tv Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate at the 1987 Iowa State Fair CSPAN September 7, 2015 9:59pm-11:51pm EDT
grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> many of the republican and democratic presidential candidates visited this year's iowa state fair in des moines. coming up, we look back to the 1988 presidential race where seven democratic candidates participated in a debate at the fair. speakers include joe biden, al gore, richard gephardt, jesse jackson, bruce babbitt, paul simon and michael due kakis, who went on to win the nomination but lost to vice president george w. bush. this is two hours. >> this will help iowans. getting down to the business,
let me introduce the candidates. may i ask there be no applause in interest of saving time. to my immediate right, senator joseph biden of delaware. [ cheers and applause ] . >> please, we save time for the candidates to speak. >> next to him, former arizona government, bruce babbitt. jesse jackson. massachusetts governor michael dukakis, former senator -- or rather senator albert gore jr. of tennessee. [ cheers ] >> missouri congressman richard gephardt and illinois senator paul simon. [ cheers and applause ]
. may i remind those men in the audience, these men are going to be restricted to as little as a minute and a half of time. if you insist on applauding, they'll have less time to express their views. >> on my left, george noah, managing editor of woi-tv. the official timers for this debate are john delighten and del la sherman. >> ground rules include the following: no smoking, no ka pain paraphernalia, no camera flashes, no applause until the end of the debate. any kind of interruption may result in your candidate be deprived of that much time. please remain seated during the
debate. we outline these rules in the hopes that the best use can be made of the time without distractions and we thank you for your cooperation in advance. >> the format calls for each candidate to give opening remarks, next panel questions. the third section of the debate calls for one candidate to ask one other candidate a question and finally each candidate will have a time for closing remarks about the economy. the order of closing remarks will be the opposite of the order of the opening remarks. so without further adieu, we begin the debate with opening remarks. each candidate is permitted two minutes. first, mr. biden. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
you're going to hear an awful lot of detail about economic policy today.rc;!ç but i think it's important that 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. when we talk about the farm crisis in america, we're talking about the farmer and his wife who this very moment somewhere in iowa 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 are in that position, where their hopes and dreams and aspirations are going up in smoke. a second thing to keep in mind is to try to figure out how did we get to be such a great nation in the first place? it seems 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 gene l
generation that was in fact better, more prosperous than the one they inherited. under the reagan administration, we're leaving our children with close to $3 trillion debt, making it harder for them to get to college, shortening their possibilities rather than lengthening. there's a second reason we've done so well as a nation. we've always thought of ourselves as a single nation, with a unified economy. now we find ourselves as a bicoastal economy. as we debate these issues, let's put them in concrete terms and understand 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 and oneness, 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 and viewing it in terms of how it will impact upon our children. if we do those two things, we will once again reestablish our self 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 anderegg. he told me they were managing to hang on to the farm but the only way was with his son-in-law working on the farm and driving a mail truck until midnight and his daughter working a full-time job. he said 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, str stagnating and trying to make it? that's the question for 1985 and this debate. i believe in order to take charge of america's economy and to get it moving given, 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, to bring 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 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. a universal needs test is really a question papts 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 continue to invest in day care, public education, higher education. if we do those things together, i can say to russ and 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. 30 years ago, dr. king was killed and for their day it was racial violence. but for us it's day care cut, it's head start cut, it's senior citizens in their golden years facing tragedy. 600,000 farms lost, 30 million
people with no insurance. economic violence. it's a culmination of merging corporations, purging workers, an uneven playing field. we must fight for economic justice. we must have a new policy direction. reinvest in america. retrain our workers. reindustrialize our nation. put our farmers back on their farms and research for commercial development. we can do better but another direction is in order. for example, gm closed 11 plants in november. 30,000 jobs -- the very next weeks 30,000 jobs are open in south korea. we can do better. for example, in this auditorium today on the stage, how many of you own or know someone who owns a vcr?
raise your hand. raise your hand. hands down. there's not one american made vcr. not because we can't. because it's not our priority. how many know someone who owns personally an mx missile? raise your hand. the point is we're making more of what the world needs less of. we must change our priorities and if we do, we can achieve our greatness once again. a nation does best what it does most. let's move from economic violence to economics have justice for everybody. >> thank you. -- please. mr. dukakis. >> thank you all for giving us the opportunity to speak about our economic economy of our nation. massachusetts had an unemployment rate of 2.5% a few
weeks ago. 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, businessmen and women, workers and their unions, educators, lots of good sit as soon citize together, building together, investing together. and the real question before us today and the weeks and months ahead in this campaign is whether weir goi're going to ha president in 1989 who knows how to build an economic future and create real economic for every american, no matter who they are, where they come from or the color of their skin, a president who will roll up their sleeves and go to work, to put our house in order are invest in the technologies to rebuild our
industries and create new opportunities for our farmers, a president who will invest in regional and rural development, can build a partnership for economic growth and economic opportunity all across america. i believe i have the strength and experience and credibility to be that kind of president, to provide leadership that will bring people together, leadership that is tested, leadership that know what is it means to work with people in communities that five years ago at unemployment rates at 14%, 16%, 18% 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. >> and now mr. gore. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad to be here. 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 several states on the atlantic and pacific kroes are doing well for specialized reasons while people here in the heartland and my home area in the south and rust belt and form better not doing nearly as well. we must do better. the solutions are not to be found in a collection of narrow interest agendas, nor can they be seen from the narrow -- 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 may be taken to -- 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% 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 only active farmer in this race, i know the entire agricultural economy is suffering. we need changes like improvements in the conservation
program, rural economic development and better credit policies. we must lift the economic fortunes of 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 prosperity. but in places like iowa where factories are closing and farms are being foreclosed, there's pain and anguish and apprehension. the heart of america's heartland is being torn out. and it's happening because in the last seven years, we've been challenged only to ask what we can do for ourselves. our economy is in trouble not because of failed economic policies, but because of failed values. we 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 far wars and other vast military systems and just adding the cost to 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 p 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 again who really doesn't lie to the american people and ask 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, please. and 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 in country. number one, we're spending too high of a percentage on weapons. number two, we have to make education a much higher 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 these three specific needs, let me ask me colleagues this afternoon if we couldn't agree to do these three things. number one, no matter which one of is elected president on january 21, 1989, if the soviets will agree, we will stop all
nuclear testing. it's verifiable, it would be a significant step away from the arms race. number two, that we will massively attack the problem of adu adult ill literacy and provide intense education in disadvantaged elsewhere. we know if you have that intensified preschool education, there is a dramatic change in the dropout rate, in the teen-age pregnancy rate and the crime rate. let's do something about it. and, third, let's pledge that we will have a self-finance program moves on the problems of long-term care for all older americans. if we could agree on these three things today and in future encounters agree on additional things, we would begin to provide this nation an
