and 1976, president gerald ford to debated his democratic rival top jimmy carter. the debate focused on domestic issues because of a technical difficulty with the audio, there was a 28 minute delay in the middle of the debate. >> good evening i'm edward newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between gerald are four and a republican candidate for president and jimmy carter a

georgia democratic candidate for president. we thank you, president ford and we thank you, governor carter, for being with us tonight. there 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 sixteen years and the first ever in which an incumbent president has participated, is taking place before an audience in the walnut street theater in philadelphia, just three blocks from independence hall. the television 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. >> mister 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. what 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 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 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 construction industry. another thing is to deal with our needs in the central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely high. sometimes among minority groups, or those who don't speaking english or who are black, or young people with 40% unemployment. here a ccc type program would be appropriate to channel money into the 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 kind 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 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 on a where unemployment is very high we must 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. i believe that by the end of the first four years of of the next term we could have the unemployment rate down to 3% adult unemployment, which is about four and a half percent

overall, controlled inflation rate and have a balance of growth at 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. >> 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, 7.9%, that we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. i think this would be easy to accomplish to get jobs down that be necessary. i would not favor the payment of a given fixed income for people unless they are not able

to work. but with tax incentives for the low-income groups we could build build up their income levels above the poverty level and not make welfare more profitable than work. >> mister president your response? >> i don't believe that mr. carter's been any more specific in this case than he has been on many other instances. i noticed 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 i did ten 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 dollars. 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 all talk about on my time. >> mr. gannon, your question to president for. >> mister 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, mister gavin

then 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 28 billion dollar tax reduction. in my tax reduction program for middle-income taxpayers, i recommended that the congress increase personal exemptions from $750 per person to 1000 dollars per person. that would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have $1000 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 here it 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,. 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, power economy will be stimulated so that we'll get more revenue and we'll have a more prosperous economy. >> mister 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 apply and a 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 1000 dollars. 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 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 above about 1500 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, 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. >> miss nerve forward is changing considerably from his previous philosophy. the present tax structure is a disgrace to this country; it's just a welfare program for the rich. as matter of fact, 25 percent of the total tax over 50% of the tax credits go for the richest people in this country. when -- became president in august of 70 for the first thing that he did in october was asked for a 4.7 billion dollar increase in taxes for people in the midst of our heaviest recession, since the great depression of the 1940s.

in january of 1975 u.s. for a tax change. 5.6 million dollar increase in private individuals. a decrease in the corporations and special interests and in december of 1975 he vetoed the roughly 18 to 20 billion a 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'em off on the corporations. as a matter of fact, since the late sixties when mr. >> nixon took office, we've had a reduction in in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30% down to about 20%. we've had an increase in taxes

>> payroll taxes, from 14% to 20%. and this is what the republicans have done to us. >> and this is why a tax reform is so important. mr. newman: mrs. drew, your question to governor carter. mrs. drew: 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 anyany estimates that i've been able to see. so, in that case what would give? mr. carter: well, as a matter of fact there is. if we assume the 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 on a -- unemployment rate down to 4% to 4.5%, under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs, and assuming an increase in the 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. >> drew: governor, according to the budget committees of the congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment what they project, with a project that 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 1981. and conservative estimates of your programs would be that they be about $85 billion to about $100 billion. how do you say that you're going to be able to do these things and balance the budget?

mr. carter: well, the assumption that you have described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy. ms. drew: no, they took that into account in those figures. mr. carter: i believe that it's accurate to say that thethat the committees to whom you refer with the employment rate that you state, and with the five 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 in that framework would defend 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 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. mr. newman: president ford. >> mr. 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 ten 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 ten 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've 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. newman: mr. reynolds. 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 our bicentennial year who resisted in vietnam, and many of them still in exile abroad? mr. ford: 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 14,000 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 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. mr. >> reynolds: i take it then, sir, that you do not believe that that you are going to reconsider and think about those 90,000 who are still abroad. they have not been penalized enough, many of them have been there for years? mr. ford: 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. i don't think we should go any further. mr. newman: governor carter. mr. 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 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 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 draft evaders. i think it's accurate to say that in two years ago when mr. ford put in this amnesty that three times as many deserters excused 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 got a sharp distinction drawn between white-collar crime and 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 were punished.

