public service and brought to you today by your television provider. in 1976, president gerald ford debated his detectimocrati opponent jimmy carter in what was the first presidential debate since 1960. it focused on domestic issues. because of a technical problem with the audio, there was a 28-minute delay in the middle of the debate. >> good evening. i'm edwin newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between gerald r. ford of michigan, republican candidate for president, and jimmy carter of georgia, democratic candidate for president. we thank you, president ford, and we thank you, governor carter, for being with us tonight. there are to be three debates between the presidential candidates and one between the vice presidential candidates. all are being arranged by the league of women voters education fund. tonight's debate, the first

between presidential candidates in 16 years and the first ever in which an incumbent president has participated, is taking place before the audience in the walnut street theater in philadelphia, just three blocks from independence hall. the audience may reach a hundred million in the united states and many millions overseas. tonight's debate focuses on domestic issues and economic policy. questions will be put by frank reynolds of abc news, james gannon of "the wall street journal," and elizabeth drew of "the new yorker" magazine. under the agreed rules the first question will go to governor carter. that was decided by the toss of a coin. he will have up to three minutes to answer. one follow-up question will be permitted with up to two minutes to reply. president ford will then have two minutes to respond. the next question will go to president ford with the same time arrangements, and questions will continue to be alternated

between the candidates. each man will make a three-minute statement at the end, governor carter to go first. president ford and governor carter do not have any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening. mr. reynolds, your question for governor carter. >> mr. president, governor carter. governor, in an interview with the associated press last week, you said you believed these debates would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have about you. well, one of those concerns, not an uncommon one about candidates in any year, is that many voters say they don't really know where you stand. now, you have made jobs your number one priority and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction in unemployment. can you say now, governor, in specific terms, what your first step would be next january, if you are elected, to achieve that. >> yes. first of all is to recognize a tremendous economic strength in this country and to set the

putting to -- back to work of our people as a top priority. this is an effort that ought to be done primarily by strong leadership in the white house, the inspiration of our people, the tapping of business, agriculture, industry, labor and government at all levels to work on this project. we'll never have an end to the inflationary spiral, and we'll never have a balanced budget until we get our people back to work. there are several things that can be done specifically that are not now being done. first of all, to channel research and development funds into areas that will provide large numbers of jobs. secondly, we need to have a commitment in the private sector to cooperate with government in matters like housing. here a very small investment of taxpayer's money in the housing field can bring large numbers of extra jobs, and the guarantee of mortgage loans, and the putting forward of 202 programs for housing for older people and so

forth to cut down the roughly 20% unemployment that now exists in the -- in the construction industry. another thing is to eal with our needs in the central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely high, sometimes among minority groups, or those who don't speak english, or who are black, or young people, or -- 40% of the employment. here a ccc type program would be appropriate to channel money into the -- in into the sharing with the private sector and also local and state governments to employ young people who are now out of work. another very important aspect of our economy would be to increase production in every way possible, to hold down taxes on individuals, and to shift the tax burdens onto those who have avoided paying taxes in the past. these kinds of specific things, none of which are being done now, would be a great help in reducing unemployment. there is an additional factor that needs to be done and covered very, very succinctly,

and that is, to make sure that we have a good relationship between management -- business on the one hand, and labor, on the other. in a lot of places where unemployment is very high, we might channel specific targeted job opportunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed people and also sharing with local governments the payment of salaries which would let us cut down the unemployment rate much lower, before we hit the inflationary level. but i believe that by the end of the first four years of the next term we could have the unemployment down to 3% adult unemployment, which is about 4% to 4.5% overall controlled inflation rate and have a balance of growth of about 4% to 6%, around 5% which would give us a balanced budget. >> governor, in the event you are successful and you do achieve a drastic drop

in unemployment that is likely to create additional pressure on prices, how willing are you to consider an incomes policy, in other words, wage and price controls? >> well, we now have such a low utilization of our productive capacity, about 73%. i think it's about the lowest since the great depression years and such a high unemployment rate now, 7.9%, that -- we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. and i think this would be easy this would be easy to accomplish, to get jobs down, without having strong inflationary pressures that -- that would be necessary. i would not favor the payment of of a given fixed income to people unless they are not able to work. but with tax incentives for the low-income groups we could build up their income levels above the poverty level and not make welfare more profitable than work.

>> mr. president, your response. >> i don't believe that that mr. carter's been any more specific in this case than he has been on many other instances. i notice particularly that he didn't endorse the humphrey/hawkins bill which he has on occasions and which is included as a part of the democratic platform. that legislation allegedly would help our unemployment, but we all know that it would've controlled our economy, it would've added 10 to 30 billion dollars each year in additional expenditures by the federal government. it would've called for export controls on agricultural products. in my judgment the best way to get jobs is to expand the private sector, where five out of six jobs today exist in our economy. we can do that by reducing federal taxes as i proposed about a year ago when i called

for a tax reduction of $28 billion, three-quarters of it to go to private taxpayers and one-quarter to the business sector. we could add to jobs in the major metropolitan areas by a proposal that i recommended that would give tax incentives to business to move into the inner city and to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a plant, or expand a plant where people are, and people are currently unemployed. we could also help our youths with some of the proposals that would give to young people an opportunity to work and learn at the same time just like we give money to young people who are going to college. those are the kind of specifics that i think we have to discuss on these debates, and these are the kind of programs that i'll

talk about on my time. >> mr. gannon, your question to president ford. >> mr. president, i would like to continue for a moment on this question of taxes which you have just raised. you have said that you favor more tax cuts for middle-income americans -- even those earning up to $30,000 a year. that presumably would cost the treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue. in view of the very large budget deficits that you have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your goal of balancing the budget? >> at the time, mr. gannon, that i made the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut -- three-quarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25% to american business. i said at the time that we had to hold the lid an federal spending, that for every dollar of a tax reduction we had to

have an equal reduction in federal expenditures -- a one-for-one proposition. and i recommended that to the congress with a budget ceiling of $395 billion, and that would have permitted us to have a $25 billion tax reduction. in my tax reduction program for middle-income taxpayers, i recommended that the congress increase personal exemptions from $750 per person to $1,000 per person. that would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have a thousand dollars more personal exemption -- money that they could spend for their own purposes, money that the government wouldn't have to spend. but if we keep the lid on federal spending, which i think we can -- with the help of the congress, we can justify fully a $28 billion tax reduction.

in the budget that i submitted to the congress in january this year, i recommended a 50% cutback in the rate of growth of federal spending. for the last ten years the budget of the united states has grown from about 11% per year. we can't afford that kind of growth in federal spending. and in the budget that i recommended we cut it in half -- a growth rate of 5% to 5.5%. with that kind of limitation, on federal spending, we can fully justify the tax reductions that i have proposed. and it seems to me with the stimulant of more money in the hands of the taxpayers, and with more money in the hands of business to expand, to modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy will be stimulated so that we'll get more revenue and we'll have a more prosperous

economy. >> mr. president, to follow up a moment, the congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now, which did not meet exactly the sort of outline that you requested. what is your intention on that bill, since it doesn't meet your requirements? do you plan to sign that bill? >> that tax bill does not entirely meet the criteria that i established. i think the congress should have added another $10 billion reduction in personal income taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions from 750 to $1,000. and congress could have done that if the budget committees of the congress, and the congress as a whole, had not increased the spending that i recommended in the budget. i'm sure that you know that in

the resolutions passed by the congress, that they have added about $17 billion in more spending, by the congress over the budget that i recommended. so i would prefer in that tax bill to have an additional tax cut and a further limitation on federal spending. now this tax bill that hasn't reached the white house yet, but is expected in a day or two -- it's about 1,500 pages. it has some good provisions in it. it has left out some that i have recommended, unfortunately. on the other hand, when you have a bill of that magnitude, with those many provisions, a president has to sit and decide if there's more good than bad. and from the analysis that i've made so far, it seems to me that that tax bill does justify my signature and my approval. >> governor carter, your response. >> well, mr. ford is changing considerably his previous

philosophy. the present tax structure is a disgrace to this country. it's just a welfare program for the rich. as a matter of fact, 25% of the total tax deductions, go for only 1% of the richest people in this country, and over 50% of the tax credits go for the 14% of the richest people in this country. when mr. ford first became president in august of 1974, the first thing he did in october was to ask for a $4.7 billion increase in taxes on our people in the midst of the heaviest recession, since the great depression of the 1940s. in january of 1975 he asked for a tax change, a $5.6 billion increase on low-and-middle-income private individuals, a $6.5 billion decrease on the corporations and the special interests. in december of 1975 he vetoed the roughly 18 to 20 billion dollar tax reduction bill that