alternative, a constructive program. let's start on it this afternoon. [ applause ] >> it's time for the panel questions. each candidate will have one and a half minutes to respond to the question. each of the other candidates will then have a comment and a half to comment on that same question if they so wish. >> my question is to mr. babbitt. you're back in the middle of 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 forum. what he's really saying is he'll stand by while iowa becomes nothing but a giant plantation operated by share croppers under a cargill sign. 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 isolationist. they'll destroy american markets abroad, they'll dry up food prices at the grocery store. i think there's a better way. take the existing programs and make them work. and you make them work by getting the ag gra businesses out. we've got to stop this process of sending $10 million checks to farms in california and to say
that that unit program oo 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 we ecan say to the family farmer, that program is meant, it's a 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 is that farmers are working and producing and deserve fair price prices for their production. farmers want parity and not charity. 600,000 farmers have been driven from their land with no place to go. and now there's a move in the government to bail out the farm credit system, which i happen to support. on the other hand, these agents
of government have -- it has to be defined by how quick we get those 600,000 farmers their land back. and then kb beyond that. supply management. agriculture is an international industry. we must have an international commercial on food and agriculturier, to. >> our character's at stake. we as a nation turned our backs on the hands that have fed us and that is a condemnation. if we can bail out europe, bail out chrysler, europe and japan, pay $18 billion cost overrun for a b1 bomber, we can bail out the family farm person. >> thank you.
mr. dukakis? >> i think there are four things to do if we're serious about preserving and saving family farm. first it is to help those get through the credit crisis. i think the bill that has been supported out is a good one, i will support it. secondly, we need a balanced program of regional management and price support. but a program that benefits local farmers. thirdly, i think we have to aggressively explore the possibilities for new use of crops. gas gasohol. and finally we have to invest in
rural development. of course a healthy raeg rahal economy is the most important single thing we can do for rural america, but in addition to that, our rural counties and small towns, farm communities are entitled to a brooder 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 mr. dukakis just said is it contains no specific whatsoever. i believe the farmers have had enough promises and rhetoric and needs new resources. i think we should take environmentally sensitive land out of production at a faster rate, to take some of the prices off supply and improve prices. specifically i think we should expand the role of the aggie
extension service and use it as the leading edge of the web. to exwand nick university. we ought to understand the problem on the farm. we have to have a strict policy of no more farm embargoes no matter what. next, we ought to try to negotiate specific international commodity agreements. the common mark, for example, in europe is close to tearing itself apart because of of the massive subsidies they are now pouring in to their agricultural exports. if the next president of the united states has experience in international negotiations and is capable of engagele and finally, specifically, we need
to apply the same standards for farm credit as are currently applied for a credit to small businesses. in that way we can many -- everybody is going to agree we need to improve the farm credit system and find new uses for agricultural products. those are easy to agree on. but the acid test comes on two points: first, are you for doing something to get a better price for farmers? there's no substitute for getting farmers a fair price for their product. 1948 when the farm program was in trouble, harry truman put in controls, supply man management to get the price up. in 1960 john kennedy did the same thing. and any farm program that doesn't deal with in a is not a
farm program that 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 the hart and gephardt problem is wrong because it's a mandatory program. well, let me tell you, the program we have now is as mandatory or it can possibly be. if the farmer isn't in the program, they will get more every other industry in this country can cut down their supply to keep the price up and that's why the save the family far act is the best foreign policy and those questions that are presented by it are the acid test of whether you really want to help farmers or not. >> and now mr. simon. >> someone who lives at rural
route 1 in 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, a restrubt yerld agricultural program that really is family farm oriented. number two, much greater use of what we produced and the bill that i'm the chief supportsor the use of connect. by 1992 has to be 10% 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 apreach i can't believe improvement from where reare now. third, instead of countries, it
would help iowa and illinois farmers. rule economic development, i happen to agree with mike dukakis that we can do significantly better in providing alternative methods and, finally, let's get our fiscal house in order so we get straits down. that would be of apreach were a president who gets ahold of our fiscal policy cab tremendous help to farmers, particularly if that president understands rural america. >> and finally, mr. biden. >> thank you very much. i come from a border state whose primary industry is agriculturieagriculture i . i learned something be a city boy in that state. the farmers know more about
policy. we'll all degree agree on the issues related to price and debt restructuring to various degrees but the real acid test is whether or not we'll 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, over half a billion dollars worth of agricultural products to japan, for example. the first person who is going to get hurt in a trade war will be the farmer. it won't be the guy sitting up there running the major corporation. it will be the farmer. so you got to do several things. one of them have to have an dpraefs export policy while you
are redoing all the instructiering. the way to do that is to get our state department into the game and understand we should aggressively pursue those markets and diminish third world debt because they're not buying our products now, instead of paying an iowa farmer, they're paying to american rates to pay the loan. but there's much more it to say as time goes on. >> our next question is from panelist george wiley. >> several of you have noted iowa is in the heartland of agricultural production in this country. as large as our raeg rahal is,y we have an industrial production that is three times that size. in this state and in many others workers are being told take a pay cut, not in pennies but in dollars or the plant as 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? >> work verse been victims of economic violence. corporations, multi-nationals have incentives to close plants and get tax deductions, incentives to expert our job, ex -- some are angry for these men for take are jobs. they're not taking our jobs. the number one exporter from hai want -- taiwan is -- to get an even playing field for the worker, you must do two things, demand
in labor nogss trade restrictions. workers make livable wages, they can buy what we produce and 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 and the south koreans making vcr and we're not making them? it's not a reflection upon our intelligence, lack of character, lack of hard work. it shows misplaced priorities and downright corporate greed. >> thank you. mr. dukakis. >> one of the reasons we've gone through this terribly difficult period over the last six or seven years of this country 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 us 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 you send us your goods and we'll give you 50% discount and we'll put a 50% tax on everything grown in the united states. and that serious and destructive fiscal policy, which began under administration whether it's our farmers or manufacturing trying to stay competitive. how are we going to straighten it out? by getting our fiscal house in order. by mounting a strong and aggressive national and by hoping those workers who are
laid off, with new jobs and new industries that can create new opportunities for themselves and their families. let's recognize we did a terrible job on ourselves in the early 80. i hope the next president of the united states is houn someone who can get their fist kag matters together and we never have to go down that road again. >> now we go to mr. gore. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what was just said was important. the fiscal policy of the current president has been extremely misguided. but we must recognize 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 sin they began rebuilding at the end of world war ii. yes, we must change our fiscal
policy the next president should focus of a manned day. >> 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 connected with the futures of all other nations. we must see these international problems in their international context. the next president must be prepared to communicate more regularly. similarly he must provide strong leadership for the removal of trade barriers at seas and focus on those opens here at home which can make things more
competitive again. >> this question is the question of the 1988 campaign. everywhere i go in meetings people get up and ask the question. they say hugh can we keep 10, 12 and $15 an hour jobs in our country where we compete in a world mrk place today where other people around the world are willing to work for $1 or $2. 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. the first thing we have to do is educate our people, invest in people. the 25% dropout rate is a disaster and hand to be turnt around. i've been all over the country, in a lot of packtories.
