The Exchange; Interview with Bill Bradley

From New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway and this is the exchange. Former New Jersey senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley is giving Vice President Al Gore a serious race in New Hampshire. Recent polls in the Granite State show the two men with almost the same amount of support. That's shocking to some political observers given the vice president's name recognition and ability to raise money but Bradley has been able to campaign one on one in ways that a sitting vice president just can't. Since January Bradley's conducted what he calls listening tours simply goes around the state and listens to people's concerns on the issues. Both he and Gore are regarded as moderate Democrats but they are starting to point out their differences. Both campaigns say there are plenty for example welfare reform gun control and health care. The American public first met Bill Bradley when as he puts it he performed in front of thousands in short pants. Bradley was a professional basketball star with the New York Knicks for 10 years. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in

1978 and left 18 years later in 1996. Since then he's been writing writing lecturing and speaking. And as of last fall. Running for president. He formally announced his campaign just a few weeks ago in his hometown of Crystal City Missouri but he's really been running for almost a year since January. Bradley's been in New Hampshire about once a month. This week he's in the state for two days and he's with us in the studios. Now we'd like your questions for Bill Bradley. Do you want to know where he stands on issues important to you whether it be health care foreign policy taxes education environment. Join us at 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9 and Senator Bradley. Welcome back to the Exchange. Good to be back with you Laura. You've been on listening tours around the state since I last saw you in January what are you hearing from people what are they concerned about. I think people are concerned about having a good job with good pay and one good health insurance they want good education for their kids. They want a good pension

for their parents and for them when they retire. I think they're also very concerned about the political process itself how money distorts that process in a fundamental way and they want to once again believe that our democracy can be responsive to the people's will and not simply to the will of big money. I think those are all elements of things that they're concerned about. And when you walk away from them after you're done with your Listening Session what do you hope they remember about you. Well I hope they remember that I tried to be responsive to their concerns and to their hopes. I hope that they believe that I listen to them and that I told them candidly who I was and what I believe and why and what I wanted to present in the United States. And in so doing establish a kind of connection that allows them to realize that somebody running for president not some distant figure

is someone in their living rooms or in their union halls. Someone who cares desperately about them. So we have to see him touch him smell him test you know you have to at least meet the candidates three times. I know about see him and touch him. Are they surprised Senator Bradley that a candidate has come in to listen to them instead of talk to them. Some of them are but I find that that is the best way to get a context for people's lives because they tell me their stories and tell me their stories. They give me a sense for what someone who's the president might do to try to help them out when they say OK Bill Bradley Why should I support you over Al Gore what do you tell him. I say there's only one reason to support somebody for president United States and that is because you think that their leadership will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans. And if you believe that I'm that person then I hope you'll support me. And then over time they get to know me and they ask questions and I give them responses

and I find that paying respect to the voters is also terribly important because after all without the voters there would be no democracy and paying respect to them as individuals and as the group that they represent those responsible for making democracy work and not pretending that you have all the answers. I think sometimes politicians feel compelled to tell people they have the answer to everything. When we all know that no one has the answer to everything. And campaigns tend to polarize and they tend to turn things into black and white when life is clearly little more complex than that. So the real challenge is to be able to communicate in a nuanced enough way to let them know that you're real as opposed to simply a political mannikin. So sometimes you say I don't know. Sometimes I say no I don't know. The phrase that I've heard recently about your campaign strategy and you've probably read it in newspapers too is that Bradley is trying to run to the left of Al Gore. This is not true.

No there's there's no kind of magic strategy here. You just go out and tell people who you are and what you believe. And I think it is the politicos in Washington that tend to see things in this context. I think people are simply listening to hear is he speaking to my concerns. Does he think about the country the same way I do. Does he want a future for the country. This symbol of the future I want for the country and a lot of things that are considered to the left or the right are also somewhat outdated since the end of the Cold War. I think that the left right the matrix is really one where there was communism anti-communism. And now I don't think anybody disputes that there should be a role for government in our society. I mean look at what happened in the Reagan years the federal budget didn't dramatically drop. So the question is how are you going to. How are you going to care for people's future. And in this case I think a lot of things are common sense. I think that when the economy is as good as ours that it's common sense that we