and the whole subject of crime is one that concerns our people very much, and i believe that the fairness of it isis 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 divisiveness that has occurred in our country as a result of the vietnam war. mr. newman: mr. gannon. 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 to about 200 from some 1900. 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? mr. >> carter: well, i've been through this before, mr. gannon, has the governor of georgia. when i took aver we had a bureaucratic mess, like we have in washington now, and we had 300 agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions, some fully budgeted, some not, but all having responsibility to carry out that was in conflict. and we cut those 300 agencies and so forth down substantially. we eliminated 278 of them. we set up a simple structure of government that could be administered fairly and it was 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 executive branch of government. we now have a greatly expanded white house staff. when mr. nixon went in office, for instance, we have $3.5 million to spend on the white house and its staff here at that is 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 11 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 officials, purposeful and manageable government would be a great step forward and if i'm elected, and i intend to be, then it's going to 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 actually less than it was a year before, which showed a great uh 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

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 begin a new program for your people, like the treatment of drug addicts, i found there were 13 different federal agencies that i had to go to, to manage the uh 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 forward. >> i think the record should show mr. newman, that the bureau of census, we checked it just yesterday, indicates that md 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%. the figures also show that the bonded indebtedness of the state of georgia during his governorship went up over 20%. hey 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 filed 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'vubáq ben 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. >> mister president, at veil 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 very heavy inflation it, 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 reduced, well we have added employment of about 4 million in the last 17 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 cast a billion and a half dollars, doubling our national park system. will 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 three billion five hundred million dollars. 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 sixty additional programs. we estimate that those programs would add 100 dollar hundred billion dollars 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 three-and-one-half 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 were 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 five million people out of work to two and a half million more people out of work and a total of seven and a half million. we've also got a comparison between himself and mr. nixon. he's got four times the size of the deficits of 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 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 uh housing and clothing. we have in this last uh two years alone 120 billion dollar 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 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 - 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 port of mr. ford as a 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 been a nuclear engineer and a 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, uh 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 uh first step. in addition to that, we need to have a realization that we've got uh 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 uh 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 - heavy vacuum maintained. there ought to be a standardized design. there ought to be a full-time uh - atomic energy specialist, independent of the power company in the control room, full time, twenty-four 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 the president like this administration has done, and use atomic energy only as a last resort with the strictest possible safety precautions. that's the best overall energy policy in the brief time we have to discuss it. >> walk governor on that 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 a change in the rate structure of electric power companies. we now encourage people to waste electricity, and by given

the lowest rates to the biggest users. we don't do anything to cut down on peak load requirements. we don't have an adequate requirement for the insulation of homes, for the efficiency of automobiles. and whenever the automobile manufacturers come forward and say they can't meet the amendments that the congress has put forward, this republican administration has delayed the implementation dates. in addition to that, we ought to have a shift toward the use of coal, particularly in the appalachian regions where the coal is located. a lot of very high quality, low-carbon coal, low-sulfur coal is there, it's where our employment is needed. this would help a great deal. so mandatory conservation measures, yes. encouragement by the president for the 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 in washington, for instance, gives lower interest loans for people who adequately insulate their homes or who buy efficient automobiles. and some major manufacturing companies, like dow chemical, have through very effective efficiency mechanism cut down the use of energy by as much as 40% with the same out-product. these kinds of things ought to be done, they ought to be encouraged and supported, and even required by the government. >> president forward. >> governor carter liam 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 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 in year two a billion 200 million tons by 1985. in order to do that we have to improve our extraction of coal from the ground here in it 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 a year to about a hundred and

twenty million dollars 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 insure that our nuclear power plants are safer, that they or 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. gannon. >> mister president, i'd like to return for a moment to this problem of unemployment. you have vetoed or threatened to veto number of job bills passed or in development in the democratic congress, democratic-controlled congress.

yet at the same time the government is paying out, i think it is $17 billion, 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 vetoed, the one for an additional six billion dollars, was not a bill that would have solved our unemployment problems. even the proponents of it admitted that no more than four 400,000 jobs would be made available. our analysis indicates that something in the magnitude of about one hundred fifty to two hundred thousand jobs would be made available. each one of those jobs would've cost the taxpayers $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 four million jobs in the last seventeen 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 a good job, an affirmative job in inflation and as a result have added to the jobs in this country. i think it's also appropriate to point out that through our tax policies we have stimulated added employment throughout the country, the investment tax credit, the tax incentives for expansion and modernization of our industrial capacity. it's my opinion that the private sector, where five out of 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 a follow-up, mister 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, whether you would consider allowing this program to be funded, or will you veto that money bill? >> well 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 four billion dollars that would add to the deficit which would add to the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy jobs in the private sector, not make jobs, where the jobs really our. these make-work, temporary jobs, dead end as they are, 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 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 $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, while we have two and a half million more people out of work than were when he took office, that this touches human beings. i was in a city in pennsylvania not too long ago, near here, and there were about four or five thousand people in the audience, it was on a train trip. and i said, "how many adults here are out of work? " about a thousand raised their hands. mr. ford actually has fewer people now in the private sector in non-farm jobs than when he took office. and still he talks about success. 7.9% unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country. he says he's learned how to

match unemployment with inflation. that's right. we've got the highest inflation we've had in 25 here is right now, except under this administration, and that was 50 years ago. and we've got the highest unemployment we've 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 with his vetoes. there's only been a net savings 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 got a 6% unemployment rate, or 7% unemployment rate and a 6% inflation. it's a travesty.