what i 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 got to get together, solve our problems, see the competition, face it and meet it. next we've got to have a national vision to solve these problems. looking through a regional prism, what works in one part of the country may not work in another. finally we need a tough trade policy that says for the first time to other countries, we 150 we're going to make america good again. >> mr. you, mr. gephardt. now to mr. simon. >> 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 we have to face up to our fiscal problems and 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 can you go through grade school, high school, college, and 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 customer. then one of the great mistakes in that horrendous tax bills, 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 we can build a better, finer america by cutting back on research, you can do dream world. we can do it if we have a president who pulls things together and part of pulling it together means not having 18 different people handling trade. we need one person in charge. >> mr. biden. >> trillion growth, i thits not a very youthful exercise to talk about who it's about. but it is a youthful exercise is to suggest not to go back to route . and i 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 30% of what we made, they're importing nothing now. and the reason they are not is because they have a staggering debt. instead of sending a dollar to an american manufacturer, they sending a dollar to the american bank. i would call in the leading bankers in america and say you know you're never going to collect that interest. they must have part of the reward. that's why i believe in giving workers a piece of the corporation. >> thank you. and finally mr. babbit. >> a couple of years ago the managers at general motors went out to their employees and said
for to us compete, you're going to have to take wage cuts. they closed down nine or ten plants, i think 30,000 employees. those same managers went back to their board of directors and said we'll solved the problem and needed 70 million. i believe that's a prescription for greed, reduced productivity. i believe it's the responsibility of the next president to -- is my time up? i don't think so. okay, are we back in action here? i think it's the obligation of the next president to provide the leadership for workplace democracy, to bring labor and management together, to outlaw
golden parachutes, you need a risk free existence for management and employees, to promote gain sharing and shared ownership and to say we can compete if we all come together and do our very best and eliminate 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, and america taking charge of its economy. >> thank you, gentlemen. our next panel question comes from john. >> the lines seem to be split down the middle. some say the foreign crisis issying. others are dismissing this as happy talk. statistics on small businesses continue a downward trend. my question for mr. dukakis, what could your administration do to reverse this and bring
help to hard pressed, small-town businesses? >> we need an administration led by a president working closely with the congress that builds a partnership between washington and states and local communities that involves business and labor and our colleges, universities, mayors, city council, local officials and sit as soon as 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 in private and bring people have said about educating, training and retraining. we're going to have to focus and we should one criterion for deciding where those centers go, that's the way you build the
kind of strength in rural america that will create new jobs, good jobs and better jobs. while i agree wholeheartedly that a healthy agricultural -- in my judgment if we're going to protect america from what is often an unstable economic economy, that's something i've done, that's something that the next president of the united states must do and i believe the congress would support him and i think the nation would support him. >> your time has expired. mr. gore. >> well, again, mr. chairman, with all due respect to my friend from massachusetts, we need some specifics. we need some specifics. [ audience boos ] 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 stream. >> 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 small businesses in rural areas it be more profitable. specifically the highway trust-month-old htrust fund has been bottled up artificially by this administration. 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. 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 store front as you walk. that's a symbol of failure. the failure is primarily because of the failure in agriculture. if the farmers, the corn and wheat and soy bean farmers out here in the midwest are going down, then the stores and the small towns by definition are going down. the only way we're going to get small town america, small businesses 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 kind of equipment, they're going to bank, they're going to go to the floor irist, to the small restaurants. they'll have money to spend in our small ties. i think the diversification has got to be closely related to agriculture. here in iowa it means the research dollars that come to the university of iowa and other colleges have got to be focused on businesses and enterprises that revolve around the dominant economy that's all always has been here and always will be here and that's the ability to grow things and sell things across the world. >> thank you. mr. simon.