increase the number of people in America with health insurance. There are still 45 million who don't have any health insurance. I think it's common sense with the economy as good as ours that we reduce the number of children who live in poverty. It's common sense that we build bridges for racial unity in our country its common sense that we prevent the environment from being polluted. These are not left right issues. These are these are commonsense issues in the world in which we live which happens to be a world that prosperity is growing. It hasn't been shared with enough people. But it is going ahead and now it's our turn to get everybody on the prosperity train. So do you reject political labels. Bill Bradley's liberal Bill Bradley is moderate. I believe this election is about the future not the past. And I believe that it's about who speaks most directly to the people's concerns about that future and gives them the greatest assurance that their leadership will be steady enough and strong enough to be able to

prevail. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura Conaway. And today we're talking with Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley. Bradley officially announced his campaign just a few weeks ago in his hometown in Missouri but he hasn't been campaigning for about a year. This is his tenth visit to New Hampshire just this year. Bradley has said he believes government can help people reach their full potential. He also talks about racial unity and healing and the need to bring the current economic boom to all members of society. We're taking your phone calls at 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. That's the exchange 800 number. The concord number 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. What do you want to hear from the presidential candidates. What issues do you think they should be talking about. Also if you have specific questions about issues where you wonder where Senator Bradley stands. Again the exchange phone numbers 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Let's talk about some of the issues that have been going on in this campaign and then we'll go to the phones and let's start with

education Senator Bradley because voters often say that this is their number one issue. You said that people are talking about this when you go around the state what sorts of educational policies would you push or initiate if you were president. Well first I would acknowledge that the bulk of the influence on education is at the local and the state level. We have state and local control that's where 92 percent of all the money spent on education is derived from. And therefore you have to have a healthy respect about what you can actually accomplish with 8 percent of the money. I think however that the most important thing that we could do is to make sure that in the next decade when we were losing 2.2 million teachers through retirement that we have a good teacher in every classroom in America. That is the single most important thing for quality education. I think the federal government has a role there in some areas. I think the other thing the federal government can do

is to try to make good on the promises that it has already made. For example in special education I think that if we were able to put more into special education at the federal level that would mean that the school districts in New Hampshire wouldn't have to spend their money and therefore they'd have their money available for computer programs or for foreign language programs or for humanities programs. And I think those are two very important places. That's a huge issue in New Hampshire special that people are constantly pointing out that the federal government has not met its 40 percent obligation in an area that's very true. The issue of school vouchers has come up in this campaign mostly on the Republican side where all the candidates support it but then there was some discussion that you had initially supported school vouchers when you were a senator an experimental school voucher program. Then later on you said try it doesn't really seem like the way to go. Well my position is pretty much the same as it's always been and I don't think nor have I ever thought that vouchers are the answer to the problems of public

education in America. The numbers we clearly illustrate that there are 47 million kids in public school there are six million kids in private school and the private schools are 90 percent capacity. So you can say you're going to have a separate school system and begin to have any credibility whatsoever. I did vote for an experimental program in six urban areas in America several times when I was in the Senate and I did that because I represented New Jersey and New Jersey has the second highest per capita income in the state in the country the second highest per capita income in the country. And yet it has five of the poorest places in America in the cities like New York and Paterson Trenton. And I would I believe that was the center not only from suburban America or suburban New Jersey but also urban New Jersey and I'd hold town meetings and parents would come up to me and they'd say What are you going to do to help my child. He's in a public school that is violent guns drugs

close to 3:00 in the afternoon and there are no extracurricular activities. And for 13 years what I said to that parent in these kind of meetings is well I think you need to go to work and join. Get on a school board and then change the system and the parents looked at me surprised almost like I dropped from Mars and they said Don't you realize I go to work at 6:00 am in the morning. I get at home at 9:00 at night. There's no possibility for me to do that. What are you going to do. Help me. And so on several occasions I voted to give that parent an option for their child through a experimental voucher program and I also voted for that because it would test the hypothesis of the school choice people which is if you have competition through vouchers that the public schools would be improved if the public schools aren't being improved then it's a non-starter. But in order to test that you had to have an experiment. Well the

vote didn't pass the amendment didn't pass. But there are two experiments now in the country in Milwaukee and in Cleveland. And we'll see what happens. There will be a constitutional test. I'm sure there will also be an assessment of what happened to the public schools in those areas but I don't think that vouchers as I have laid out could possibly be the answer to the problems of public schools. I think that it's valuable to have the experiments going on and to see what happens. You mentioned health care. Another huge issue for voters and you're promoting what you call comprehensive health care reform. Does comprehensive mean universal health care as in a Canadian style single payer system. Well I'll be laying out my approach to health care in the next two weeks. And there are still some last minute decisions that I have to make about direction but it will be an effort to cover as many Americans as possible