it shows a lack of leadership. and we've never had a president since the war between the states that vetoed more bills. mr. ford is vetoed for times as many bills as mr. nixon per year. and 11 of them have been overridden. one of his bills that was overridden. he only got one vote in the senate and seven votes in the house, from republicans. >> governor carter so this shows a breakdown, under the rules i must stop you there. misses you. >> governor carter, i'd like to come back to the subject of taxes. you have said that you want to cut taxes for the middle and lower income peter groups. , mr. carter tv tv but alas

your tv willing to do such things as 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 gonna provide that 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 area. 5% of them go to the 1% of the richest people in this country. over and we've had a 50% increase in payroll deductions since mr. nixon went in office eight years ago. mr ford has has advocated since he's been in office over $5 billion in reductions for corporations. special interest groups and very wealthy to drive their income not from labor but from investments. coming back with that millions in creating a shoe factory. they don't pay their taxes pay

their taxes for them kind of coming back with million dollars from the sheer, factory say in new hampshire vermont you take that money to italy and build a shoe factory there and you have to pay any taxes on the money. this was encouraged experts, permits accompany to create a budding corporation, to export their products and then not to pay the full amount of tax. that cost our government about 1.4 billion dollars a year, and without that the corporations don't pay tax and the average taxpayer pays forward. another is the business the directions. jet airplanes. first class trouble. the 15 dollar lunch. the average working person

can't take advantage of that, but the wealthier people can. another system is where a dentist can invest money, in say, raising cattle and can put 150,000 dollars of his own money or 900,000 dollars. it makes 1 million. and mark off a great amount of loss through that procedure. there was one example for instance when someone is watching british pornographic videos. they put in -- of their own money they got 120,000 dollars of tech savings. the special tax programs have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefited those who are powerful. and you can have a lobbyist and cpas and lawyers to help them benefit. 8000 pages of the tax code, the average american can't have a

lobbyist out of the unemployment checks. >> governor to follow up on your answer. in order for any kind of tax relief to really be felt by the literal lower income people you need about ten billion dollars. you listed some things. the deferral for income is estimated i would say 500 million dollars. this you said was 1.4 billion. that estimate on the outside if you are limited all tax shelters. five billion. where else would you raise the revenue -- all business deductions and what other kinds of preferences what you do away with? >> i wouldn't do away with all business deductions. i think there would be a very serious mistake. but if you could just do away with the ones that are on -- you could lower taxes for everyone. i would never do anything that could increase taxes for those who work for 11. horrific star income. what i want to do is not to

raise taxes but to eliminate loopholes. this is the point of the first district that i gave you that the president tax benefits has been carved out of 50 years the tax referrals for overseas and the tax shelters, they only applied to people in the 50,000 dollar year bracket or up. the best way to approach it is to make sure that everybody pays taxes on the income that they are in. and make sure that you take whatever savings there is from it, from the high income levels and give it to the lower income families. >> president ford. >> the governor's prior answer tonight doesn't call aside the answer that he gave to the 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 bracket or higher. you take the medium or -- 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 8000 dollars to roughly 35 or 40,000 dollars. they have been short changed as we have taken 10 million taxpayers off the tax rolls over the last eight years, and as we have added to the minimum tax provisions to make all

people pay more taxes. i believe in tax equity for the middle income taxpayer increasing in the exemption, mr. carter wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the people in the country. the governor has also played fast and loose with facts around vetoes. the facts show that president roosevelt vetoed 50,000 a year. president nixon vetoed when he was president about 38 pills a year. i understand -- my average into years is 26. but in the process of that we have saved nine billion dollars. one final comment governor carter talks about the tax bills and all the current inequities that exist in the present law. i must remind him that the

democrats have control the congress for the last 22 years, and they wrote all the tax bills. >> mr.. reynolds i suspect that we could continue on this tech spokesman for some time but i would like to move on to another area. mister president, everybody seems to be running against washington this year. i would like to raise too coincidental to events and ask if you would think this have a bearing on that attitude of the country. the house ethics committee has just ended its investigation of daniel sure after several months and many thousands of dollars. trying to find out how he obtained the cause to be published, report of the congress that's probably the property of the american people. at the same time the senate select people on standards and conduct has voted not really begin an investigation on the united states senator because of allegations against him, that he may have been receiving corporate funds illegally over