>> as someone who was a small businessman, i think i understand what is required, both for small communities and for small businesses. 80% 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 udag program came in, 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 court. the first year of that program 1 out of 12 dollars nationally came into my district and we created thousands of jobs, jobs that are still there. jobs that have expanded. 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 finally, we need to
encourage creativity and there are some very specific things that there are some specific things we can do to do that. if you take a look at the u.s. patent office, you will see fewer and fewer american citizens getting patents from the u.s. patent office, more and more foreign citizens getting foreign patents. we ought to encourage creativity in small business america and we need some specific programs to do that. >> thank you. now mr. batten. >> 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 mecina, iowa, half the town was boarded up. instead of dealing with those business people that want to get back in business they're not helping them at all. the second thing we have to do is have it start working for small business people. you're going to talk about
diversification. it's not like diversification back east. the next nearest small town, you don't get people to relocate there, if the town's already dead already boarded up. you see to it that those rural development projects we tack about like community based tax insurance. so that when you fall on hard times, you will not lose your tax base, it will be made up for the federal subsidized insurance proposal. make up the difference between the income the town was collecting and that which they're now collecting now. >> deal with health care facilities. people move into areas based on whether there will be health care for the area. we have to promote what i'm promoting, see to it that we pay off doctors and nurses educations, 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. >> during my time in arizona, i made a special effort to lead rural redevelopment. what i learned was, diversification is possible it's possible in any town in america, what it takes is leadership, bringing the local people together inventoring your resources and to reach out to create jobs. we can see that success in arizona today. i do the same thing as president. the agriculture extension service was created in 1914 when we had the same problems, only in the rural sector. it brought together federal resources, states, the state
university and a county extension agent. think about the power of that model, and the way it's revolutionized american agriculture. and i would simply, as president, propose that we build on that model and that we create a business extension service that it be focused on rural america, and that it use the same model, federal, state, university and local extension power for diversification through entrepreneurial and small business development. >> let me try to make common sense out of a basic question. you go out tomorrow morning to your fishing pond, a lot of fish are dead. ask if small fish can swim, look for the barracuda that killed all those fish. whenever gm takes away 11 plants and takes away 30,000 jobs to ( south korea.
it kills small workers, small communities, small businesses. small farmers can farm, corporate farmers and concentration of wealth. we who would be democrats must take a fundamentally different approach than regular approach. this is to say that we must talk about economic democracy and economic balance. these major corporations are exporting jobs, exporting capital. they're taking advantage of our small businesses. by close of communities. this government must demand a new policy. retrain our workers, research and development. if that happens, and money begins to flow back in this country and not just flow out. small businesses will be a byproduct, small farms will be a byproduct. let's not overstudy small dead fish. let's challenge the behavior of
the multinational barracudas. >> thank you. we turn bark to our panel for the next question. >> businesses and industries that have deregulated or in the process of being deregulated are under much financial pressure and even their physical and business structures are being jeopardized. specifically, i'm talking about the airlines and the petroleum industry and the banking industry. should these industries be reregulated 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. the original goal of
deregulation after all was to secure for the public free competition. what we've seen is, a shakeout in the marketplace with only a smaller number of very large companies surviving. they have been reimposing their own kind of order in the marketplace. there has been a decline in safety standards and yes, i think we should have some reinstitution of safety regulation and a return to some of the professions we had before. where the banking system is concerned. there is no way to go back to the kind of regulation 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. in all of this, we ought to continue to understand the overall economic environment including the current misguided fiscal policy is what has been placing so much pressure on these industries. >> 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 when we deregulated the airlines, the government would have no role in safety, no role in regulating and seeing the system freed up could really work. it's the same with banking, trucks, it's the same with food regulation and all kinds of regulation.
i think it goes to a question of basic values. this administration expresses a value of survival of the fittest. selfishness, that the society, the government has no role in organizing in harmonizing in making the economy work for the people of this country as a result, people are now having near midair collisions. and the safety of the air system is called into question. today we've got chaos in the trucking industry, and people's goods are not being properly moved from city to city. there's no government role in seeing that food is safe enough and we have people dying and getting sick from salmonella poisoning and other things that have come along. it goes to a real question of values.
of standing up for the rights of people, protecting the safety of people. that's what the government is for. we elected a democratic president in 1988, that's the kind of government we're going to bring back. >> some mistakes have been made in deregulation, no question about it. the real problem in the air field is not deregulation, it is an administration that really moves on safety. that our air travel today is simply not as safe as it ought to be. in the banking field, i have real concerns. our thrift institutions to a great extent are built on confidence. and when you permit other companies to get into banking and permit banks to start selling stocks and other things, i think you're going to see at some point an erosion of confidence that's going to hurt our economy. finally, however, what we need in the area of regulation is
some strong enforcement of antitrust laws and some stiffer penalties and some discouragement for this merger mania that's taken over this country. last year, 127 billion dollars spent not to create new jobs, not for research but for one company to gobble up another company. virtually a total loss for this country. the department of justice is doing almost nothing in the antitrust field. one of the best votes i cast, i was one of those that voted against confirming ed meese as attorney general of the united states, and i'm proud of that vote. >> and now, let's turn to mr. biden. >> we have a similar feeling about ed meese, ed meese by the way is to point out that he is representative of the whole attitude of this administration. this administration deliberately prostituted the notion of deregulation. deregulation was designed to
allow small outfits to get into the business it was designed to keep the giants from gobbling everything up. what they used deregulation for is a foul, to go in and union bust in the case of the areas, to beat the delve out of the air traffic controllers, beyond any recognition. they've allowed the deregulation to be used as a cover for mergers and acquisitions that have brought about an ability for those corporations. to go out and break unions by insisting there's a no contract in existence. in addition to that, we find ourselves using deregulations as an excuse to do away with everything from osha to the environmental protection requirements to go with the various businesses. deregulation can work, but it cannot work if it's used as a
subterfuge to go away the fact that government is supposed to stand for major corporations and people. >> economic deregulation is one thing, this administration has used it to abandon a moral commitment of government, to protect the health and safety of americans. i saw a plant in iowa, that had the most shocking accident rate i've ever seen. an environment in which nobody was turning to the employees to do anything about it. that case is occurring all over the united states. the federal government has advocated its responsibility. we see it with the airlines, most shockingly in the environmental area. the epa has identified 26,000
toxic waste sites, they've cleaned up 12 in the last few years. 25% of our drinking water has impermissible lead standards. that affects the health and safety of our children, that's an issue of potential mental retardation. that's what's wrong. it would be easy to solve. fire ed meese, appoint a new attorney general. say it's your job to correct these things. appoint a new epa administrator and demand accountability. it's just that simple. >> mr. jackson? >> let's not focus on ed meese. he's the mailman, mr. reagan is the postmaster general. look at the real issue. deregulation means release the powerful.