with health care. There's still 45 million without health insurance. That's more than and that's more than ever before. Certainly it's more than the early 1990s and it's more than double than I think about 15 years. And so the issue here is can you do this in a way that preserves quality put the doctors back in charge of the health care decision making covers a lot more people that are now covered and does so with a cost that you put before the public so that they can see how much it will cost to do this and therefore decide whether this is how they want to spend their tax dollars. Would it preserve the current private base system where you have private companies private insurers and so forth. Well I think that what we need to do is we need to let me lay it out at the end of this month and then deal with all of this because each of these relate to another aspect of the program so if you pull the string in one place with one question and there are 50 others that are you have to go through and

we go through those that the program which I want to reveal in two weeks. All right we'll wait. OK. Again you're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura annoyer our guest today Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley. We'll take your questions and comments now at 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Again 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. The concord number 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Read it down if you get a busy signal and try back later. Let's go first to Dover. Steve your first caller today hi. I have two questions for Mr. Bradley. OK. How can you be a man of the people when you are a multimillionaire financed by the same giant brokerage houses and bank as your competitors. And also why are you supporting. Which will make it even harder for American workers to compete with third world sweatshops. Well let's take Nafa and get first. Sure. I support NAFTA because North American Free Trade Union membership and trade agreement because I think that it makes the North American economic unit more competitive in the

world against Europe and the Japanese for example or against the Chinese. I think that there are clearly winners from Napster. There are also some losers and those people who lose lose their job because of naphtol I think we have to look to to help with healthcare and with education and with help with you know their economic security generally in terms of the World Trade Organization I think that we have 4 percent of the world's population and that means that if we're going to close our borders that means we're not going to have as high a standard of living as we could have if we were selling exports to 96 percent of the population of the world. We are the world's resource. The key is how to do that. And the way you do that I believe is through multilateral trading system where everybody is governed by the same rules. Where if there's a dispute between one country or another there's a way to resolve that dispute pursuant to the rules. So that's why I support the World Trade Organization and why I support NAFTA

NAFTA is also one of those issues. And one of those moments in our history that will have a long term impact on our country and we're just in the early phase of it now. I analogize it to something that is potentially as important as a Louisiana Purchase was in 1893 where suddenly our country became a different place because we expanded to be a continental nation. And with the NAFTA we were essentially saying that with a country where half the population is under the age of 21 that in Mexico it's better to have a Mexican economy that's doing well than one that is doing badly because when it does badly there's virtually no way to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into the United States. So you do this because it makes the North American unit more competitive. It's good for social stability and it also offers us a potential for enrichment between Mexico and the United States culturally. Steve do you feel that NAFTA is something that takes away jobs of regular working folks

that seems to be where you're going with this. Well that's right. The problem is that there are sweatshops in Mexico and in China and all these other places. And if you break down the trade barriers then it makes it even more impossible for you for that. The the the big companies that own all the way production. OK thank you for your phone call. I'd like to ask Senator Bradley about sweatshops he raises a good point that a lot of people are concerned about. I think one of the keys is to make sure that in countries that we trade with that there is a free trade union movement that will have a chance to improve the working situation for those workers. Now I think that the impact on the United States is much greater from technological change than from trade with low wage countries though. And I think that if you look at the local bank when your credit department. You have 200 people in it. Now it's got three with computer workstations to understand the kind of change that we're in the midst of it's a change of globalization of the economy and a

change of technology technological change information revolution biotechnology materials technology. Let's go next to Harris Phil Peters up next Marysville Hi Peter good morning. Hi. Good morning Senator. Hi Peter how are you. I'm gladly for Bradley. Well thank you very much. Some people say they're madly for Braehead so loudly or madly. I'll take it either way. No I appreciate your candor. I don't always agree with you but I do do have a fervent hope. I hope that when you get elected you will use the bully pulpit to change our way of looking at things. We'll start looking about concern for the future worry about our grandchildren and their grandchildren and nobody's worrying about them. I'm particularly concerned about air pollution and global warming. And that gets back into the World Trade Organization and I guess the difficulty in controlling that so concerns Peter that global trade agreements

sometimes diminish our ability to enforce environmental laws. That's right. Senator Bradley. Well I believe that there should be no global trade agreement that makes it more difficult for us domestically to enforce our law. I think that global trade agreements however set a stage and set a format meaning multilateral institutions for dealing with the environmental problems of our age. I think that global warming is a good example of something you can deal with simply domestically. You have to deal with internationally in the form of multilateral negotiations is the way to do that. And because there is a world trade organization you have a better chance of dealing with that issue than you if you would then you would if we were simply a country alone without any real relationships through trade. Peter thanks for the call. I agree and I urge you I hope you do get the bully pulpit. All right Peter.