the period of years. do you suppose sir that evidence like this contribute to the feeling of the country that maybe there is something wrong with washington? and i don't mean just in the executive branch but throughout the whole government. >> there is a considerable anti-washington feeling for the country. but i think the feeling is misplaced. and the last two years we have restored integrity in the white house. and we've set high standards in the executive branch of the government. the anti washington feeling in my opinion 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 house keeping, its expenses, and the like. the next congress will probably be the next 30 billion congress

and then updates. i don't think the american people are getting their money's worth from the majority that are running the congress. we are seeing that in the last four years, the number of employees hired by the congress has gone up substantially. much more than the gross national product. much more than any other increase to our society. congress is hiring people by the droves. the cost as a result has gone up. i don't see any improvement in the performance of the congress under the present leadership. it seems to me instead of the anti washington feeling being aimed at everyone in washington, it seems to me that the focus should be the congress of the united states and particularly the majority in congress.

they spent too much money on themselves. they've too many employees. there's some question about their virility. 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 vote for the members of the house of representatives, or for the united states senator. that's where the problem is. i hope there will be some corrected action taken so we can get some new leadership in the congress of the united states. >> mister president,, if i meet follow-up i think you made a plan that you have a dim view of the majority in congress. isn't it quite likely so that you can't 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 that congress? or whether we will have continued confrontation? >> it seems to me that we have a chance as republicans to get a majority in the house of

representatives. we will make some gains in the united states senate. there will be different ratios in the house as well as in the senate, and as president i will be able to work with congress. but let me take the other side of the coin if i might. supposing we had had at democratic congress for the past two years, and we had governor carter as president, he has in a fact said that he will agree, he would disapprove of the videos that i made, and would have added significantly to the expenditures in the deficit of the federal government. i think it would be contrary to one of the basic concepts and our system of government. system of checks and balances. we have a democratic congress today, and fortunately we've had a republican government to

check their successes with my vetoes. if you have a democratic congress next year and a president who wants to spend an additional 100 million dollars a year, or maybe 200 billion dollars a year with more programs, we will have in my judgment greater deficits with more spending, more dangerous of inflation. i think the american people want to republican president to check on any excesses that come out of the next congress if it's a democratic congress. >> governor connor. >> it's not a matter of republican or democratic leadership, it's a question of leadership. even president nixon because he was at least a strong leader who worked with it -- as mr. nixon. he often put forward a program, this is a public relations

stunt and never tried to put it through congress by working with the congress. nixon and eisenhower passed about 60 to 75% of legislation. this year mr. ford rolled past more than 26% of all the legislative proposal put forward. this is governed by stalemate and we've seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper relationship between the president who represents his country, and a congress who also collectively represent the country. we have had republican presidents before, who've run into democratic congress. i don't think the congress -- their opponent. but if he insists that i be responsible for the democratic congress of which i'm not apart then i say that he should be responsible for the next administration in his entirety which he wasn't involved. in a present ought to lead this

country. mr. forward so far as i know it aside from avoiding another watergate hasn't 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 of a thing that mr. ford is so misquoted. i'm a pea new story that was >> that correction was delivered to the white house but he still insists on delivering an erroneous statement. we still have not enough >> >> president ford government carter we no longer have enough time for to complete sequences of questions we have only about six minutes left for questions and answers. for that reason we will drop

the follow up questions at this point on 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 we haven't talked about is the federal reserve board. i'd like to ask you something about what you stand and that is the day you believe that a president ought to have a chairman. federal reserve board whose views are compatible with his own. based on the record of the last few years. would you say that your views are compatible with those of chairman are the burns. and if not. would you seek his resignation if you are elected? >> what i have said is that the president to have a chance to appoint the chairman of the federal reserve board to have a coterminous on terms of us both some sort of the same for 4 years. the congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income tax laws. the president can modify the economic structure of a country about public statements and general attitude in the budget that he proposes.

the federal reserve has an independent status it hey ought to be preserved. i think mr burns did take a typical erroneous republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so high. who's because of excessive demand and therefore put into effect type constraint on the economy very high interest rates which is typical also of republican administration. try to increase the tax payments by individuals. cut the tax payments by corporations. i would've done an opposite. i think the problem should have been addressed by increasing productivity by having put put people back to work so they could purchase more goods. low income taxes on individuals. perhaps raise them if if necessary on corporations. but mr. burns in that respect made a very serious mistake. i would not want to destroy the independence of the federal reserve board. i think we are to have a cohesive economic poluicy with at least a chairman of the federal reserve board and the

presidents terms being the same. and on the congress course deserves entities with independents subject to the present. >> president ford your response. >> chairman of the federal reserve board should be independent. fortunately he has been during democratic as well as republican administrations. as a result in the last two years, we have had a responsible, monetary policy of the federal reserve board. indicated that the supply of money would be held between four and a half and seven and 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 the non political and separate from the executive and the legislative branch. new >>. >> real laws governing them such >> mr president. the real problem with the f.b.i. in fact. all of the intelligence >> agencies is there are no real laws governing them such laws and there are tend to be open ended. now you have this huge in the executive orders that we've learned that leaving these agency to executive. discretion in direction. can get them and in fact the country in the 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 thirty here is who has reorganized the intelligence agencies in the federal government.