had been passed by the congress, and then he came back later on in january of this year and he did advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would be offset by a $6 billion increase this coming january in deductions for social security payments and for unemployment compensation. the whole philosophy of the republican party, including my opponent, has been to pile on taxes on low-income people to take them off on the corporations. as a matter fact, in -- since the late '60s when mr. nixon took office, we've had a reduction in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30% down to about 20%. we've had an increase in taxes paid by individuals, payroll taxes, from 14% up to 20%. and this is what the republicans have done to us. and this is why a tax reform is so important. >> mrs. drew, your question to governor carter. >> governor carter, you proposed a number of new or enlarged programs, including jobs, health, welfare reform, child care, aid to education,

aid to cities, changes in social security and housing subsidies. you've also said that you wanna balance the budget by the end of your first term. now you haven't put a price tag on those programs, but even if we price them conservatively and we count for full employment by the end of your first term, and we count for the economic growth that would occur during that period, there still isn't enough money to pay for those programs and balance the budget by any estimates that i've been able to see. so in that case what would give? >> well, as a matter of fact there is. if we assume a rate of growth of our economy, equivalent to what it was during president johnson, president kennedy, even before the vietnamese war, and if we assume that at the end of the four-year period we can cut our unemployment rate down to 4% to 4.5% -- under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an

increase in the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing as the inflation rate does -- my economic projections, i think confirmed by the house and the senate committees, have been with the $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year '81 which will be the last year of this next term. within that $60 billion increase there would be fit the programs that i promised the american people. i might say too, that if we see that these goals cannot be reached -- and i believe they're reasonable goals -- then i would cut back on the rate of implementation of new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget by fiscal year '81 which is the last year of the next term. i believe that we ought to have a balanced budget during normal economic circumstances. and these projections have been very carefully made. i stand behind them. and if they should be in error slightly on the down side, then i'll phase in the programs that

we've advocated, more slowly. >> governor, according to the budget committees of the congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment -- what they project at a 4% unemployment -- and, as you say, even allowing for the inflation in the programs, there would not be anything more than a surplus of $5 billion by the end of -- by 1981. and conservative estimates of your programs would be that they would be about 85 to 100 billion dollars. so how -- how do you say that you're going to be able to do these things and balance the budget? >> well, the assumption that -- that you have described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy. >> no, they took that into account in those figures. >> i believe that it's accurate to say that the -- that the committees to whom you refer with the employment that you state, and with the 5% to 5.5% growth rate in our economy, that the projections would be a $60 billion increase in the amount

of money that we'd have to spend in 1981 compared to now. and with that in that framework would befit the -- any improvements in the programs. now this does not include any extra control over unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete or obsolescent programs. we'll have a safety version built in with complete reorganization of the executive branch of government which i am pledged to do. the present bureaucratic structure of the -- of the federal government is a mess. and if i'm elected president that's gonna be a top priority of mine to completely revise the structure of the federal government, to make it economical, efficient, purposeful and manageable for a change. and also, i'm going to institute zero-based budgeting which i used four years in georgia, which assesses every program every year, and eliminates those programs that are obsolete or obsolescent. but with these projections, we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981, if i'm elected president. keep my promises to the american people.

and it's just predicated on very modest, but i think accurate, projections of employment increases and a growth in our national economy equal to what was experienced under kennedy, johnson, before the vietnam war. >> president ford. >> if it is true that there will be a $60 billion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather than spend that money for all the new programs that governor carter recommends and endorses, and which are included in the democratic platform, i think the american taxpayer ought to get an additional tax break -- a tax reduction of that magnitude. i feel that the taxpayers are the ones that need the relief, i don't think we should add additional programs of the magnitude that governor carter talks about. it seems to me that our tax

structure today has rates that are too high. but i am very glad to point out that since 1969, during a republican administrations, we have had 10 million people taken off of the tax rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area. and at the same time, assuming that i sign the tax bill that was mentioned by mr. gannon, we will in the last two tax bills have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy taxpayers. and i believe that by eliminating 10 million taxpayers in the last eight years, and by putting a heavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets, plus the other actions that have been taken, we can give taxpayers adequate tax relief. now it seems to me that as we

look at the recommendations of the budget committees and our own projections, there isn't going to be any $60 billion dividend. i've heard of those dividends in the past. it always happens. we expected one at the time of the vietnam war, but it was used up before we ever ended the war and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they deserved. >> mr. reynolds. >> mr. president, when you came into office you spoke very eloquently of the need for a time for healing, and very early in your administration you went out to chicago and you announced, you proposed a program of case-by-case pardons for draft resisters to restore them to full citizenship. some 14,000 young men took advantage of your offer, but another 90,000 did not. in granting the pardon to former president nixon, sir, part of your rationale was to put

watergate behind us to -- if i may quote you again -- truly end our long national nightmare. why does not the same rationale apply now, today, in our bicentennial year, to the young men who resisted in vietnam, and many of them still in exile abroad? >> the amnesty program that i recommended in chicago in september of 1974 would give to all draft evaders and -- military deserters the opportunity to earn their good record back. about 14 to 15,000 did take advantage of that program. we gave them ample time. i am against an across-the-board pardon of draft evaders or military deserters. now in the case of mr. nixon, the reason the -- the pardon was given, was that, when i took office this country was in a

very, very divided condition. there was hatred, there was divisiveness. people had lost faith in their government in many, many respects. mr. nixon resigned, and i became president. it seemed to me that if i was to adequately and effectively handle the problems of high inflation, a growing recession, the involvement of the united states still in vietnam that i had to give a hundred percent of my time to those two major problems. mr. nixon resigned. that is disgrace. the first president out of 38 that ever resigned from public office under pressure. so when you look at the penalty that he paid, and when you analyze the requirements that i had -- to spend all of my time working on the economy, which was in trouble, that i

inherited. working on our problems in southeast asia -- which were still plaguing us -- it seemed to me that mr. nixon had been penalized enough by his resignation in disgrace and the need, and necessity for me to concentrate on the problems of the country fully justified the action that i took. >> i take it then, sir, that you do not believe that it is -- that you are going to reconsider and think about those 90,000 who are still abroad. have they not been penalized enough? many of them been there for years. >> well, mr. carter has indicated that he would give a blanket pardon to all draft evaders. i do not agree with that point of view. i gave, in september of 1974, an opportunity for all draft evaders, all deserters, to come

in voluntarily, clear their records by earning an opportunity to restore their good citizenship. i think we gave them a good opportunity -- we're -- i don't think we should go any further. >> governor carter. >> well, i think it's very difficult for president ford to explain the difference between the pardon of president nixon and his attitude toward those who violated the draft laws. as a matter of fact -- now i don't advocate amnesty. i advocate pardon. there's a difference in my opinion -- and in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court and accordance with the definition in the dictionary. amnesty means that -- that what you did was right. pardon means that what you did, whether it's right or wrong, you're forgiven for it. and i do advocate a pardon for -- for draft evaders. i think it's accurate to say that in two years ago when mr. nixon -- mr. ford put in

this amnesty that three times as many deserters were excused as were -- as were the ones who evaded the draft. but i think that now is the time to heal our country after the vietnam war and i think that what the people are concerned about is not the -- pardon or the amnesty of those who evaded the draft, but whether or not our crime system is fair. we've got a sharp distinction drawn between white-collar crime. the big shots who are rich, who are influential very seldom go to jail. those who are poor and who have no influence -- quite often are the ones who are punished. and the whole subject of crime is one that concerns our people very much, and i believe that the fairness of it is a major problem that addresses our leader and this is something that hasn't been addressed adequately by this administration.

but i hope to have a complete responsibility on my shoulders to help bring about a fair criminal justice system and also to bring about an end to the -- to the divisiveness that has occurred in our country as a result of the vietnam war. >> mr. gannon. >> governor carter, you have promised a sweeping overhaul of the federal government, including a reduction in the number of government agencies -- you say it would go down about 200 from a some 1,900. that sounds, indeed, like a very deep cut in the federal government. but isn't it a fact that you're not really talking about fewer federal employees or less government spending, but rather that you are talking about reshaping the federal government, not making it smaller? >> well, i've been through this before, mr. gannon, as the governor of georgia.

