back in business. We can do it. It doesn't have to be this way it really doesn't. We can have a farm program in this country that really gives farmers a fair price for their product. And when they get that they're going to come to town and buy all kinds of equipment they're going to bank they're going to go to the florist they're going to go to the small restaurants they're going to have money to spend in our small towns. Mike I think we can diversify there.

You and I may agree but I think the diversifications got to be closely related to Egger culture and here in Iowa means that research dollars that come to Iowa State University of Iowa and other colleges have got to be focused on businesses and on enterprises that revolve around the dominant economy that's always been here and always will be here. And that's the ability to grow things and to sell those things in America and across the world. Thank you and now Mr. Simon. As someone who was a small businessman I think I understand what is required both for small communities and for small businesses. Eighty percent of the new jobs in this nation are going to be created by small businesses and we can do a number of things. First of all when the UDA program came in it was while it was called Urban Development action Grant I saw that it really could help my old house district in deep southern Illinois a very rural district. I got the members of my staff together got some business leaders from my area together. And the first year that

program went out of $12 nationally came into my district. We created thousands of jobs jobs that are still there are jobs that have expanded. We can do it next. We need credit for exports. Small company in a small town has a very very tough time getting credit to expand exports that create new American jobs. If we had federal guarantees on those loans you would see a dramatic increase in jobs and a dramatic increase in small town America. Finally we need to encourage creativity. And there are some very specific things that we can do for that. But let me just point out if you take a look at the U.S. Patent Office you will see fewer and fewer American citizens getting patents for. The U.S. Patent Office more and more foreign citizens getting patents. We ought to encourage creativity in small business America. We need some specific programs to do that.

Thank you and on this trip I thank you I think there are two things we have to do first of all we have to stop our government from working against small business people. I recently walked down the street in the senile half the town was boarded up. The bank could fail. The FDIC came in and instead of dealing with those business people want to get back in business and refinancing them. They are not helping at all. They're letting those pieces of property lie their followers and they're hurting the community. Secondly we have to do is have it start working for small business people and we're going to talk about diversification. It's not divert like diversification back east when you come into a small town where the next nearest small town is another 30 miles and there's no major university. You don't get people to relocate there if in fact the town's already dead already boarded up. And the way you do it is you see to it that those rural development projects we stalk about like for example in my case community based tax insurance so that when you have fall on hard times you will not lose your tax base will be made

up for the federal subsidized tax proposal our insurance proposal make up the difference between the income that town was collecting and that which in fact they're now collecting now. Deal with healthcare facilities people move into areas based on whether or not there can be health care for the families and those executives make those decision to move. We have to promote what I'm promoting. See to it that we pay off doctors and nurses educations if they'll go to rural America and be there. You have to change the environment in order to attract people into rural America in order to be able to diversify. Government can do that and we can do it without wasting money. Mr. Babbitt during my time in Arizona I made a special effort to lead rural redevelopment. What I learned was that diversification is possible. It's possible in any town in America what it takes is leadership bringing the local people together the newspaper publisher the local editors inventorying your resources

getting the government programs and reaching out to create jobs. You can see that success in Arizona today all over the state in towns like Kingman Castle Grande and others. I do the same thing as president. I do it by building on an example that we already have it's called the Agricultural Extension Service was created in 1914 when we had the same problems only in the rural sector. And it brought together federal resources States the State University run a county extension agent. Think about the power of that model and the way it has revolution American agriculture and I would simply as president propose that we build on that model in that we create a business extension service that would be focused on rural America and that it used the same model Federal State University and local extension power for diversification through entrepreneurial and small business development.

Thank you now Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Let me try to make common sense out of a very basic question. If you go out tomorrow morning to your fish and cause a lot of small fish the dead don't ask a government research grant and ask if small fish can swim. Look for the Barracuda that killed all those fish. Whatever GM. Takes away 11 plants and takes away 30000 jobs to South Korea. It kills small work small communities small businesses small farmers can farm. But corporate farmers and concentrations of wealth is eating them up. We who would be Democrats must take a fundamentally different approach than the Reaganomics approach. This is say that we must talk about economic democracy and economic violence. These major corporations are exporting jobs exporting capital.

They are taking advantage of small businesses by close up to me notice this government must demand a new policy reinvest in America retrain our workers re industrialize on Nation research for the development. If that happens and money begin to flow back in this country and not just flow out small businesses will be a byproduct. Small farms will be a byproduct of them going the cause would be a byproduct lest not overstudy have mauled their fish lest challenge the mean behavior and greedy behavior of the multi-national barracudas. Thank you very much. Now we are. Back to our panel. For our next question. You can ask. Mr. Gore. Businesses and industries that. Have been deregulated or in the process of being deregulated or under much financial pressure and even their physical and and business structures are being jeopardized. Specifically I'm talking about the airlines in the

petroleum industry and the banking industry should these industries be regulated by government now. I think we have to take them one by one. First of all where the airline industry is concerned I think the time has come to reinstitute some regulation particularly safety regulation. The original goal of deregulation after all was to secure for the public the benefits of free competition. But now what we've seen is a shakeout in the marketplace with only it's a smaller number of very large companies surviving. They have been re imposing their own kind of order on the marketplace and the result has been a degree of chaos. There has been a huge decline in safety standards. And yes I think there we should 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 the 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.