Peter let me let me go back to your point about the future. One of the main reasons I'm running is because I think that the future we're headed toward will be different than anything we've ever experienced before. Because I think we're in the midst of these tremendous changes in terms of globalization in terms of technological change in terms of the nature of military threats in terms of immigration into our country in terms of our families our family structures. And I think that the next president has to use the bully pulpit to talk about a future that makes sense to people who are in the midst of all these simultaneous changes. Yeah it is a time of tremendous change. It is certainly a time of tremendous change Laura and what happens is people only see one element of it or they are hit by change like be stinging them their separate stings when it's really one total picture. And I want to ask you about gun control. All the candidates in this primary have been asked about that and given the recent shootings in public places such as churches and schools you've called for some pretty strong gun control measures including the registration of all guns in America.

Yes I have and that's actually one of the differences between the vice president and me. I've called for registration of all handguns in America all. Sixty five million handguns handguns not rifles just handguns and I've done that because I think it's important that we're able to track the flow of guns through our society. I've also called for a national licensing program the elimination of gun dealers in residential neighborhoods in America having trigger locks on guns requiring gun shows to have background checks just like a gun dealer does before they can sell the gun to someone having trigger locks on guns so the children can't get access. Making it a felony not a misdemeanor for selling guns to guns to a third party who then move it on to a younger person or to a felon. And the reason I do this and then the last thing I do I would ban all Saturday night specials. I mean every since I saw Robert Kennedy in a pool of blood on

the floor of the Ambassador Hotel in the picture in 19 68 I said I was president. They ought to ban Saturday night specials because I only used to kill people. And I think that this is common sense. It does not affect the hunter who wants to go out in deer season or during duck season. It does not affect their sportsmen. But what it does do is give a mother some sense that their child will not fall victim to handgun violence that is that is made possible by easy access to guns by children and by people generally. And would also allow us to track guns that are used illegally and be able therefore to like a car. I mean registration and licensing system we already have with automobiles in America. We ought to be able to have it with handguns Saturday night specials. We should say are small easily concealed handguns or very small

handguns in a category that you can more or less put it in mine which is a little bigger than yours but it could be a hand many of them. Some of them you can put in your shirt pocket. Small. Many of the Republican candidates are saying that we should just enforce the current laws that the current laws are fine and that we're not putting enough energy and resources into enforcing those laws. Why not do that first and then go about an acting new laws. How do you feel about that. Well sure I'm for enforcing the laws. And but I think that the laws don't go far enough. They don't allow us to track guns. They don't take gun dealers out of residential neighborhoods. I mean you know if a teenager wants a gun he can easy find it in the neighborhood whereas if he had to go to a commercial area it would be more difficult to deal with. I mean a study I saw recently there 800000 kids in America who took guns to school. And that's an astonishing number. An astonishing number and I certainly know based on your earlier points I made about some public schools

that there are metal detectors in order for kids to get in schools. Now I think it's better to stop the gun from getting to the person trying to enforce the law after the person has already got the gun. I think that's my major difference with the Republicans here. Let's take a call from Fred Vermont and how's up from Thetford high while you're on the air. Thanks Senator. History shows us that both and totalitarians regimes such as Nazi Germany the USSR People's Republic of China as well as liberal democracies like Canada Australia and the United Kingdom that firearms registration inevitably leads to Firearms Confiscation of being the case I'm appalled at your position. I wonder how you would advocate such a Taccone measure and what it is that you think the Second Amendment guarantees. Well I think that it guarantees your right to bear arms. But registration system is simply I think common sense that they have registration systems in some places some states in the

United States is working fine and I think that the key thing is to be able to track the guns. I don't think anybody is going to confiscate guns. It's a way of being able to track handguns. Makes me nervous though huh. Scares the bejesus out of me. I'd really like to know. Well let me ask you I think the Second Amendment is intended to protect. And I think it's intended to protect your right to bear arms a registration system does not interfere with your right to bear arms almost certainly does. How we have to go to a break but I appreciate the point and I think you and the senator why they disagree on this one. Thank you for the call. Thank you. OK. And we are going to take a very short break. When we come back more with Senator Bill Bradley. He's also a Democratic presidential candidate. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 is the exchange 800 number Konkan number 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. We'll be right back.