he has deregulated foreign policy, that's why we have an iran contra scam. that's deregulated foreign policy. he's deregulated the business of human care. in 1980, the budget for hud is $10 million. we have houses that cannot get serviced. those that remained ademented to sell them all. in the situation, women have been left deregulated and vulnerable. more than half of our nation is female. yet more women are working, making less money. more women are heads of households cannot get basic care for their children. more children have a desire to go to school. they cannot get scholarships, they must get loans.
the issue here is the deregulation of the commitment to human care. this administration has abandoned its obligations to regulate justice and fairness and regulate order and peace. >> thank you, and now mr. dukakis. >> let me address the transportation issue, and i hope what i say, my friend al can agree with me, at least this one time. i think he will. isn't what we have been talking about precisely what happens, when you have a weak presidency and a weak administration which doesn't understand that a first class transportation system is what the people and the economy and the economic future of this country needs? is there anything more important to our economic future than a first class transportation system and a balanced transportation system? nobody who voted for deregulation voted for safety. isn't that what we've been going
through for months and years. of course, safety has got to the concern of the united states. that's an executive function. air transportation all by itself will not move the people of this country. i think we have to invest in highways, we have to invest in rail passenger train service once again in this country. especially in certain parts of this country. and finally, as paul pointed out, we need an antitrust policy. if you're going to deregulate. you have to enforce antitrust policy. someone told me that twa controls 84% of all the flights out of st. louis. you can't deregulate without a strong antitrust policy. i don't think we've heard from the antitrust division in the last four, five, six years. >> i think if we hurry, keep our
answers short, we can get in one more question from the panel. >> mr. gephardt will be responding first to this one. the national debt seems to be moving away from us at the speed of light right now. as president, how would you bring that debt under control, can it be done without blowing holes in the economy? >> well, it's taken us seven years to get into this mess and it will take us more than one or two to get out of it, our goal should be to try to get $30 billion a year off the deficit. assuming we don't fall back into a recession, which would make the goal of a more balanced budget even more elusive. i think we can get the budget toward balance.
how would i do it? first, i think we have to cut spending. one of the ways you can do that is with the passage of the gephardt save the family farm act. it would cut $12 billion off spending this year, and allow farmers to get a fair price for their products. second, i'm for an import oil fee. it's the right national policy for this country. it makes me angry that we're beholden to countries in the middle east today, that we have our kids officer in the persian gulf. the only way it will become more independent for energy is if we allow alternative energy fuels here in the united states like ethanol from here in iowa in the midwest. we cannot have this ridiculous defense budget that's gone on over the last few years, buying every weapons simm that comes down the pike. tax reform is likely to bring in more money than we thought. those four things can get us to the goal of where we are in the
next two years, let's see what we do to get back to a balanced budget. >> it has to be a major priority, and a president of the united states who indicates he will deep with this vigorously when he takes office, can among other things, bring down interest rates. one of the realities is, the only good thing about a $2.3 trillion indebtedness, each 1% you reduce interest rates, you reduce the federal expenditure $23 billion. second, we are going to have to cut back on some spending, and the defense department is an area where we can cut back without impairing the defense of this nation one iota. just having competitive bidding would be a very welcome change
in some areas that would save a tremendous amount of money. we don't need every ridiculous weapons system that comes along. we can cut back on star wars, for example, eliminate that. there are a number of things that could be done that really can save substantially. finally, what you have to do is put america back to work. each 1% you reduce unemployment, you reduce the deficit $30 billion. if we were to cut our unemployment rate in half, we would still have a higher unemployment rate than japan, taiwan, switzerland, than several other countries. if we were to cut the real unemployment in half, we would eliminate the deficit. >> the answer to the question, sir, is, yes, it can be done, and it can be done in a way that
will not undermine economic growth. the one thing the american people don't believe about us is that we're fiscally responsible. they don't believe we're responsible. that's why any democrat who proposes any new program, better be prepared to say how he or she is going to be prepared to pay for it. that's precisely what i've done. every program i've put forward -- in fact i indicate where i would pay for it, let me be specific how i would cut the fiscal budget right now, i would convert all our existing quotas to tariffs, that would raise $8 billion. instead of talking about cutting the defense department, the only way it makes a difference is if you cut the star wars system, the mx system, i would cut the b-1 system, i would cut mart of our surface navy feet, the systems.=)rb that's the only way you can make
any money. i would raise 7.billion by excessing cigarettes and liquor in order to pay for the drug program and health care program i propose. by changing the agricultural program the way i suggested, it would save $2 billion by targeting family farms, there are ways in which we can raise additional money by raising tax amnesty. i've been around a long time, i know in the senate, we talk about waste, fraud and abuse, it's a little bit like saying tax amnesty will solve our problem. with specificity, the proposal i put forward reduces the deficit $30 billion this year. that's what we must do, be specific. >> we must cut expenditures and raise revenues. on the expenditure side, i advocate a universal needs test. it's a question, is that program really targeted and is it
necessary? if you ask that question of farm subsidies, you could get rid of subsidies of corporate ago row business. focus that program on family farmers. that question asked to housing assistance and mortgage subsidies would say, we don't need to be paying mortgage subsidies for people to buy ski condo mid yums in colorado. they ought to be targeted on first homeowners. why is it we're spending money on three new generations of missiles we can't send mine sweepers to the persian gulf. on the tax side, none of us have been very candid about the reality, that includes all the candidates, because the plain fact is we can't change it without talking about it. many of the american people are waiting for some honesty, we have to raise revenue. i propose a progressive consumption tax.
which would be enacted contingent upon spending reductions. i believe the two linked together are the only honest straightforward answer to that deficit issue. >> mr. jackson? >> if you are lost in a blind ally, you don't need a technician opposition leader. we should get out of this mess the way we got in it. reagan doubled our budget. reduced taxes on the corporations and the wealthy, we must cut the military budget without cutting defense, that means cutting the missile system, the star wars system, it also means reviewing the nato relationship, the european nations are much stronger now, much more able to pay a share of
the burden as a percent of our military budget p.m. it also means we're wasting money and credibility in nicaragua trying to overthrow our government. flag and ships in the persian golf. we need to have the military budget that correlates without vital interest and not with fascinations, with misadventures. lastly, corporations must pay their share of taxes. the wealthy must pay their share of taxes. they have the cushion. they owe it to america to keep america strong. lastly, we must put america back to work. the alternative to welfare and despair is work. people got a job, revenue goes up, they pay their taxes, the deficit goes down, and the self-respect goes up. put america back to work, is the
surist way in the debt crisis. >> mr. dukakis? >> i think i'm the only person at this table today who has to balance a budget, i've balanced nine budgets in three years. first, you have to make the hard choices on spending. and a number of us have already talked about it. you have to improve your economic performances if unemployment were just a drop, the federal guj et deaf sit would be $36 billion less. if you do those who things the interest will come down. finally, we have to raise revenue. i don't believe any responsible candidate can seriously say he'll guarantee he won't ask congress for the taxes that are not available to him. we are not collecting today. these are the irs figures, not mine.