when i took over we had a bureaucratic mess, like we have in washington now, and we had three hundred agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions -- some fully budgeted, some not, but all having responsibility to carry out that was in conflict. 300 agencies and so forth down substantially. we eliminated two hundred and seventy-eight of them. we set up a simple structure of government that could be administrated fairly and it was a -- a tremendous success. it hasn't been undone since i was there. it resulted also in an ability to reshape our court system, our prison system, our education system, our mental health programs and a clear assignment of responsibility and authority and also to have our people once again understanding control our government. i intend to do the same thing if i'm elected president. when i get to washington, coming in as an outsider, one of the major responsibilities that i will have on my shoulder is a complete reorganization of the -- of the executive branch of government. we now have a greatly expanded white house staff. when mr. nixon went in office,

for instance, we had $3.5 million spent on -- on the white house and its staff. that has escalated now to $16.5 million, in the last republican administration. this needs to be changed. we need to put the responsibilities back on the cabinet members. we also need to have a great reduction in agencies and programs. for instance, we now have in the health area 302 different programs administered by eleven major departments and agencies, 60 other advisory commissions responsible for this. medicaid's in one agency. medicare is in a different one. the check on the quality of health care is in a different one. none of them are responsible for health care itself. this makes it almost impossible for us to have a good health program. we have just advocated this past week a consolidation of the responsibilities for energy. our country now has no comprehensive energy program or policy.

we have 20 different agencies in the federal government responsible for the production, the regulation, the information about energy, the conservation of energy, spread all over government. this is a gross waste of money, so tough, competent management of government, giving us a simple efficient purposeful and manageable government would be a great step forward and if i'm elected -- and i intend to be -- then it's gonna be done. >> well, i'd like to press my question on the number of federal employees -- whether you would really plan to reduce the overall number, or merely put them in different departments and relabel them. in your energy plan, you consolidate a number of agencies into one, or you would, but does that really change the overall? >> i can't say for sure that we would have fewer federal employees when i go out of office than when i come in. it took me about three years to completely reorganize the georgia government. the last year i was in office

our budget was -- was actually less than it was a year before, which showed a great improvement. also, we had a 2% increase in the number of employees the last year. but it was a tremendous shift from administrative jobs into the delivery of services. for instance, we completely revised our prison system. we established 84 new mental health treatment centers. and we shifted people out of administrative jobs into the field to deliver better services. the same thing will be done at the federal government level. i accomplished this with substantial reductions in employees in some departments. for instance, in the transportation department we had we cut back about 25% of the total number of employees. in giving our people better mental health care, we increased the number of employees. but the efficiency of it, the simplicity of it, the ability of people to understand their own government and control it was a

substantial benefit derived from complete reorganization. we have got to do that at the federal government level. if we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to continue. there's no way for our people now to understand what their government is. there's no way to get the answer to a question. when you come to washington to try to -- as a governor -- to try to begin a new program for your people, like the treatment of drug addicts, i found there were thirteen different federal agencies that i had to go to, to manage the drug treatment program. in the georgia government, we only had one agency responsible for drug treatment. this is the kind of change that would be made. and it would be of tremendous benefit in long-range planning, in tight budgeting, saving the taxpayers' money, making the government more efficient, cutting down on bureaucratic waste, having a clear delineation of authority and responsibility of employees, and giving our people a better chance to understand and control their government. >> president ford. >> i think the record should show, mr. newman, that the bureau of census -- we checked it just yesterday -- indicates

that in the four years that governor carter was governor of the state of georgia, expenditures by the government went up over 50% employees of the government in georgia during his term of office went up over 25%. and the figures also show that the bonded indebtedness of the state of georgia during his governorship went up over 20%. and there was some very interesting testimony given by governor carter's successor, governor busby, before a senate committee a few months ago on how he found the medicaid program when he came into office following governor carter. he testified, and these are his words -- the present governor of georgia -- he says he found the medicaid program in georgia in shambles.

now let me talk about what we've done in the white house as far as federal employees are concerned. the first order that i issued after i became president was to cut or eliminate the prospective 40,000 increase in federal employees that had been scheduled by my predecessor. and in the term that i've been president -- some two years -- we have reduced federal employment by 11,000. in the white house staff itself, when i became president, we had roughly 540 employees. we now have about 485 employees, so we've made a rather significant reduction in the number of employees on the white house staff working for the president. so i think our record of cutting back employees, plus the failure on the part of the governor's programs to actually save employment in georgia, shows

which is the better plan. >> mrs. drew. >> mr. president, at vail, after the republican convention, you announced that you would now emphasize five new areas. among those were jobs and housing and health and improved recreational facilities for americans. and you also added crime. you also mentioned education. for two years you've been telling us that we couldn't do very much in these areas because we couldn't afford it and in fact we do have a $50 billion deficit now. in rebuttal to governor carter a little bit earlier, you said that if there were to be any surplus in the next few years you thought it should be turned back to the people in the form of tax relief. so how are you going to pay for any new initiatives in these areas you announced at vail you were going to now stress? >> well, in the last two years, as i indicated before, we had a very tough time. we were faced with heavy inflation, over 12%.

we were faced with substantial unemployment. but in the last 24 months we've turned the economy around and we've brought inflation down to under 6%, and we have reduced the -- well, we have added employment of about 4 million in the last seventeen months to the point where we have 88 million people working in america today -- the most in the history of the country. the net result is we are going to have some improvement in our receipts. and i think we'll have some decrease in our disbursements. we expect to have a lower deficit in fiscal year 1978. we feel that with this improvement in the economy; we feel with more receipts and fewer disbursements we can in a moderate way increase, as i recommended, over the next ten years a new parks program that

would cost a billion and a half dollars, doubling our national park system. we have recommended that in the housing program we can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments. but that doesn't cost any more as far as the federal treasury is concerned. we believe that we can do a better job in the area of crime, but that requires a tougher sentencing, mandatory certain prison sentences for those who violate our criminal laws. we believe that you can revise the federal criminal code, which has not been revised in a good many years. that doesn't cost any more money. we believe that you can do something more effectively with a moderate increase in money in the drug abuse program. we feel that in education we can have a slight increase -- not a

major increase. it's my understanding that governor carter has indicated that he approves of a $30 billion expenditure by the federal government as far as education is concerned. at the present time we're spending roughly $3,000,000,500. i don't know where that money would come from. but as we look at the quality-of-life programs -- jobs, health, education, crime, recreation -- we feel that as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can absorb the small necessary cost that will be required. >> sir, in the next few years would you try to reduce the deficit, would you spend more money far these programs that you have just outlined, or would you, as you said earlier, return whatever surplus you got to the people in the form of tax relief?

>> we feel that with the programs that i have recommended, the additional $10 billion tax cut, with the moderate increases in the quality-of-life area, we can still have a balanced budget which i will submit to the congress in january of 1978. we won't wait one year or two years longer, as governor carter indicates. as the economy improves, and it is improving, our gross national product this year will average about 6% increase over last year. we will have the lower rate of inflation for the calendar year this year -- something slightly under 6%. employment will be up, revenues will be up. we'll keep the lid on some of these programs that we can hold down as we have a little extra money to spend for those

quality-of-life programs which i think are needed and necessary. now i cannot, and would not, endorse the kind of program that governor carter recommends. he endorses the democratic platform which, as i read it, calls for approximately 60 additional programs. we estimate that those programs would add $100 billion minimum and probably $200 billion -- maximum each year to the federal budget. those programs you cannot afford and give tax relief. we feel that you can hold the line and restrain federal spending, give a tax reduction and still have a balanced budget by 1978. >> governor carter. >> well, mr. ford takes the same attitude that the republicans always take. in the last three months before an election, they're always for

the programs that they always fight the other 3.5 years. i remember when herbert hoover was against jobs for people. i remember when alf landon was against social security and later president nixon, 16 years ago, was telling the public that john kennedy's proposals would bankrupt the country and would double the cost. the best thing to do is to look at the record of mr. ford's administration and mr. nixon's before his. we had last year a $65 billion deficit -- the largest deficit in the history of our country -- more of a deficit spending than we had in the entire eight-year period under president johnson and president kennedy. we've got 500,000 more americans out of jobs today than we are out of work three months ago and since mr. ford's been in office two years, we've had a 50% increase in unemployment from 5 million people out of to 2 1/2