This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. Wednesday on the exchange genetic engineering and our food supply. Jill Kauffman is your host. Join us Wednesday for the exchange. Board for the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio comes from our contributing listeners and we also received support from the Brattleboro retreat helping families and communities care for people with psychiatric and addictive illnesses throughout New-England. 1 800 retreat from the Prescott park Arts Festival presenting the gadda club fair a renaissance on the waterfront October 9th 10th and Columbus Day with information at 4 3 6 28 48 and Wooding hollandiae and Girdwood attorneys in Hanover and Woodstock Vermont. Litigation business law probate and estate planning at WMG Dasch law dot com. This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura going on our guests today Democratic presidential

candidate Bill Bradley. Bradley represented the state of New Jersey for 18 years in the U.S. Senate from 1978 to 96 before his Senate career. Bradley was a professional basketball player with the New York Knicks. He was also captain of the Olympic basketball team that won a gold medal in 1964. He retired from the U.S. Senate three years ago and since then he's been teaching writing and giving speeches. He's been running for president for about a year although he only officially announced a few weeks ago. Bradley often talks about shared obligations to help the less fortunate and says America's civil society needs to be rebuilt. We'd like to hear from you this morning. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Senator Bradley I want to ask you one quick question about welfare reform and then I'll go back to the phones. When we talked on the exchange in January you criticized the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill. You said it cut the bond between mother and child. How did it cut the bond between mother and child cut the bond by saying that after two years of welfare and the mother would have to leave and take a job

and that you couldn't have welfare longer in a lifetime than five years. So no matter what the circumstances was it would be over. I think the welfare system in 1996 was a disaster. And I think we needed reform at that time I thought that reform should keep a federal commitment to individual children who were poor and then to encourage states to experiment. For example in my state of New Jersey there was an experiment that basically allowed women to get more if they were married. And if they had a job then if they didn't. And also if they had a child after they were on welfare they would not get the money for that child as a disincentive to see whether that would work because the problem really is single parenthood. If you want the best predictor of poverty it is single parenthood.

I mean if you're a mother who did not graduate from high school. So if you're the child of a mother who did not graduate from high school who has you before she's 20 and is not married you have a 78 percent chance of ending up in poverty if you're the child of a mother who graduated from high school who has you after she's 20 and is married. You have a 9 percent chance of ending up in poverty. So the question is how do we counter that. And I think that that requires state experimentation. But the federal commitment that was my objection then of course since 1996 the law has changed dramatically. I mean I think I think it's advisable for people to work but they go to work only if there's adequate childcare facilities for them and of course if you're one of those people after two years is going to be pushed off and you don't have adequate childcare then who takes care of the children. And ultimately that's the bond that we should preserve because everybody shows that all the scientists show us that in the first three years of life that's the key for

shaping the intelligence of a child. Did you vote for the welfare. No. You voted against the welfare reform against President Clinton. Yes. And I said at that time that I thought that the bill was so bad that they would spend the next four years trying to improve it. And that is precisely what's happened. They first changed it to say that legal immigrants could have welfare which the bill said no. Then they added food stamps and they added Medicaid coverage and they added this and they added that so that the bill has been improved since nineteen ninety six when I voted against it. And of course I want to see people work. I want to see people get a job. But above all I want to see mothers and children be able to establish that bond is so critical for an entire life. Let's go back to the phones again it's 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. Our guest today