$110 billion a year in federal taxes owed that aren't being paid. i didn't say 110 million, i said 110 billion. i begin with a one-time amnesty, that's just the first step in a strong invisible investment program that encourages voluntary compliance. in massachusetts today, we've had great success with revenue enforcement, you get your refund back in nine days. that's the way you encourage voluntary compliance. that's the way you treat your taxpayers as valued customers. if we can go out there and do that, we can collect billions and billions and billions of dollars in unpaid taxes. it seems to me, it's only the fair thing to do to collect taxes from people who aren't paying before you impose new taxes on the vast majority of americans who aren't paying their taxes and paying them ontime. >> finally, mr. gore. >> i found something to agree with in that answer too.
i agree with joe biden that your estimates are way off and also, i heard something else you said, which i disagree with. you said we must raise revenue. we must raise revenue. now if we have a recession in january 1989, that would be the worst thing to do. we should focus on economic growth. we should focus on more jobs, bringing in revenue. we should focus on wasteful spending. the a-6 attack plain, the level of expenditures that are required for the bradley fighting vehicle chest x-rays on admission, that would say $2 billion per year if the next president is willing to do this, we could make dramatic savings. >> that concludes the panel portion. we now begin one round of candidate questioning. the candidates receiving the question were chosen by a random drawing.
the first candidate question is directed to mr. dukakis by mr. simon. >> the increase in defense expenditures since president reagan was in office, that's a pretty healthy welfare check for the state of massachusetts. how do we work on the whole of conversion. find the chance for a job. >> as you know, paul, only about 5% of the new jobs we created have very little to do with defense, there's no question whether you're talking about
massachusetts, illinois, tennessee, conversion has got to be a part of the process we need to move. that's part of the job of the next president, to develop that planning process, to work with communities, to work with those regions that are going to be affected you yourself pointed out you went to work with your communities and it's exactly the kind of thing the next president
of the united states will have to do if he is and you are and i am, strongly committed to moving from -- >> we must move along. >> you talk all the time about how you're proud of the vote against the tax bill, one of the reasons some of us voted for the tax bill is we thought we could firm the loopholes. once you tell somebody you're going to give a tax shelter, for example, the one on commercial
real estate, you should not go back and say, sorry, we didn't mean it. do you think this tax loophole should remain? and why are you so committed to tax loopholes? >> i am not committed to tax loopholes, first of all. i voted against the tax loophole originally, but i do believe it's likely you hand someone a $1,000 bond. i don't think you go back and say, this is worth $700,000. people who have invested under certain promises by the federal government, the federal government ought to keep those promises. that tax bill was a monster, i'm proud to vote against that, i wish the iowa primary were after april 15th instead of february 8th so a lot of people in iowa would understand what happened to them, while the wealthy in this nation had their taxes reduced, one third of middle
america, including a lot of iowa farmers got gouged with that tax bill. >> now, the third candidate question directed to mr. jackson. >> my question is about graham ruddman. all of the senators and congressmen here at this table voted for graham rudman which says rather than make choices, we'll walk away from that and make everything even. what's your view of graham rudman, and how would you set priorities in budget reduction. >> there is no substitute for courageous leadership. one that would lead america must be eligible for the second volumes in courage. they must make sound judgment
and the level playing field. for example, in an aids epidemic, other epidemics occurring, judgments have to be made. we must committee ourselves to targeting support for those with the weakest links in the chain a real commitment to women, children, prenatal care, day care, education from day care up, not high-tech down, those would support a rudman amendment, supports the rich and locks the poor in the basement. >> thank you, now, mr. jackson, it is your turn. >> this is a tough one. >> on a more serious note, there are three and a half acres of
land these farmers, the beginning farmers, the new starter farmers, minority farmers, affirmative action's basis, should get priority over this land and not just real estate developers. would you support an international conference to establish a floor beneath which no one would fall? >> let me answer the second question first. your point that there are 3 1/2, there's millions of acres and thousands of farmers who have had their land taken away because they couldn't meet the payment. we're going out on the farm credit system and selling that very land at a lower interest
rate that affects subsidizing to cartels to cindy cats. i think we should sell the land back to, at the lower interest rate. the effect on the federal government is the same, these people are not out of business, because they were bad business people and bad farmers, they were out of business because of bad foreign policy, and i think they should get the chance, not some cartel out of chicago or new york or los angeles. i think you're right on both points and wrong on graham rudman. one of the things we haven't mentioned as much, we all know our economy is changing, our families are changing, wedge we
whether we like that or not. more single parent families, more families where both parents are working. you've been particularly outspoken and eloquent about the question of child care and day care. i wonder if you would comment on the explanation of that to our economic future, and specifically to creating economic creativity for youngsters. >> in some major answers itself, you point out that it is an economic issue. i think child care is an issue of workplace democracy if we're going to say to single parents, it's your obligation to go out there and take a minimum wage job earning $6800 a year. you can't be serious they have to take 3,000 out of that for child care. it's an economic issue. if we believe people should take charge of their lives, we want
to give them incentives to work, that's the place to begin. it's also a children's issue, a moral issue. the education issue. the first grade in this society is too late. we need to begin early. half of all education takes place before the first grade. that's why i believe the first priority in domestic programming should be a federal day care voucher, available scale to income available to every working parent in this country without exception. >> thank you. >> there's one obvious question all of us have agreed this afternoon, that the principle cause of the farm trade and economic problems is reagan omics, and the centerpiece of reaganomics was the poorly designed tax bill of 1981. all the rest of us who were in a position to vote had the good sense to vote no when the time