million more people out of work and a total of 7.5 million. we've also got a comparison between himself and mr. nixon. he's got four times the size of the deficits that mr. nixon even had himself. this talking about more people at work is distorted because with a 14% increase in the cost of living in the last two years, it means that -- that women and young people have had to go to work when they didn't want to because their fathers didn't make enough to pay the increased cost of food and housing and clothing. we have in this last two years alone 120 billion dollars total deficits under president ford and at the same time we've had, in the last eight years, a doubling in the number of bankruptcies for small business. we've had a negative growth in our -- in our national economy measured in real dollars. the take-home pay of a worker in this country is actually less now than it was in 1968 -- measured in real dollars. this is the kind of record

that's there and talk about the future and a drastic change or conversion on the part of mr. ford as of last minute is one that just doesn't go. >> mr. reynolds. >> governor carter, i'd like to turn to what we used to call the energy crisis. yesterday a british government commission on air pollution, but one headed by a nuclear physicist, recommended that any further expansion of nuclear energy be delayed in britain as long as possible. now this is a subject that is quite controversial among our own people and there seems to be a clear difference between you and the president on the use of nuclear power plants, which you say you would use as a last priority. why, sir, are they unsafe? >> well, among my other experiences in the past, i've -- i've been a nuclear engineer and did graduate work in this field. i think i know the capabilities and limitations of atomic power. but the energy policy of our nation is one that has not yet been established under this administration.

i think almost every other developed nation in the world has an energy policy except us. we have seen the federal energy agency established, for instance. in the crisis of 1973 it was supposed to be a temporary agency, now it's permanent, it's enormous, it's growing every day. i think "the wall street journal" reported not too long ago they have 112 public relations experts working for the federal energy agency to try to justify to the american people its own existence. we've got to have a firm way to handle the energy question. the reorganization proposal that i have put forward is one first step. in addition to that, we need to have -- a realization that we've got about 35 years worth of oil left in the whole world. we're gonna run out of oil. when mr. nixon made his famous speech on operation independence we were importing about 35% of our oil. now we've increased that amount 25%. we now import about 44% of our oil. we need to shift from oil to coal. we need to concentrate our research and development effort

on coal burning and extraction, with safer mines, but also it's clean burning. we need to shift very strongly toward solar energy and have strict conservation measures. and then as a last resort only, continue to use atomic power. i would certainly not cut out atomic power altogether. we can't afford to give up that opportunity until later. but to the extent that we continue to use atomic power, i would be responsible as president to make sure that the safety precautions were initiated and maintained. for instance, some that have been forgotten. we need to have the reactor core -- below ground level, the entire power plant that uses atomic power tightly sealed and a heavy vacuum maintained. there ought to be a standardized design. there ought to be a full-time atomic energy specialist, independent of the power company in the control room, full time, 24 hours a day, to shut down a plant if an abnormality develops. these kinds of procedures, along with evacuation procedures,

adequate insurance, ought to be initiated. so, shift from oil to coal, emphasize research and development on coal use and also on solar power, strict conservation measures, not yield every time that the special interest groups put pressure on special interest group puts pressure like this administration has done with the strictest possible safety precautions and that's the best overall energy policy in the brief time that we've been discussing it. >> governor, on the same subject, would you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to conserve fuel? >> yes, i would. some of the things that can be done about this is the change in the structure of electric power companies. we now encourage people to waste electricity and by giving the lowest rates to the biggest users. we don't do anything to cut down on peak load requirements and we don't have adequate insulation of homes and the efficiency of automobiles and when the

automobile manufacturers come forward and say they can't meet what the govern tment has put forth. we ought to have a shift in the use particularly in the appalachian region where the coal is located. low quality, low-carbon coal and low-sulfur coal is where the employment is needed. this would help a great deal. so mandatory conservation measures, yes. encouragement by the president for people to voluntarily conserve, yes, and also the private sector ought to be encouraged to bring forward to the public the benefits from efficiency, one bank gives low-interest loans for people who buy efficient automobiles and some major manufacturing companies like dow chemical

have, through very effective efficiency mechanisms cut down the use of energy by as much as 40% for the same outpukt. these kind of things ought to be done and they ought to be encouraged and supported and even required by the government, yes. >> president ford? >> governor carter skims over a very serious and a very broad subject. in january of 1975, i submitted to the congress and to the american people the first comprehensive energy program recommended by any president. it called for an increase in the production of energy in the united states. it called for conservation measures so that we would save the energy that we have. if you're going to increase domestic oil and gas production, and we have to, you have to give to those producers an opportunity to develop their land or their wells.

i recommended to the congress that we should increase coal production in this country from 600 million tons a year to a 1,200,000 by 1985. in order to do that, we have to improve our extraction of coal from the ground. we have to improve our utilization of coal, make it more efficient, make it cleaner. in addition, we have to expand our research and development. in my program for energy independence, we have increased, for example, solar energy research from about $84 million to about $120 million a year. we're going as fast as the experts say we should. in nuclear power, we have increased the research and development under the energy research and development agency

very substantially to ensure that our nuclear power plants are safer, that they are more efficient and that we have adequate safeguards. i think you have to have greater oil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear production and in addition, you have to have energy conservation. >> mr. ganum? >> mr. president, i would like to return for a moment to this problem of unemployment. you have vetoed or threatened to veto a number of jobs bills passed or in development in the democratic congress, the democratic-controlled congress, yet at the same time the government is paying out i think it is 17 billion and perhaps $20 billion a year in unemployment compensation caused by the high unemployment. why do you think it is better to pay out unemployment compensation to idle people than to put them to work in public service jobs?

>> the bills that i've vetoed, the one for an additional $6 billion was not a bill that would have solved our unemployment problems. even the proponents of it admitted no more than 400,000 jobs would be made available. it is something in the magnitude of 150 to 200,000 jobs would be made available. each one of those jobs would have cost the taxpayer $25,000. in addition, the jobs would not be available right now. they would not have materialized for about nine to 18 months. the immediate problem we have is to stimulate our economy now so that we can get rid of unemployment. what we have done is to hold the lid on spending in an effort to

reduce the rate of inflation, and we have proven, i think, very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate of inflation and increase jobs. for example, as i have said, we have added some 4 million jobs in the last 17 months. we have now employed 88 million people in america, the largest number in the history of the united states. we've added 500,000 jobs in the last two months. inflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs and by holding the lid on federal spending, we have been able to do and a good job, an affirmative job, and made edits to the jobs in this country. i think it is appropriate to point out that through our tax

policies we have stimulated and added employment throughout the country. the investment tax credit and the tax incentives for expansion and modernization of our industrial capacity. it is my opinion that the private sector where five out of the six jobs are where you have permanent jobs, with the opportunity for advancement is a better place than make work jobs under the program recommended by the congress. >> just to follow up, mr. president. the congress has just passed a $3.7 billion appropriation bill which would provide money for the public works jobs program that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the authorization legislation. in light of the fact that unemployment again is rising or has in the past three months, i wonder if you have rethought that question at all and whether you would consider allowing the program to be funded or would

you veto that money bill? >> that bill has not yet come down to the oval office. so i am not in a position to make any judgment on it tonight, but that is an extra $4 billion that would add to the deficit which would add to the inflationary pressures which would help to destroy jobs in the private sector and not make jobs where the jobs really are. these are not the kind of jobs that we want for our people. i think it's interesting to point out that in the two years that i've been president i've vetoed 56 bills. congress has sustained 42 vetoes. as a result, we have saved over $9 billion in federal expenditures and the congress by overriding the bills that i did

veto, the congress has added some $13 billion to the federal expenditures and to the federal deficit. now governor carter complains about the deficits that this administration has had and yet he condemns the vetoes that i have made that have saved the taxpayer the taxpayer $9 billion and could have saved an additional $13 billion. now he can't have it both ways and therefore, it seems to me that we should hold the lid as we have to the best of our ability so we can stimulate the private economy and get the jobs where the jobs are, five out of six in this economy. >> governor carter? >> well, mr. ford doesn't seem to put into perspective the fact that when 500,000 more people are out of work than there were three months ago, we have