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley. Our next call is from Putney Vermont. Jim is up. Hi Jim. Hi thanks for taking my call. Sure thank you. BRADLEY How are you sir. Very well thanks. You know every issue that's been brought up today I think is affected by one single overriding issue that John McCain incidentally has put in the forefront of his campaign and that's campaign finance reform. I think 80 percent of the people in America agree with you on gun control. And yet we can't get anything done because the NRA has bought and paid for so many politicians that that the people are not representative. I want to know are you going to make this a really big issue for your campaign. That is campaign finance reform. I'm going to make it a very big issue for my campaign. It's one of the three or four major issues I've already laid out a very specific proposal for campaign finance reform that eliminates soft money that goes to public financing of general elections for House and Congress and that provides free TV time for

candidates six weeks before the election. Some people say public financing of elections and I say yes and here's why. We spend $900 billion a year promoting democracy abroad. And for the same amount of money about the same amount of money we could totally take special interest out of our election process at home. To me it's the ultimate common. This is going to happen. When however when there are three other things that happen one is you have to have a grassroots movement. I tried to help build that when I left the Senate with Republican senator Albon Alan Simpson. We started something called Project Independence. We got over a million signatures on petitions for people who wanted campaign finance reform that's not a movement but a million is not peanuts either. Second people in business are going to have to step forward and say they believe that the corruption that is being

applied to the political process is now coming over to them and they want no part of it. And a group of them already has some major businesses have already done that Allied Signal Goldman Sachs a number of others have come out for partial public financing. General Motors no longer gives soft money. There are a couple of companies that are thinking of eliminating their PACs so that's beginning to happen. And then you need leaders who are also in the in the religious community and the university community to step forward and say the way money plays in politics today is distorting the democratic process. It's not good for our country. And finally you need a president who is committed to get this done because he realizes as you asserted sir that it is the key to virtually anything else that you are doing. So not only have I made this an issue in the campaign but it will be a major thrust if I succeed in my run for president United States because it leads to so many other issues. Jim thanks for the phone calls that answer it.

It sure does. And I I'm really glad that you're going to put that in the front. Good luck to you. Thank you sir. All right bye bye Jim. What about the issue ads. A lot of non-profit advocacy groups from on the left or the Right now all over say you can't clamp down on free speech you can't say we can't do these so-called issue ads anymore. That's not a part of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill. Yeah. No I appreciate that. I think that you the way you deal with that though is you simply say if somebody is going to buy an issue ad that there's got to be an equal time. On the other side or that's that's the regulatory way to do it the market way to do it is simply say when an issue ad is put on is a 100 percent tax and 100 percent tax is then given to the other side so that you get both points of view presented and you simply don't have the point of view that has the most money behind it dominating the airwaves then that would be controversial saying that you have to give money to the other side or you have to give time to the other side. We want to debate or do we want money to determine what people here.

Let's go back to the phones the next calls from Swazey. Jean you're up next time Jeanne. Hi how are you. Laura and great Senator Bradley welcome to New Hampshire. Thank you it's good to be back. You know this is my tenth visit since I saw you on this week and I commend you on your courageous comments on guns. I admire your directness honesty. Thank you. One thing that's very important to me that I she is a very great danger in our society is the growing income inequality. Twenty percent of the people 80 percent of the wealth. Do you have any recommendations to make corrections for this. I know it's bothering me terribly. Well I think that it's a legitimate concern. Most of the wealth difference now comes from the stock market that is skyrocketing. And the fact that only a small percent of people have much more than $5000 in any kind of stock that's accentuating this difference. I think the key thing

is to begin to allow people to put away money so that they can save for their own futures and get them to do that early enough in life so that they will be able to have a significant nest egg down the road. I think that that's one way to do it. I think another way to do that is to make it easier for people to get access to education that would allow them to earn the money that is more than those who don't have the education can earn. I think those are two ways that we could approach this. How about a tax tax restructuring. Well I think that it's important to bring people at the bottom up. But I think that when you're talking about income that's not wealth. I mean obviously income leads to wealth but you have to deal with income tax. And I think the way to deal with income tax is by helping people at the bottom in the middle make more. I think that's the best way to do that.

Q Thanks for the call and good luck Senator. Thank you ma'am. Senator Bradley on all these issues that we've been talking about this morning welfare education healthcare campaign finance. Are there any major differences between you and Vice President Al Gore on these issues. Well there was a difference on gun registration where he doesn't support it. And I do. And as you can see it's not you know these controversial then there's the issue in campaign finance reform when I propose my campaign finance reform efforts. Has his campaign attacked me for suggesting the elimination of soft money and the only person who supported it was actually it was ironically John McCain. So John McCain and I were the nominees of our two parties there would be no soft money. We should say soft money is unlimited contributions to parties of 500000 a million wherever you want to contribute. I think those are differences. The vice president I also had a little dustup a few weeks ago on the issue of creationism or evolution.