came. why in the world did you vote for reaganomics in 1981? >> first of all, al, as you well know i led the fight on the house floor for the democratic tax bill unfortunately, after a good fight, and we worked and worked and talked a lot of members, we didn't succeed. we came a few votes short. the choice was whether you vote for any tax cut at all, or you vote for the reagan bill my feeling was if we didn't have a tax cut at all in 1981, we were bound to have a recession. and as it turned out we did. the recession we had was not as bad as it would have been if we had had no tax cut at all opinion since then i led the fight for tax reform, which got
rid of the most egregious tax loopholes caused by the '81 bill. i think you have to look at what's been done at the time and who was leading, who was trying to get something done. who was trying to make the tax code better. i think i've done that. >> thank you, the final candidate question the question is directed to mr. gore by mr. gephardt. >> first if i get to 52% in the polls in new hampshire, will you start attacking me like you have mike dukakis today? but the second question is really about children, i was in a meeting in california about 2, 3 days ago, i met with people who have been working with
physically and emotionally abused children. children who are on drugs, children who have dropped out of school. they talked with passion and experience and wisdom about the problem. at the end of the meeting, one of the women there said, congressman, you talk about economics all the time. but you never get to children. you talk about deficits, but you never talk about children. my question to you is, what should the next president's agenda be for children. and what's the most important thing we should do, to have strong productive children in this society? >> i've been deeply involved with that issue in my 11 years in the house and senate. i was the sponsor of the act. i worked hard on welfare reform some priorities include welfare reform, one working parent to
leave the home, and remove the disincentive for families to go back to work, because they're afraid they'll lose their children's medicaid benefits if they go back to work under the current system. we ought to be concerned about the problems of the homeless, the fastest growing category among the homeless is children and families with children. we ought to understand that the fastest growing group in poverty generally is children next we ought to have a massive literacy program and set a goal of 100% literacy by the year 2000. all the studies indicate children of illiteral parents are illiterate themselves. these are only a few of the items that would be on the agenda about. >> we move to the final segment. each candidate now has two minutes for closing remarks 37. >> we need a president who
understands our economy, who cares, who can lead. we need a president who can appeal to the noble in each of us. recently i was in a call in radio program, a woman called in and said, you know why i'm out of a job, don't you? i said, no, ma'am, i really don't. she said the blacks are getting all the jobs. we need a present who creates opportunities for all of us, instead of dividing us. we need to be pulled together once again. with its insensitivity to the less fortunate, this nation has been drifting in the wrong direction. you now have robin hood in reverse, you have a shrinking middle class. a few people moving up, many more moving down, those tax bills have aggravated that, reducing the tax for the
wealthiest of americans from 70% to 28%, and again, i was one of three people in the senate to vote against that, the only candidate on this table or on the republican side who opposed that tax cut. that's just part of it. we also had dramatic increase in expenditures. who pays the interest, people of limited income. who receives the interest, the more fortunate among us, harry truman was right, deficits help rich people i want to protect the economy of this nation, but i want to protect the income of the average american. we need a prosper use america, but not just for the favored few. i want an american where the average american is the big winner not the lobbyists for the powerful yes i am a traditional american, i'm a pay as you go democrat, traditional democrat, i want government that cares, i
want government that doesn't divide us, i want government that dreams about the kind of america, the kind of a world we can build we live in a good and great country, but my friends it can be a better country. with your help, we're going to make it a better country. there's one thing that we sometimes lose site of, it's probably the most important thing at all. people, human lives, dreams and hopes, pain and loss. the other day i was in front of a high school class in new hampshire, and i asked how many of them wanted to give their life to public student. not one student raised their hand. the president of the student
body came up to me and explained, the reason none of us want to participate any more, none of us believe in any of you any more. when you reach the point where the youngest among us who are supposed to be the most idealistic are the most cynical, something is very wrong in america. there's something very wrong in america when you go to davenport, iowa, and you see that one in five houses is up for sale, because the families can't make the payments. that's not just an economic statistic, that's a moral failure. we have to change our economy and to do that, we have to change our president. but more important than that, is changing this attitude of indifference and selfishness that's flourished over the last few years. the next president has got the challenges to be good as well as great. that's the way america was when i was a boy growing up in st. louis. i remember sitting on the porch with my parents.
the air was hot and muggy, but it was full of dreams and it was right to dream those dreams because we knew we could realize them. now in towns like davenport, the porches are empty, and on too many front yards, there are for sale signs, and the dream has been lost i want to change that. i want those youngsters in new hampshire to dream again, to believe in america again, and to want to give something back to this great country so every one of us has a dream and a right to believe we can fulfill that dream. >> thank you, and now mr. gore. >> i hope you have enjoyed this debate today. i've enjoyed it. debates are not simply about agreement. democracy is not simply about generalities. democracy demands a vigorous discussion of new ideas, and the
differences we have in our approach to making this country a better place. the democratic party is not just a collection of narrow interest agendas, nor can our problems be seen through the narrow prism of only one of our states. we have a fork in the road root before us in this 1988 election. we have to choose if we're going to continue the current path or strike out to ward a brighter future. we must see this as one nation. the next president must be prepared to unify us, must be prepared to restore respect for the rule of law in the white house. and pursue a meaningful and verifiable arms control agreement in the world. i believe the time is now, when i first announced for the presidency, someone said, why don't you wait? that's the same question we've been addressing this afternoon, can america wait for answers and solutions for the challenges of the future? or are we prepared to move now? i think the time is now to regenerate a sense of national purpose in this country.