2.5 million more people out of work than when he took office, but this touches human beings. i was in a city in pennsylvania not too long ago, and it was on the train trip. i said how many adults here are out of work? about a thousand raised their hand. mr. ford, there are fewer people now in the private sector than when he took office and still he talks about a success and 7.9% unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country and he's learned how to match unemployment with inflation. that's right. we've got the highest inflation we've had in 25 years right now except under this administration and that was 50 years ago and we've got the highest unemployment weave had under mr. ford's administration since the great depression. this affects human beings and

his insensitivity in providing those people a chance to work has made this a welfare administration and not a work administration. he hasn't saved $9 billion for this veto. there's only been a net saving of $4 billion and the cost in unemployment compensation, welfare, compensation and lost revenues has increased $23 billion in the last two years. this is a typical attitude that really causes havoc in people's lives and then it's covered over by saying that our country has naturally a 6% unemployment rate or a 7% unemployment rate. it's a travesty and shows a lack of leadership. we've never had a president that vetoed more bills. mr. ford has vetoed four times as many bills as mr. nixon. 11 of them have been overwritten. one of the bills that was overwritten, he only got one

vote in the senate and this shows a breakdown in leadership. >> mrs. drew? >> i'd like to come back to the subject of taxes. you said you would like to cut taxes for the lower and middle income groups and unless you're willing to reduce the itemized deductions for charitable contributions or home mortgage payments or interest or taxes or capital gains you can't really raise sufficient revenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size. so how are you going provide the tax relief that you're talking about? >> now we have such a grossly unbalanced tax system, as i said earlier that it is a disgrace. of all the tax benefits now, 25% of them goes to the 1% of the richest people in this country. over 50%, 53, to be exact, tax benefit goes to the 15% richest people in this country and we've had a 50% increase in payroll

deductions since mr. nixon went in office eight years ago. mr. ford has advocated since he's been in office over $5 billion in corporation, special interest groups and the very, very wealthy to derive their income not from labor, but from investments and that's got to be changed. a few things that can be done. we have now a deferral system so that the multinational corporation to invest overseas if they make a million dollars in profits overseas, they hadon have to pay any, in taxes. the average american pays their taxes forward. not only that, but it robs the country of jobs and saying new hampshire or vermont and if they take the money and they build a shoe factory they don't have to pay taxes on the money. it was originally designed

proposed by mr. nixon. this permits a company to create a dummy corporation to exports their products and then not to pay a full amount of taxes only. this cost our government about $1.4 billion a year and when those rich corporations don't pay that tax, the average american taxpayer pays it forward. another one that's very important is a business deductions. jet airplanes, first-class travel. the $50 martini lunch. the average person can't take advantage of that, but the wealthier people can. another system is where a dentist can invest money and say raising cattle and can put in $1 h 00,000 of his own money and

makes a million and mark off a great amount of loss through that procedure. there was one example where a person made movies, these special kinds of programs have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefited those who are powerful and who can employ lobbyists and they can have the cpas and the lawyers to help them benefit from the roughly 8,000 pages of the tax code. the average american person can't do it. you can't have a lobbyist out of unemployment compensation checks. >> governor, to follow up on your answer, in order for any kind of tax relief to really be felt by the middle and lower income people, you need about according to congressional committees on this, you need about $10 billion. you listed some things. the deferral income has

estimated $100 million. what you said was 1.4 billion. the estimate from the outside if you eliminated all tax shelters is 1 billion. where else would you raise the revenue, and would you do away with business deductions and what other tax preferences would you do away with? >> i wouldn't do away with all business deductions and i think that would be a serious mistake, but if you could just do away with the ones that were unfair, you can lower taxes for anyone. i would never do anything that would increase the taxes for those who work for a living and they're required to list your income and what i would do is not to raise taxes, but to eliminate loopholes and this is the points of my first statistic that i gave you, the present tax benefits that have been carved out over a long period of years, 50 years by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists have benefited just the rich.

these programs that i described to you earlier, the tax deferrals for overseas and the desks and the tax shelters. they only apply to people in the $50,000 bracket or above. i think this is the best way to approach it is to make sure everybody pays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure that you can take whatever savings there is from the higher income levels and give it to the low and middle income families. >> president trump? >> governor carter's answer tonight does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an interview to the associated press a week or so ago. in that interview governor carter indicated that he would raise the taxes on those in the medium or middle income brackets or higher. if you take the medium or middle-income taxpayer, that's about $14,000 per person. governor carter has indicated

publicly in an interview that he would increase the taxes on about 50% of the working people of this country. i think the way to get tax equity in this country is to give tax relief to the middle income people who have an income from roughly $8,000 up to $25,000 or $30,000. they have been short changed as we have taken 10 million taxpayers off the tax roles in the last eight years and as we've added to the minimum tax provision to make all people pay more taxes. i believe in tax equity for the middle income taxpayer increasing the personal exemption. mr. carter wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the taxpayers of this country. the governor has played fast and loose about the facts about vetoes. the records show that president

roosevelt vetoed on an average of 55 bills a year. president truman vetoed on the average while he was president about 38 bills a year. i understand when governor carter when he was governor of georgia vetoed between 35 and 40 bills a year. my average in two years is 26, but in the process of that we have saved $9 billion and one final comment governor carter talks about the tax bills and all of the inequities that exist in the present law. i must remind him the democrats have controlled the congress for the last two years and they wrote all the tax bills. >> mr. reynolds. >> i suspect that we could continue on this tax argument for some time, but i would like to move on to another area. mr. president, everybody seems to be running against washington this year, and i'd like to raise

two coincidental events and whether you think perhaps this maa have a bearing on the attitude throughout the country. the house ethics committee has just now ended its investigation of daniel shore after several months and many thousands of dollars trying to find out how he obtained and caused to be published a report of the congress that probably is the property of the american people. at the same time the senate select committee on standards and conduct has voted not really to begin an investigation of a united states senator because of allegation against him that he may have been hitting corp rand funds over the periods of years. do you think, vents like this contribute to the feeling in the country, and i don't mean just through the particular tiff branch, and there is a feeling throughout the country, and i

think vr think the feeling is ms. blissed and in the last two years we've maintained integrity in the white house and set the executive branch of the government. it ought to be focused on the congress of the united states. for example, this congress very shortly will spend a billion dollars a year for its housekeeping, its salaries, its expenses and the like. the next congress will probably be the first billion dollar congress in the history of the united states. i don't think the american people are getting their money's worth from the majority party that run this congress. we, in addition, see that in the last four years the number of employees hired by the congress has gone up substantial, much

more than the gross domestic product, much more than any other increase throughout our society. congress is hiring people by the droves and the cost, as a result has gone up and i don't see any improvement in the performance of the congress under the present leadership. so it seems to me instead of the anti-washington feeling being aimed at everybody in washington. it seems to me that the focus should be where the problem is which is the congress of the united states and particularly the majority in the congress. they spend too much money on themselves. they have too many employees and there's some question about their morality. it seems to me that in this election the focus should not be on the executive branch, but the correction should come as the voters should vote for their

members of the house of representatives or for their united states senator. that's where the problem is, and i hope there will be some corrective action taken so we can get some new leadership in the congress of the united states. >> mr. president, if i may follow up, i think you've made it plain that you take a dim view of the majority in the congress. isn't it quite likely, sir, that you will have a democratic congress in the next session if you are elected president and hasn't the country a right to ask whether you can get along with this congress and whether we'll have continued confrontation? >> well, it seems to me that we have a chance, the republicans to get a majority in the house of representatives. we will make some gains in the united states senate so there will be different ratios in the house as well as in the senate and as president i will be able to work with that congress. let me take the other side of the coin, if i might. supposing we had had a democratic congress for the last

two years, and we'd had governor carter as president. he has, in effect said, he would disapprove of the vetoes that i have made and would have added significantly to the expenditures and the federal government and i think it would be contrary to one of the basic concepts in our system of government, a system of checks and balances. we have a democratic congress today. unfortunately, we've had a republican president to check their excesses with my vetoes. if we have a democratic congress next year and a president who wants to spend an additional $100 billion a year or $200 billion a year with more programs, we will have in my judgment, greater deficits with

more spending with more dangers of inflation. i think the american people want a republican president that check for any excesses that come out of the next congress if it is a democratic congress. >> governor carter? >> it's not a matter of republican or democrat, and it's a matter of leadership. >> president eisenhower worked with the congress very well and even president nixon worked with the democratic congress very well. mr. ford has vetoed as i said earlier, four times as many bills earlier as mr. nixon. mr. ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public relations stunt and never trusts to put it through the congress by working with the congress. i think under president nixon and eisenhower, they passed 60 to 75% of the legislation and this year mr. ford would not pass more than 26% of all of the legislative proposals he puts forward. this is government by stalemate and we've seen almost a complete