day the cia, the defense intelligence agency. and the national security agency in the others. we've done that by executive order. and i think we've tightened it up. we've 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 you're familiar with this legislation that would make it very proper in the right way that the attorney general could go in i get the right for wire topping 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 says not respond. 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 and george bush. we have got executive orders. and the cia in the d.i.m.a. and nasa. are the n.s.a. 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 it's continued. up until now is a breakdown in the trust among our people and the [no >> audio] the

broadcasters have temporary lost their audio it's not a conspiracy. this debate is now within about eight minutes of its close and in spite of the fact that this was one of the officers among. 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. (silence) 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, we do not know what has happened to it. both candidates have lost more or less an 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 think they're stop 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.

i might say a word here that i'd planned to say later when the debate was over. and in fact probably will say it again when the debate is over. and it is that at 11:30 eastern time which is to say to 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 ready 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 with that whatever happens to the audio from the theater at this time and again i don't know what's

happened except that we're not getting it nobody is getting. it's the same on. it's the same everywhere so you needn't change channels looking for it. it's the same on all of them. it's still out right. doug conquer is out. where is doug. he is in the lobby just outside of of the hall. doug you can tell us what has happened there. can you. >> david we don't know what happened. we're as much surprised by what's going on as you are. they were talking and suddenly they quit we all jumped up out here to is you know. this was a pool arrangement. one network responsible so all we're doing is standing by just the way you are we expected. the debates to go on of course immediately that audiologists uhm but what the problem is how long it's going to take pics.

whether the debate will have to be cancel not we just don't know we're isolated in the car here. and the problem is even not in the theater the problem is you know is in the technical trucks and out of lay outside the auditorium. it's a technical problem. as someone said, it is not a conspiracy but how long is going to take to fix it we just don't know. >> you don't have a screwdriver a pair of pliers on you. >> i do not david no. >> well we've seen. 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 pretty much as saying the same thing that they have been saying in the early parts of these campaigns. making pretty much the same charges but very tough tough or sometimes even rough tonight both heavy on their facts to back up a arguments as. we knew of governor carter intended to come here to convince the american public

that he really did know the facts and had the knowledge. president ford of course is fact bill from the knowledge of his office. president ford has strongly defended his economic policies. in these debates tonight he has pointed to the fact that the improved economy is proof of that wisdom. he did this very costly. mr carter came back disputed this and in one of the tough tough. segments charge the present. insensitive to the plight of the unemployed. now excuse me do we have audio back? we still do not have audio back. >> both candidates are waiting. they have been told that they're on the air with a picture. but they are off the air with their voices.

to go on tax reform president ford announced tonight that he will sign that new tax bill all fifteen hundred pages. even though he said he was dissatisfied with some preventing the provisions that were in it. mr. carter called it at the top structure that is a welfare program for the rich and the -- mr. carter also talked about the new federal social programs. carter said that he would install the federal programs that he had promised but should it come down to it a choice between those programs being innovated 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 length their plans to curb unemployment. mr carter said that 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 in the democratic platform were

adopted it would create sixty new programs which he said would cost one hundred to $200 billion more. mr. carter immediately responded by saying that richard nixon said the same thing about programs proposed by the democrats sixteen years ago and 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 cross the board pardons. he said he believed that the amnesty program which he put was adequate and that he would not change it. and mr carter said that he still would grant pardon and he insisted that there is a difference between pardons and amnesty. the men talked about government reorganization at some late. well jimmy carter as he has so often done. this whole election year. promised forcefully that he would completely reorganize the federal government if he's elected and waste no time about it. president ford countered that

by saying 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 increase the number of state employees where he was. they're also founded the medicaid program in georgia was a sample. as far as the democratic congress is concerned they turn to the democratic congress wasn't working with him. jimmy carter said that other democratic congress is has found it feasible to work with other meat democratic congress is -- he's just for all of his faults, i can't remember his exact words but with a strong leader and managed to work with democratic leaders and opposed for a few vetoes that president ford had imposed.