a sense of national purpose only a president can provide. the time is now to rekindle the spirit of america. in order to do so, we must heel the divisions in our country. the most serious division is not between north and south or black and white. the most serious division is between those who say, wait, and those on the other hand who look at the very difficult problems and feel within them a commitment to make a difference. that's the side i'm on, and that's the side i'd like you to be on. i'd like to close by asking for your support in this race for the nomination of the democratic party. >> mr. dukakis? >> i believe the next president of the united states is going to confront two major changes. the first is whether or not we can build an economic future for ourselves and our children and families that is bright and
strong and vibrant opinion good jobs at good wages for every american, not just some people in some places, but every american in this country. that will require a president who can build a partnership nor economic growth and opportunity all over this land. a partnership for people, and for their future. there's a second major challenge that will face the next president of the united states. and on this, senator gore and i agree totally. we have the best opportunity for meaningful arms control and arms reduction we've had in our lifetimes. and that opportunity gives us a rare chance to build a peaceful and strong economic future for ourselves and people all over the world. the president just the other day talked about the possibility of agreements in europe, and deep cuts and strategic weapons, just
imagine what it would be like for ourselves and people all over this world if the next president of the united states could achieve those goals. my parents came to this country 75 years ago, seeking the american dream, and they found it for themselves and their sons. and one of the things they said to my brother and me all the time, those of us who have had the opportunity to share that team, to live in this country had a special opportunity give something back. i believe in the american dream, and i want to make it come true for every single citizen of this land. that's why i'm running for the presidency, and that's why i hope i can win your support. >> now, mr. jackson. >> all that we heard today amounts to why we must stop economic violence. farmers put off of their land, lack of support for women and children, or youth in school, public affordable housing, in the face of such an ominous
challenge we must not surrender, 1984, 85 million americans had the right to vote. you surrendered your franchise, you gave up, you cannot surrender, don't turn to liquor and dope as anesthesia for your pain. don't violate your family, don't move toward suicide, there is hope. i'm from alabama, 1965 i saw it happening in greenfield, iowa this day. we must go another way. challenge the military budget and make it make sense. challenge the wealthy, challenge the corporate behavior, make them be fair, make them be just. if you really want change, you have to change directions, not just presidents. so now let us fight for economic justice and fight together, not fight each other, if we must fight, let's fight workers without notice. let's fight at the shipyard. let's fight at the school where the youth of a good mind could not get a scholarship, could not get a loan.
if we must fight, let's fight for the family farm auction and stand with that family. if we must fight lastly, fight in some hospital together for some woman, some man who died in the emergency room because they didn't have a green or yellow card to go upstairs to a bed that was empty, waiting for the rich to get sick. let's do justice and let's love america, and let the real america stand up for all of its people. thank you very much. and god bless you. >> now, mr. babbitt. >> i believe this debate will focus and has focused on the major issue we confront in 1988, and that is simply whether or not we as americans it find the leadership to take charge of our economic future, to seize the opportunities that are coming
upon us, from all over the world. and to make room for everyone in a burst of real economic growth and productivity. i've outlined during the course of this debate, three fundamental changes that i think we need together to have the courage and the resolve to make. workplace democracy, which is about productivity and change in the workplace, and coming together in aid of productivity. a universal needs test, which is a way of getting ahold of government, and addressing priorities and restraint in that budget, investment in our children. we as americans must resolve to end the neglect of our children and begin using presidential leadership to invest in their future. a couple days ago, i was out at a shopping center, campaigning, i introduced myself to a couple of young people. one of them looked at me and
said, it doesn't make any difference. why should i be involved? you all make promises that you don't keep, you all raise expectations only to dash them. i couldn't help but thinking, i share that frustration. i thought of michael dever on the cover of "time" magazine, sitting in the back of a long limousine, auctioning off the majesty of the united states government to the highest bidder. but i responded to that young man, i said simply this, we can do better. i understand your frustrations, but rather than lowering expectations, we must raise them. rather than dropping out, we must participate. because together we can change direction. we can raise our hopes, we can open up a world of opportunity, a new future, all of us together. thank you. >> one more.
now, mr. biden. >> thank you very much, i'm proud to be with these six other people up here. we agree much more than we disagree. i was trying to think how i would close here today, and it seems to me there's two things that come through very clearly number one, the united states economy has to be revitalized not just for the sake of america, but the world. we are the world's last best hope. if our economy fades, will japan take over the protection of the free world? will our european allies do that? the answer is clearly no. we must succeed not only for ourselves, but the world. the second point that becomes clear to me is the democratic party. the democratic party has always stood for growth and hope. somehow that's been lost for a while in the minds of the public and maybe even among those of us
in the party. i started thinking as i was coming over here. why is it that joe biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? why is it that my wife is sitting out there in the audience, is the first in her family to ever go to college? is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright. is it because i'm the first biden in 1,000 generations to get a college and graduate degree, that i was smarter than the rest? the same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me to sing verse, is it because they didn't work hard? my ancestors who worked in the coal mines for 12 hours, no it's not because they weren't as smart, it's not because they didn't work as hard, it's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand. that's what my party's always been about. we provide people a platform upon which to stand. that's what government is for. ladies and gentlemen, there's an old communion hymn in my church,
he will raise you up on eagles wings and bear you on the breath of dawn and make the sun to shine on you. it's time to build a platform on which we can raise america up on eagles wings. shed light on people who need our help. this is an exciting time to be in our business. and no better time to be president. i hope you'll consider me, thank you very much. >> that concludes the economic for america debate. now you can let go, show the candidates you do appreciate the fact that they were here, took part in this debate. [ cheers and applause ] that was a look back at the 1988 presidential race and a
democratic candidates debate that took place during the iowa state fair. during the dsht, senator biden used a portion of a speech from british politician neal kinic. this after several other allegations of plagiarism led the senator to withdrawal exactly one month later from the presidential race. throughout the next year, american history tv will look back at past presidential campaigns as our companion network c-span covers the 2016 road to the white house. you can find us every weekend here on c-span 3. you are watching american history tv, 48 hours of american history he ever weekend on american tv. follow us on twitter at c-span history for information on our schedule of upcoming programmes and to keep up with the latest history news. all weekend, american
history tv is featuring grand junction, colorado. in 1901, elmer rigs from chicago's field museum discovered the bones of a 70 foot long, 30 ton opotasaus. the site is now known as dinosaur hill. c-span staff recently visited areas showcasing the city's history. learn more this weekend on american history tv. >> i think everybody is just amaysed by the -- it's not a widely publicized presence here. the spark service doesn't advertise. people find out about this because they read magazine articles or they see features like you're preparing. but it's not what most people think of when they think of colorado. so it comes