breakdown in the proper relationship between the president who represents his country and the congress who collectively also represent this country. we've had republican presidents before who have tried to run against the democratic congress, and i don't think it's the congress that's mr. ford's opponent, but if he insists that i be responsible for the democratic congress of which i have not been a part, then i think it's only fair that he be responsible of the nixon administration in its entirety of which he was a part. that, i think, is a good balance. the point is the president ought to lead this country. mr. ford, so far as i know, avoiding another watergate has not accomplished one single major program for this country, and there's been a constant squabbling between the president and the congress and that's not

the way this country ought to be run. i might go back to one other thing. mr. ford has quoted an a.p. news story that was a narrative, and that story reported several times that would lower taxes for low and middle-income families and that was delivered to the white house and i'm sure the president know about this correction and he still insists on repeating an erroneous statement. >> president ford and governor carter, we no longer have time for two complete sequences and we only have six minutes left for questions and answers. for that reason, we will drop the follow-up questions at this point, but each candidate will still be able to respond to the others' answers to the extent that you can, gentlemen, please keep your remarks brief. mr. gannon? >> governor carter, one important part of the government's economic policy apparatus that we haven't talked about is the federal reserve board. i'd like to ask you something about what you've and said that is that you believe that the president ought to have a charm

an of the federal reserve board whose views are compatible with his own. based on the record over the last few years, would you say that your views are compatible with those of chairman arthur burns and if not, would you seek his resignation if you are elected. >> the president ought to have a chance to appoint a chairman of the federal reserve board to have a term. in other words, both of them serve the same four years. the congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income tax and laws. the president can modify the economic structure of the country by public statements and general attitudes and the budget he proposes and the federal reserve has an independent status that ought to be preserved. i think the most that he did take a typical erroneous republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so high. they assume that the inflation rate was because of excessive demand and therefore put into effect tight constraint on the

economy and very high interest rate which is is typical also of a republican administration and try to increase the tax payments by individuals. i would have done the opposite. i think the problem should have been addressed by uncreasing productivity, by having put people back to work so they could purchase more goods and lower income taxes on individuals and perhaps raise them if necessary on corporations in comparison, but mr. burns, in that respect made a very serious mistake. i would not want to detroit independence of the federal reserve board, but i do think we ought to have a cohesive economic policy that the chairman of the federal reserve board and the president's terms being the same and then having congress be the third entity with the independent and subject owners of the president's veto. >> president ford, your response? >> the chairman of the federal reserve board should be independent. fortunately, he has been during

democratic and republican administrations. as a result of the last two years, we have had a responsible monetary policy. the federal reserve board indicated that the supply of money would be held between four and four and a half and seven to seven and a half. they have done a good job in integrating the money supply with the fiscal policy of the executive and legislative branches of the government. it would be catastrophic if the chairman of the federal reserve board became the tool of the political party that was in power. it's important for our future, economic security that that job be nonpolitical and separate from the executive and the lktilk legislative branches. >> mrs. drew? >> the real problem with the fbi

and the intelligence agencies is there are no real laws governing them, such laws tend to be vague and open ended. you have issued some executive orders, but we learned that leaving these agencies to executive discretion and direction can get them and in fact, the country in a great deal of trouble. one president may be a decent man. the next one might not be. >> so what do you think about trying to write in some more protection by getting some laws governing these agencies? >> you are familiar, of course, with the fact that i am the first president in 30 years who has reorganized the intelligence agencies in the federal government, the cia, the defense intelligence agency and the national security agency and the others. we've done that by executive order, and i think we've tightened it up and straightened out their problems that developed over the last few years. it doesn't seem to me that it's needed or necessary to have legislation in this particular

regard. i have recommended to the congress, however, i'm sure familiar with this, legislation that would make it very proper in the right way that the attorney general could go in and get the right for wiretapping under security cases. this was an effort that was made by the attorney general and myself working with the congress, but even in this area where i think new legislation would be justified. the congress has not responded. so i feel in that case, as well as in the reorganization of the intelligence agencies as i've done, we have to do it by executive order and i'm glad that we have a good director in george bush. we have good executive orders and the cia and the dia and nasa and the nsa are now doing a good

job under proper supervision. >> governor carter? >> well, one of the very serious things that's happened in our government in recent years and has continued up until now is a breakdown in the trust among our people -- [ no audio ] >> the broadcasters in philadelphia have temporarily lost the audio. it is not a conspiracy against governor carter and president ford and they will fix it as soon as possible. [ no audio ] >> this debate is now within about eight minutes of its close, and in spite of the fact that this was under the auspices of the league of women voters --

>> the pool audio from philadelphia has been lost momentarily. we hope to have it back any minute. we don't know what's happened to it. [ no audio ] >> again, the pool audio from the walnut street theater in philadelphia has been lost. we hope, for the moment. we are, needless to say, trying to restore it. i do not know what has happened to it. both candidates have lost more or less equal number of their

words. i can't hear them either so i don't know what it is we're not hearing. >> i think they have stopped because they have been told the sound has been lost. i think they've stopped talking. whatever happened, we hope to have it fixed shortly. i wish i could tell you more about it, but that's all i know. [ no audio ] >> i might say a word here that i plan to say later when the debate was over and in fact, i will say it again that at 11:30 eastern time, a half hour from

now we will be back here with a special program in which we will ask people in the audience, in the theater in philadelphia as they leave, ask others in the area and whoever we can find whose views might be interesting what they think about the debate, who they think won, if they care to put it that way, who they think scored the most points. john chancellor and other members of our news staff are in philadelphia and will be red with this. as i say, that's at 11:30 eastern time after a half-hour break for the local news across the country, and we'll be back. whatever happens with the audio from the theater at this time. i don't know what's happened except we're not getting it. nobody is getting it. it's the same on -- it's the same everywhere so you needn't change the channels. it's the same on all of them.

>> doug canker is out -- where is doug? he is in the lobby just outside of the hall. doug, you can't tell us what has happened there, can you? >> david, we don't know what's happened. we are as surprised as what's going on as you are. they were talking and they suddenly quit. we jumped up, too. this was a pool arrangement. one network responsible so we are standing by just the way you are. we expect the debates to go on, of course, immediately as the audio has resumed and how long will it tack ke to fix it and we isolated in the corridor. the problem is not only in the theater and the problem is in the technical trucks undou

undoubtedly, how long it will take to fix it we just don't know. >> you don't have a screwdriver and a pair of pliers on you? >> i do not, david. no. >> well -- >> if i can make a few comments while we're waiting, we have seen a very lively debate, it seems to me so far. it seems to me that both candidates are saying the same thing they have been saying in the early parts of this campaigns making pretty much the same charges, but very tough, tougher, sometimes even rough tonight. both heavy on their facts to back up their arguments as we knew governor carter intended to come here to convince the american public that he didn't really know the facts and had the knowledge. president ford, of course, is fact-filled with the knowledge of his office and president ford has strongly defended his economic policies in his debates tonight and he's pointing to the fact that the improved economy

is proof of their wisdom. he did this very forcefully. mr. carter came back, disputed this and in one of the tough segments charged that the president was insensitive to the plight of the unemployed. excuse me. do we have audio back now? >> we still do not have audio back. both candidates are waiting, we have been told they're on the air with the picture, but they are off the air with their voices. president ford announced he will sign that new tax bill, all 1500 pages of it even though he was dissatisfied with provisions that were in it and he called it a welfare program for the rich and mr. carter also talked and so did president ford about the new federal social programs.