then he became tough with president forward. he said i'm not a member of congress. he says the democratic congress is not under my control. he said if you clinton blame me for, that you can blame me for watergate. also we've just stepped out ronald who is the presidential secretary. he's talking now so we're listening to what's going on in there. >> i don't know any more about it than you do. i guess they were down to the last few minutes. and the sound suddenly cut out but i don't know what the explanation is. so what will happen now? >> will the debates continue? >> i don't now. we were listening up stairs on the monitor and. newman wasn't clear what was going to happen either. >> you have no contingency plan. >> i think you are supposed to be the one with the contingency plan. i guess the president will wait and let those putting on the debates decide what to do. >> well you're sitting in there with some members of presidents

administration. the secretary of transportation coleman best of united nations, mr hartman the speech writer. what's your impression how do you think your guy's doing so far. >> well we think we talk. we had little time to talk. after the sound went off. and we sort of polled each other and everybody came to the same conclusion and that is that it was a clear cut victory for the president. >> well i don't think in about to be surprised to hear being partisan you're saying that is this debate. tougher in your opinion than you thought it would be some pretty tough exchanges in there it seems to us. >> well i thought the president came across 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 and saying to me. had the opportunity through the tough questions to demonstrate experience. his background, his knowledge,

and his ability. >> well the same thing i think also could be said for governor carter at least he was putting a lot of facts and figures we didn't we haven't had all of these debates yet mr nelson at least we haven't had the completion of this one, and how much time did we get cut out on twelve fifteen minutes. do you think that some provision could be made for the viewing public to hear what's over what's. what was left out. >> well the president said from the very beginning again the reason that he wanted to do the debates in the first place. and the reason he wanted them to be done a great length ninety minutes at a minimum. was because i felt the time was needed to explore issues in depth. and i think they were explored in depth. >> and i thank you very much as his press secretary ronald, that's not all the just all the other side to the left is a man who i think will say that he thinks that jimmy carter was as clear a winner. as mr nestor thinks mr forward was and that is the democratic party 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 great afternoon carter either a man with the nervous or realty.

no i don't think either of them felt nervous or ill at ease. both of their questions were relevant. i think they both handled questions. well i thought that governor carter looked at the contrary, they both deal with questions. well i think governor carter clearly demonstrated what he wanted to demonstrate, an ability to deal with issues facing this country. thank you very much. you calling winners and losers roberts trials you've obviously saying that you think jimmy carter won this debate. >> when i said this i don't ever tuners and american public wondered why they got chance to see this to see these two men. >> i understand we're back with the debates you have the roberts trial scholars got back to the auditorium for present for this car. thank you for the kind words. thank you for the kind words.

we are watching. we thought we had it but we don't. we still don't know what's wrong. we thought we would have it but by now but we don't. that will wonder if they'll continue the debates long enough to make up for the lost time. we will all learn what we all learned together. i don't know anything. the president and mr. carter. president and mr. carter are we doing well whatever is, wrong whatever it is, it's not an hour audio if you heard, it's coming from the restroom over there. we don't know the problem is. but they are waiting.

>> we're getting a lot of miscellaneous conversation from the various places in the hall, john but not the conversation that we want there to listen to, which was president mr. carter of course. it was but you have, heard it pretty lively debate. each one landing a few blows on one another. although i don't think anyone was criminally disabled, politically speaking. much of the argument was about what new programs could be put into effect. in the federal establishment in

the next presidential term over the next four years. what they will cost? how they will be paid for. who will do the taxpaying over the next four years, whether the return to pay it all. the return of pit. all i must say, without offering any opinion about winners or losers i must say that question wasn't fully answered. perhaps some of the audience could be left unsatisfied on that score. one question that was dealt with very firmly and decisively and clearly was on drafters and military disorders. ford thought that governments shouldn't go any further than is already gone in his administration, russ corner thanks it shed. his point was if nixon could be portend wind up the evaders. it would give folks a chance to

work their way back into american society. some did and some didn't. doug is outside the theater, and can still be heard from the participants inside cannot. the. >> we're here with jim baker who's ford's presidential campaign manager. let me ask you. this did things go according to game plan tonight? tell me how hard the president steadied, was he nervous when he was up there? how could he talked to 130 million people confidently? >> i talked to the president last night and he was very relaxed and self assured. looking at him as the first one on the stage it would be my judgment that he was quite relaxed and quite confident, and quite self assured. >> with the team is the process tonight? >> he was divisive and more

than anything, he estes pacific. you give him specifics. >> tell us about the president operation. -- there is a game plan way? >> there was some of. that he worked hard. he worked on his preparation and he was well prepared. sure there was some of that. >> in the preparation, the questions that you tried to brainstorm did any come up? >> yes there were some of that i think we anticipated. yes. >> what do you think forward, jimmy carter of course is ahead in the polls but what do you think that the forward -- and democrat it wasn't all that well known. >> yes that's true, jimmy carter wasn't well-known and his position on the issues we've unless no and that's one of the reasons why we wanted to