And I kind of forthrightly said our schools should teach evolution. And he hedged and said Well I think maybe they ought to do both. And I think that's that was a difference. I also think there's a difference in terms of how we would use the surplus. I think he wants to give a much bigger tax cut than I would give and I'd want to reduce the federal debt more. Could you elaborate on that. Yeah. Basically we have about a trillion dollars in non-Social Security surplus and we have $3 trillion in overall surplus. The question is how would you use that. And I've always believed that we should use that is by reducing the federal debt which is essentially reducing future interest rates using it also for some other programs. But that would be a thrust. Let's go back to the phones the next calls for Manchester. Dorothy you're up next. Good morning. Good morning. Go ahead. I would like to know what had Senator Bradley's position in his administration be as far as America's role in making it in the world would be particularly to be Russia

foreign policy. Good question. I think. I think that we have four key relationships with large powers in the world that is Japan China Europe and Russia. And our relationship with Russia I think has deteriorated over the last several years. There's growing suspicion I think that instead of allowing Russia to develop their own economic program we kind of suggested what they should do and gave the money the money went in and stayed about three weeks and came back out to Switzerland. And now in Russia you find that the people at best think were irrelevant to their economic circumstance and worst blame us for the economic circumstance. And that has resulted their economic circumstances terrible. For example during the Great Depression in the United States we lost 30 percent of our gross national product in Russia since

1991 they've lost 50 percent of their gross national product. The life expectancy for males in Russia has dropped to 57 years of age in some places where there's environmental pollution. It's down in the 40s and I think that therefore our efforts have become synonymous with their misery in the minds of many Russians. And I think that we need to keep our focus on the things that are really important and the major one is reducing the chance of their nuclear weapons getting in the hands of somebody else. I mean one is reminded that even now as we're speaking when there is a war between Russia and Chechnya going on and what you're seeing is the unraveling of the relationship between Russia and the people of the Caucasus a relationship that was formed in the 19th century when Russia conquered them and was in force in the 20th century when the Soviets through repression kept them in.

And now you're seeing it unravel and it is not beyond the realm of possibility or I should say we can be 100 percent sure that there won't be a tactical nuclear weapon obtained by the Chechens or that a nuclear reactor won't be bombed and it's extremely dangerous because it's the first nuclear nation in the world to basically have serious internal threats. So what does one do about that. What does the president do to ensure that I believe that what we should have done is to spend a lot more money on something called the Nunn-Lugar program which was an effort to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons in Russia and reduce the amount of fissile material in Russia. So that and I think also that we needed to act much stronger earlier on trying to help the nuclear scientists of Russia so that they don't end up in Iran or Iraq or someplace. I think those are some specific things that we should have done that we didn't do early enough.

Dorothy thanks for bringing foreign policy into it. Thank you. OK bye bye bye. Let's go next to Hanover and Robin is calling from Hanover. Robyn you're up next. Hi. Hi. I tried to steal myself against calling into the show it just started there when I heard you say that you actually would advocate taxing someone so that anybody who wants to spend his own resources to advocate a position or a candidate would be taxed to force him to support some opposing opinion. This is the most appalling. This is on the campaign finance discussion we had rather a few minutes ago. To tax me to say well if I'm going to express my opinion I have to support somebody else who wants to express his opinion. It's just scary. Well you could do it the other way of course you can have a regulatory approach which I'm sure that you wouldn't like either. The point is whose opinions do we hear when the when the method of hearing opinions requires money to purchase the airwaves. That means that people who don't

have the money don't have a chance to express their views. It means that people who do have the money have a chance to express their views and therefore influence the people who haven't thought one way or another about the issue. There are two routes the tax route I laid out his alternative tax route is simply a way that you allow the market to work and the regulatory route is essentially the Fairness Doctrine which existed for many years in the United States. So the question if I may Laura your fairness doctrine approach also has many of the same problems that you are compelling people to support an opposing view but aside from that you seem to presume that there is an opposing view not many opposing views. Well that's a good point. I think that is a good point. I think that's a very good point and that is food for thought. I think that's a very good point that you've made because there isn't always a specific one a B.