mr. carter said that he would install the federal programs that he promised and should it come down to it, a choice between those programs being innovative or balancing the budget that he would choose in favor of balancing the budget. president ford said any surplus from the federal spending should go directly right back to tax relief. >> both men outlined at great lengths their plans to curb unemployment. mr. carter said he believes his programs could bring unemployment down to 3% within a few years. mr. ford got into the democratic platform. he said that if all of the proposals on the democratic platform were adopted it would create a program that would cost $100 to $200 billion more and mr. carter immediately rejoined by saying that richard nixon said the same thing about the programs proposed by the democrats 16 years ago when john f. kennedy was the nominee. the two men discussed draft

evaders, and what the programs there should be. mr. ford said that he does not believe in any across the board pardons. he said he believes that the amnesty program that he put forth was adequate and that he would not change it and mr. carter said that he would still grant pardon and he insisted that there is a difference between pardon and amnesty. >> the two men talked about government reorganization at some length and jimmy carter, as he so often has done this whole election year promised forcefully that he would completely reorganize the federal government and waste no time. he has looked into the facts and figures of governor carter's record as governor of georgia and that the fact is that governor carter increased the georgia budget and also increased the number of state employees while he was there. he also said that the present governor of georgia, governor busby found that the medicaid

program was in his words, a shamble. as far as the democratic congress is concerned, president ford, the republican president, charges that the democratic congress had not really been working with him. jimmy carter said other republican presidents have found it feasible and possible to work with democratic congresses. he pointed out that president eisenhower had done this and he said that richard nixon, he said for all of his faults and i can't remember the exact words was a strong leader and managed to work with a democratic congress and imposed far fewer vetoes than president ford had imposed and then he got very tough momentarily with president ford. he said i'm not a member of congress. he said the democratic congress is not under my control and so he said if you're going to blame me for that, you can blame me -- i'll blame you for watergate also. we have just stepped out, ronald

nesson. what's going on in there? >> i don't know more about it than you do, doug. i guess they were down to the last few minutes and the sound uden suddenly cut out, and i don't know what the explanation is. >> will the debate continue? >> i don't know. ed newman wasn't quite clear what would happen either. >> you have no contingency plan for such a thing to happen. >> i think you're the one that's with the contingency plan. i guess the president will wait and let those putting on the debates decide what to do. >> well, you were sitting in there with some members of the president's administration and the secretary of the transportation colton and mr. scranton and mr. hartman, his speechwriter. what's your impression? how do you think your guy is doing so far? >> well, we talked and we had a little time to talk after the sound went off and we sort of polled each other and everyone came to the same conclusion and they tha is that it was a

clear-cut victory. >> i don't think anybody would hear you being partisan. is this debate tougher than you thought it would be? some tough exchanges, it seems to us. >> i agree the questions were tough and the reporters were well prepared and had done a lot of research, but i think the president came across to us watching, anyhow, as being in command of the situation, in control. it seemed to me he had the opportunity through the tough questions to demonstrate experience, his background, his knowledge and hissagity. >> the same thing could be said for governor carter. he was spouting facts and figures. we haven't had the completion of this one. how much time did we get cut out on? 12, 15 minutes. do you think some provision could be made for the viewing public to hear what was left out? >> well, the president said from the very beginning, doug and the reason he wanted to do the

debates in the first place and the reason he wanted them to be done at great length, 90 minutes at a minimum was because he felt the time was needed to explore issues in depth, and i think they were explored in depth tonight. >> thank you very much, this is press secretary ronald nesson. over to the left is a man that he thinks that jimmy carter was as clear a winner as mr. nesson thinks mr. ford was and that is the democratic chairman robert strauss who is already talking. so let's listen in to what he's saying. >> i think it was a good night for the american people and a good night for jimmy carter. >> did you think that either man looked particularly nervous or ill at ease. >> no, i don't think either looked nervous or ill as ease. >> just trying to get you in our picture, too. >> i thought the president looked well, and governor carter looked responsive and they both

fielded questions well. governor carter demonstrated what he wanted to demonstrate, the ability to deal with issues in this country. >> are you calling winners and losers? you think jimmy carter won this debate. >> there are two winners. the american public won because they got to see this debate and see these two men. they handled their questions well. >> i understand we're back to the debate. now let's go back to the auditorium with president ford and mr. carter. >> i think i have an anti-nbc piece. >> well, we thought we had it. we don't. we still don't know what's wrong or where. we hoped we'd have it back by now, nor do i know that they will continue the debates long

enough to make up for the lost time, and i don't know anything. the president and mr. carter -- the president and mr. carter are waiting while whatever is wrong, wherever it is, it is not in our audio as you heard from doug outside the theater. it's from the sound coming from the restroom there and we don't know what the problem is, but they're waiting. [ inaudible ] >> we're getting a lot of miscellaneous conversation from various places in the hall, but

not the conversation we went there to listen to which was the president and mr. carter, of course. they -- [ inaudible ] >> it was, as you heard, a pretty lively debate and each one landing a few blows on the other, and i don't think anyone was permanently disabled politically speaking. much of the argument was about what new programs might be put into effect in the -- in the federal establishment in the next term, presidential term, four years, what they will cost and how they're going to be paid for, who's going do the tax paying in the next four years and whether the rich will pay it all and the middle class will pay it all or if not them, who? it is i must say, without offering any opinion about

winners and losers, i must say that question was not fully answered. perhaps some of the audience might be left unsatisfied on that score. on the one question that was dealt with very firmly and decisively was evaders and deserters, draft evaders and military deserters. ford thought the draft should not go further than it has already gone in his administration whereas carter thinks it should. his point is if nixon could be pardoned then why not the evaders? ford said he gave them a chance to work their way back into -- into american society. some accepted and some didn't. >> doug is outside the theater and can still be heard from, though the participants inside cannot. doug?

>> yes, david. we are here with jim baker who is president ford's national campaign manager. mr. baker, let me ask you this, did things go pretty well according to game plan tonight? tell us how the president prepared for this? how hard did he study and was he nervous when he went up there? i would be if i were talking to 120 million people or however many. >> i talked to the president and he was not nervous at all. he was quite relaxed and self-assured and from looking at him when he first went on stage it was my judgment that he was quite relaxed and quite confident and self-assured. >> any surprises tonight? no. i think the president did an excellent job. he was in command and he was decisive and more than anything else, doug, i think he answered the questions. he was asked specifics and he gave specifics. >> tell us about the preparation, did president ford sit back and have them bounce questions off of him? >> he studied and worked hard. he worked on his preparation and

he will well prepared, but i'm sure there was some of that. >> and in the preparation were the questions that you tried to brain form, did any of them really come up? >> there were some that i think -- that i think we anticipated very well, yes. >> what do you think president ford -- jimmy carter is ahead in the poll, but what do you think president ford got out of agreeing in the debate and he has the powers of office and jimmy carter wasn't all that well known. >> that's true. jimmy carter was not all this well known and his positions on the issues were even less well known, doug, and that's one of the major reasons that we wanted this debate so that governor carter would have to take some positions on the issues and the president's positions are well known. >> jody powell and i'll come in, leslie. you can do us both, okay? >> this is jimmy carter's press secretary who is about to go on the air with cbs, but since we are all in this thing altogether, i'll ask you, how do

you think your man did tonight? >> we'll have a discussion and i thought governor carry the was very impressive and he demonstrated a clear command of the issues and the facts and the specifics that were involved in the -- in this discussion, and i guess in the debate between president ford and the demean democratic congress and president ford won, there's no doubt in my mind that there was a clear advantage in dealing with the questions. >> he was tough on president ford. >> he was insensitive to the problems of the unemployed and he ought to be blamed for the problems of the watergate. >> you misquoted there as often happens, if the unjust charge was made he would be responsible

for the democratic congress of which he has never been a part of and i think it was a bit of tongue in cheek to ask president ford to accept responsibility for the previous administration. he was want at all a part of watergate. >> do you think they were as interesting or as decisive? >> there is no way in the world that i could compare from my point of view, these debates to 1960. i was a junior in high school, as a matter of fact, was there a question about how decisive those debates were then. >> i don't think elections are decided on one night and it would suit me fine if an election was decided. >> can you give me a quick assessment of how the candidate did? >> he showed a tremendous command of the specifics of the details of the federal government and i think he made his point directly and the comparison between the republican rhetoric and their record and the white house came

through very directly. so i'm very happy. >> thank you very much. >> mr. powell. we've asked mr. nesson. he doesn't know what went on. do you know why the mikes went off? >> i don't, but i would like to know. this took place right in the middle of governor carter's rebuttal. i would certainly like to know. i assume it's a technical problem that sometimes happens. >> there's always a theory held by a lot of people oh, was there a conspiracy to cut him off. we have no proof of that, it was a technical foul-up as far as we can determine. >> no one's brought up the subject that i know of, have we? >> i think perhaps it shows that everybody makes mistakes every now and then. >> even the networks. >> that's right. >> let -- >> i wouldn't criticize the networks, of course. >> how much consultation did you have and other senior members of the carter staff have with jimmy caterpillar

carter in preparation for these debates? how much rest did he have? i know you will say was he cool as a cucumber? what did he do the hour before he came here? >> i don't know. he and the -- he and mrs. cartser were together for four or five hours this afternoon. i didn't bother him and neither did anybody else so far as i know. he's had two or three days of rest, i suppose the best way to judge whether he was cool as a cucumber or not was by his performance tonight, and i thought he handled himself very well, obviously, as i would. he's primarily had time to himself. we haven't engaged in rehearsals and we haven't done a lot of fancy gimmicks. we've given him time to do as he wish, primarily to study, to read, to reflect and to think and i think that paid off this evening. >> mr. powell, a lot has been written in these last four or five days that jimmy carter's campaign is losing steam. the playboy article and that

shows jim ford running ahead and the general feeling among the press that's covering jimmy carter may be losing steam. >> fortunately for most campaigns the election is held among the american people and not on the day to day opinions of the -- of whatever they are of the press that happens to be covering the campaign. we have run a very active and aggressive campaign. governor carter has submitted himself to cross-examinations four and five times a day in the past 18 months. in those circumstance e there's no way that you can shield yourself from a chosen word here or there. we think in the long run the american people would rather have a candidate for president that goes out and meets them and takes the hard knocks and the tough questions and answers them as responsibly and directly as he can even though he might make a mistake every now and then. >> that's joey carter, press secretary for governor carter. now back to david brinkley. >> i gather the debate is over, is that right?