have this debate. -- the presidents positions are well-known. >> we have a man here,, jody powell. if you don't mind. us both. this is jimmy curtis press secretary, powell, was about to go on the air with cbs but since we are doing this thing altogether i will ask you how do you think you minted today? >> i think the wheel winners where the american people. we had a good discussion. and the governor carter was very impressive. he demonstrated clear command on the issues of the civics. he was involved in the discussion. i guess in the debate between president forward and the democratic congress since congress wasn't there, president forward one in the debate with the two presidential contenders there's no doubt in my mind that there is a great vantage in terms of dealing with the issues that interest him.

>> he was pretty tough with present for. he said that he was insensitive with the problems of the unemployed. he said that the president blamed him with the democratic congressman that he ought to be blamed for watergate. >> he said that if that unjust charges made that he was missed both will all -- a bit of a tongue and cheek taking responsibility for the premise administration. >> how do you think these debates compared to 1960? do you think that they were as interesting or decisive? >> there's no way in the world that i can compare these debates to 1960, i was a junior in high school when the jimmy kennedy debates took place. i don't think elections are decided on in one night. if the election --

>> could you give me a quick assessment of how you candidate? did >> i think he did very. well he showed excellent command of the details of the federal government. i think he made a point directly the comparison between the republican rhetoric and their record in the white house, very directly. some very happy. >> thank you very. much >> mister powell, he says he doesn't know what one done. you know went why the wakes went off? i don't but i would certainly like to. no -- i would certainly like to, now i summits a technical problem, it's sometimes have an. 's >> i asked because -- there was a conspiracy couldn't move, and it was simply a technical issue. >> not as far as i know. >> i think perhaps it shows

that everyone makes mistakes every now and then. >> let me ask you this. how much consultation did you have and other senior staff have with jimmy courage or in preparation for the debates? was he anxious about? it was he nervous and apprehensive? i know you can to say he was cool as a cucumber. okay. tell us what he did. what did he do the hour before he came? >> i don't. no him and mrs. carter or -- i didn't bother them and neither did anybody. else he said it two or three days of rest, he was cool and as a cucumber by his performance tonight. what guy and he's primarily attempt himself. we had engaged in rehearsal. we have been that a lot of

fancy gimmicks. we've given him time to do us he wish. primarily to, study read, and think. i think that paid off this. evening >> a lot has been -- jimmy carter's campaign is losing steam. the play boy, article the illinois pool that shows ford running ahead. and the general feeling that his champion may be losing a little steam. >> fortunately for most campaigns that election is held by people,, not on the day today camp opinions of whoever covering the campaign. we run a very aggressive an act of campaign. -- cross examinations four and five times a day for the past 18 months. in those are comes, chances there's no way that you can see a truce of from any enters inward here there. we think that in the long run the american people want to

have a candidate and president who goes out and meets them, and takes the hard knocks and the tough questions and answers them as responsible and directly as you can. even though you might with the mistake here and then. >> the steady, powell prosecutor for governor carter. i take you back to david brinkley. >> i gather the debate is over. is that right? >> the lead of women voters decided not to go ahead with any more debate. it's no 11:15 on the east and it was scheduled to and 15 minutes ago but ended half an hour ago because of some sailed failure into the hole. we don't know at the moment what happened or why or exactly where. as i have, said our sound from the lobby of the theater and the east side of the theater has been normal and still is the problem is somewhere into the hall or on or outside the podium. not a great deal. so again the debate is over.

that's it. we've had discussion on it. we've heard from some prominent democrats and republicans each who thought their side one and give his reasons why. our plan is to return to the air in about a half hour, for a somewhat more extensive schmidt -- we will be back later, and in the meantime catherine bacchus is talking to mrs. carter. catherine. >> mrs., cutter we were wondering we've been following the sudden break up in the debate and do you think that this will have any effect at all on what's going on? are you ready with waves there? >> i certainly think if we could've done anything about it -- [inaudible] >> do you have any idea at all what he's going to say? >> i've been campaigning all

day. i got in late and looked at it. i glanced at it. >> while you've been campaigning have you noticed whether the magazine is having any effect on the president's campaign? >> now if you haven't heard anything about it -- it was just a [inaudible] completely out of context i think that everybody in the country is going to -- end when they do they're gonna see that jimmy this for christian religion, to people who couldn't understand what christianity. is anne >> when you're speaking with mrs. johnston's afternoon did you are on things that with her but what you said about president trump's? >> mrs. johnston met me when i flew in yesterday and i knew she received fdr. [inaudible] >> thanks very much mrs. jimmy. carter mae back to david. >> we are told the debate has

ended on the other hand present ford and kurt are still on the roster waiting. what do we know about the breakdown in the sound is that it somewhere between the microphones you see clipped to their neck ties, and the network truck outside the hall. beyond, that i can't go because i can't go. i don't think that anybody knows if we did -- we don't know whether they, i keep telling him what i don't know which is great deal. we don't know if they're gonna continue the debate, and wait for the sound to be fixed. ed newman is telling me something nobody doubt interesting but i have the faintest idea what it is because i can't hear it. >> it occurred 27 minutes ago, and the fault has been dealt with.