Many alliances there are many want to. That's a good point. Robin thanks for coming in. We're going to move on. Thank you. Bye bye. I want to ask you about another difference perhaps between you and the vice president and I'm not sure. You mentioned a couple of issues earlier Vice President Gore certainly known for his work on the environment. Do your policies differ there. I don't think they differ considerably on the environment. I haven't seen a space opened up between us yet. And on abortion you both seem to have similar positions as well. Well I support freedom of choice for the woman. I think it's a position that I've had throughout I've been in public life and will continue to. I think that the vice president in the course of the campaign has his campaign has stated he does not support federal funding for abortions. And then about five days later they said he did support public funding for public

funding of abortions federal funding of abortion. So I think he really has to clarify that himself. Let's take another call. This one is from Concord. And David you might be our last caller today. Go ahead Senator Bradley. I'm impressed with everything I've heard recently. I'm a little concerned though about what your current relationship would be with the legislative side. I don't believe that you're left as a leader in the Senate and I'm a little concerned about your relationship with them should you be present. Well our best friends are legislators. And I think that we'll be able to have a good relationship. I served in the Senate 18 years. I think I understand how the system works. I think that I respect legislators. I think being a senator was the best elective job in the world. I believe that that will end. From my perspective that won't be a problem at all because we will be aiming to do the same things. If your objective is to increase the number of people who have health care.

Of course one of the things you do is work very closely with the legislative leaders because they're the ones who are responsible for carrying your program in the Congress. That's something that I obviously would do and that I have done in the past with some success. David thank you. And let's take one more. We have a little time will go to Chesterfield and George I think you're the last caller today. Go ahead. Senator how are you. Good. How are you sir. I'm doing well thank you. First I wanted to commend you on your answer to Sam Donaldson last weekend. That was that was class. Now what was that George. That was when the senator was asked whether he had used illegal drugs and he turned the question right back on Sam and Cokie and said Have you ever used illegal drugs fantastic and. My question is this. What's your feeling. And where do you stand on the issue in the United States the Him issue. Yes should have be legalized as a as a textile product.

At this moment I'd have to say no but I'm prepared to look at what the what the information is I'm not very familiar with the subject quite frankly. What do you think. My opinion is that it should be. I think that it could be a economic boom to the country. And I think that there are a lot of farmers who are going who are going bust who are going out of business. That could be saved by a crop such as this. OK. That's one of the good things about these call in shows there's always something new. Let's take another one this one is from Fitzwilliam. OK Jim you're on the air and you really are the LAST CALL TODAY. I'm the last call. Yes. Mr. Bradley I'm reasonably sympathetic to what you're doing but there is a tremendous area about the path that has been indicated by the previous caller's question about drugs and I believe if you were friendly with Abbie Hoffman is going to come up at some point. And how are you planning on responding to this. I never met Abbie Hoffman so I'm not was never friendly with him because I never met him.

I guess that answers it just looking it. OK I was wrong. All right. Thanks for the call. I want to pick up just very quickly on something that I believe it was George said the issue of drug use by George W. Bush has come up and he said it shouldn't matter to presidential campaign. You said recently that if somebody did use illegal drugs they should say so how do you draw those lines. Well you know what do I need to know as a voter about you what don't I need to know. I think that's a very good question Laura. And the way I draw it is the following. I think the public has a right to know if you're a crook but not if you're a sinner. Since we all are. And that means that if you violate the law my personal views you say what you did and I've admitted that I used marijuana several times in my life and that's it. No more move on. But every candidate has got to decide their own set of criteria. That's my set of criteria and I'm I'm not going to presume to tell somebody else what they should do. They're going to have to go

with their own conscience and live with themselves in the course of the campaign. And so somebody else is going to make that judgment. I was simply stating this was my view of how I should conduct myself. And then I was asked well by analogy should somebody else do it. No I said well consistent with my criteria. Yes. But somebody else might have different criteria. But you felt that that was something you needed to reveal. Yeah I do have one last question for you came from a listener via fax he says this is William pál it from where he says How come John have a check could always beat you to the basket even though he could not dribble to his left because he always had a good pick. That knocked me off and got him a half a step. Besides he's a much better player than I am. Oh leave it at that and I want to thank you very much for coming in. Thank you. Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley. He represented the state of New Jersey for 18 years before his Senate career. Bradley was a professional basketball player with the New York Knicks. The exchange is a production of New Hampshire

Public Radio. The producers are Eric Erickson and Mary Krueger assistant producer Laura Colbert. Our engineer is Ellar and I'm Laura Conaway. And starting tomorrow I will be taking four months personally. Jill Kaufman will be your host I know you'll enjoy Jill on the air and I will be back with you at the end of January 2000. When