the league of women voters has decided not to go ahead with any more of the debate. it is now 11:15 in the east. it was scheduled to end 15 minutes ago. it actually ended almost a half hour ago because of some sound failure inside the hall. we do not know at the moment what happened or why nor exactly where, as i have said, our sound from the lobby of the theater has been normal and still is. the problem is somewhere inside the hall on or around the podium. that's all we know which is not a great deal. so again, the debate is over and that's it. we've had some discussion and we've heard from some prominent democrats and prominent republicans, each of whom thought his side won and gave the reasons why. our plan is to return to the air in about a half hour for a somewhat, more extensive --

we'll be back later and in the meantime katherine mankin is talking to mrs. carter. katherine? >> mrs. carter, we were wondering, everyone has been following this sudden breakup on the debate. do you think this will have any effect? or do you think it will ride with the wave. >> i certainly think if we could have done anything about it we would have kept it going because jimmy was doing so great. >> do you have any idea at all what he was going to say in summation? >> no, i don't. i just glanced at it briefly. i've be i've been campaigning all day and i've been in texas, and i glanced at it, but he'll have to tell you that. >> have croyou noticed whether interview in playboy magazine has had any effect on his campaign? >> we've heard about it tonight and this afternoon and it was

such a complete distortion of what jimmy said and out of context and everyone in the country will read it because there has been so publicity about it and when they do, they'll read that jim was talking about his christian religion to people who didn't understand what christianity is and it's a very good article. >> did you iron things out with her with mrs. johnson? >> i had a very good visit with mrs. johnson. she met me when i flew into san antonio and she received me at the library. it was very pleasant. >> thank you very much, mrs. jimmy carter. now back to david. >> well, we are told the debate has ended, but on the other hand, president ford and governor carter are still there waiting. all we know about the breakdown in the sound is that it's somewhere between the microphones you see clipped to their neckties and the network truck outside the hall. beyond that, i can't go because

i don't know. i don't think anyone knows at the moment. if anyone did, he'd fix it. we don't know whether they -- i keep telling you what i don't know which is a great deal. i don't know know. it's a great deal. we don't know if they're going to continue the debate and wait for the sound to be fixed. ed is saying something interesting but i have no idea what it is because i can't hear it. >> it occurred 27 minutes ago. the fault has been dealt with and we want to thank president ford and governor carter for being so patient and understanding while this delay went on. we very much regret the technical failure that lost the sound as it -- as it was leaving this theater. it occurred during governor carter's response to what would have been and what was the last

question put to the candidates. that question went to president ford. it dealt with the control of government intelligence agencies. governor carter was making that response and had very nearly finished it. he will conclude his response now after which president ford and governor carter will make their closing statements. governor. >> there has been too much government secrecy and not enough respect for the personal privacy of american citizens. >> it is now time for the closing statements, which are to be up to four minutes long. governor carter, by the same toss of the coin that directed the first question to you, you are to go first now. >> well, tonight we've had a chance to talk a lot about the past. but i think it's time to talk about the future. our nation in the last eight years has been divided as never

before. it's a time for unity. it's a time to draw ourselves together, to have a president and a congress that can work together with mutual respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the open for a change, so the people can understand their own government. it's time for government, industry, labor, manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in our society to cooperate. and it's a time for government to understand and to cooperate with our people. for a long time our american citizens have been excluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to. this is not compatible with the purpose of our nation. i believe in our country. it needs to be competent. the government needs to be well-managed, efficient, economical, we need to have a government that's sensitive to our people's needs -- to those who are poor, who don't have adequate health care, who have been cheated too long with our tax programs, who've been out of

jobs, whose families have been torn apart. we need to restore the faith and the trust of the american people in their own government. in addition to that, we've suffered because we haven't had leadership in this administration. we've got a government of stalemate. we've lost the vision of what our country can and ought to be. this is not the america that we've known in the past. it's not the america that we have to have in the future. i don't claim to know all the answers. but i've got confidence in my country. our economic strength is still there. our system of government -- in spite of vietnam, cambodia, cia, watergate -- is still the best system of government on earth. and the greatest resource of all are the 215 million americans who have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, the patriotism, the idealism, the compassion,

the sense of brotherhood on which we can rely in the future to restore the greatness to our country we ought not to be excluded from our government anymore. we need a president who can go in -- who derives his strength from the people. i owe the special interests nothing. i owe everything to you, the people of this country. and i believe that we can bind our wounds. i believe that we can work together. and i believe that if we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country, that we can once again have a government as good as our people, and let the world know what we still know and hope for -- that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on earth. >> president ford.

>> on november 2nd all of you will make a very, very important decision. one of the major issues in this campaign is trust. a president should never promise more than he can deliver and a president should always deliver everything that he's promised. a president can't be all things to all people. a president should be the same thing to all people. another issue in this campaign, governor carter has endorsed the democratic platform, which calls for more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation or more taxes. governor carter has embraced the record of the present congress, dominated by his political

party. it calls for more of the same. governor carter in his acceptance speech called for more and more programs, which means more and more government. i think the real issue in this campaign, and that which you must decide on november 2nd, is whether you should vote for his promise or my performance in two years in the white house. on the fourth of july we had a wonderful 200th birthday for our great country. it was a superb occasion. it was a glorious day. in the first century of our nation's history our forefathers gave us the finest form of government in the history of mankind. in the second century of our nation's history, our forefathers developed the most

productive industrial nation in the history of the globe. our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our 215 million americans today and all that join us. in the last few years government has gotten bigger and bigger, industry has gotten larger and larger, labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger, and our children have been the victims of mass education. we must make this next century the century of the individual. we should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. the individual worker in the plants throughout the united states should not be a small cog in a big machine.

the member of a labor union must have his rights strengthened and broadened and our children in their education should have an opportunity to improve themselves based on their talents and their abilities. my mother and father, during the depression, worked very hard to give me an opportunity to do better in our great country. your mothers and fathers did the same thing for you and others. betty and i have worked very hard to give our children a brighter future in the united states, our beloved country. you and others in this great country have worked hard and

done a great deal to give your children and your grandchildren the blessings of a better america. i believe we can all work together to make the individuals in the future have more and all of us working together can build a better america. >> thank you, president ford. thank you, governor carter. our thanks also to the questioners and to the audience in this theater. we much regret the technical failure that caused a 28-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. we believe, however, that everyone will agree that it did not detract from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness. the next presidential debate is to take place on wednesday, october 6th in san francisco at 9:30 p.m., eastern daylight time. the topics are to be foreign and defense issues. as with all three debates between the presidential

candidates and the one between the vice presidential candidates, it is being arranged by the league of women voters education fund in the hope of promoting a wider and better informed participation by the american people in the election in november. now, from the walnut street theater in philadelphia, good night. weeknights this month on american history tv, we're looking at past presidential debates. tonight, we look at the presidential debates of 1980 and 1984. we'll show the only debate from 1980 between incumbent president jimmy carter and former california governor ronald reagan. they fielded questions from journalists on the iran hostage crisis and other issues. from 1984, the second and final debate between incumbent

president ronald reagan and walter mondale. enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on c-span3. t"the presidents" presents biographies of every president, inspired by conversation with noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. as americans go to the polls next month to inside who should lead our country, this collection offers perspectives into the lives and events that foraged each president's leadership style. to learn more about all of our presidents, visit c-span.org/thepresidents and order your copy today wherever books are sold. the second 1976 presidential debate beten