we want to thank president forward and governor carter for being so patient, and understanding while this delay went on. we very much regret technical failure the law sound as it was leaving this the other. it occurred during governor carter's response to what would have been and was the last question flew to the candidates. the question to present forward. dealt with a intelligence government agencies, governor carter was making his response admit very nearly finished. it he will conclude that response now after which governor forward and -- will make closing statements. >> there has been too much government secrecy, and not enough respect for the personal privacy of american citizens. >> it's now time for the closing statements which are to

be up to four minutes long. governor carter by the same toss of a coin that directed the first question to you, you are to go first now. >> 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 have been divided as never before. it's a time for unity. it's a time to talk together and have a president in congress who can work together for mutual respect for change, cooperative change and change so that people can understand their own government. it's time for government, industry, labor, other industries and our government cooperate. it's time for our government to understand how to cooperate with our people. >> for a long time, american citizens have been excluded. sometimes, misled sometimes

lied. to this isn't compatible with approach of our nation. i believe in our country. it needs to be competent, the government needs to be, economic efficient, economical. we need to have a government that sensitive peoples needs and people who are poor and don't have adequate health care, who've been cheated for too long,, tax programs, whose families have been torn apart. the trust of the american people in their own government. in addition to that we've suffered because we had a relationship and the government. we've got a government who stalemate. we've lost a vision of what our country can't and ought to be. this isn't 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 clinton know the answers but i've got confidence i'm not going to -- our economic strength is still there. our system of government better

in cambodia,, saying what a great. the greatest resource of all are the 215 million americans still have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, patriotism, the sense of brotherhood, only with which we can align the future to restore the country to greatness. we are not to be excluded from our government. we need a president who can go, in who derives his strength of the people. our special interest nothing. our desire for with we can work together -- . i believe that we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of any strength in this country. and we can once again have a

government as good as before. and let the world know what we still know and hope for. that we still live in the greatest and strongest and 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 distressed. a president should never promise more than he can deliver. and a president should always deliver everything that he is promised. the president cannot be of things to all people. the 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 corridor has embraced the record of the present congress dominated by his political party. it calls for more of the same. governor corridor in his exception speech call for more and more programs, which means more and more government. i think the real issue in this campaign that which you must decide on november 2nd, is whether you should vote for his promises or my performance in two years in the white house. on the 4th of july we had one tearful 200 birthday -- it was a suburb occasion.

it was a glorious day. in the first century of our nation's history hour for father 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 i worked hundred 15 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 beginning to give us everything we want, is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. the individual worker the plants third out of the united states shouldn't be cobb in the big machine. the member of the labor union must have his right strengthen and broadened. and our children in education should have an opportunity to prove themselves based on their talent 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 forward. thank you president carter. thanks also to the questionnaires and the audience and the theater. we much regret the technical failure that created the 28th delay in the broadcast of the debate. i agree agree that it doesn't to track from the effectiveness of the debate towards fairness.

the next presidential debate is to take place on wednesday, october six in san francisco at 9:30 pm eastern daytime. the topics ought to be foreign and defense issues. as with all three debates between the presidential candidates and one between vice presidential candidates it's being arranged by the league of women voters fund to promote wider participation of the american people in the election in november. now from the walnut street theater in philadelphia, goodnight. weeknights this month an american tv history were looking at past presidential debates. tuesday night we look at the presidential debates of 1980

1980. four will show the only debate from 1980 between incumbent president jimmy carter and former governor ronald reagan the top military spending, inflation, inner cities, and iran hostage crisis. then from 1980 for the second didn't final debate between reagan and vice president wrong, gayle watched tuesday night starting at 10 pm eastern and enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on c-span 3.

the second 1976 presidential debate between gerald ford and jimmy carter focused on foreign and military issues. the debate is best remembered for preston for the statement that quote there is no soviet domination of eastern europe. >> good evening, i'm paula frederick of empire. moderator of the second of historic debates of the 1976 campaign between gerald ford of michigan republican candidate for president and jimmy carter for president -- thank you governor forward and governor credit for being with us tonight. this debate takes place before a audience in the palace of fine arts theater in