Voter's Voice Forum with Richard Lugar
This Voter's Voice Forum took place November 5th in Durham. The New
Hampshire Voter's Voice Project is sponsored by Associated Press, The
Nashua Telegraph, New Hampshire Public Radio, and New Hampshire Public
Television. Voter's Voice invites candidates to discuss issues with, and
answer questions from, a panel of New Hampshire citizens. The moderator
for this forum was Professor Mari Boor Tonn of the University of New
Hampshire Dept. of Communication. The Forum was recorded by New
Hampshire Public Radio, and transcribed by Catherine Ryan of the NH
Primary internet project.
Voters Voice -- Richard Lugar
November 5, 1995
Moderator: What I want to do before we begin is to introduce
everyone here. And what we're asking for you to do is to tell us
your name, um your occupation, your residence where you live and
your age. And so Ruth I think you're a veteran of this so we'll
start with you.
Ruth: Thank you. My name is Ruth Stimpson. I'm a retired
cooperative extension home economist. I have been with the
University. I live in Hampton, New Hampshire and I'm 75.
Barb: My name is Barb Rumler. I am 53 years old. I have
recently returned to the University to complete an education.
I've had a career in real estate of about 20 years, appraising,
selling, etc. And now I'm a journalism student here at UNH.
Joan: Hello Senator, I'm Joan Henson. Ah I live in Exeter; I've
been there 11 years. But I was born in Portsmouth so ah seacoast
is home. Ah I'm 54 years old and I have four grown children. So
I feel that I'm representing me and my generation and the next
one.
Martin: How do you do. Martin Zivik, I'm an electrical engineer
fity-seven years old and I'm from Rye, New Hampshire.
Hi I'm a junior at the University of New Hampshire. I'm a
political Science major. I live in Stratham, New Hampshire. I
graduated from Exeter High School and I chair the student senate
council for ah government relations and political affairs at the
University.
Jim: I'm Jim D'Avoulos, live in Kingston, 48, test technician,
registered Democrat.
[Laughter]
Sen. Lugar: Some diversity.
Panelist: That's right.
John: I'm John Henson, I'm a plant manager. I'm 58. I live in
Exeter, New Hampshire. 56 rather.
Moderator: Ah as we are going to proceed today we are going to
take a break about half way through. So I'll be watching the
clock. We'll take a short intermission and can go get popcorn, I
guess, or whatever we do at intermission. And then we'll come
back. We'll be meeting today for about 90 minutes. So who would
like to begin, first question? Okay, Martin?
Martin: Uhm, it was about a week and a half after you were on, I
guess you were on McNeil Leher , interviewed by Margaret Warner.
They had also an interview with the ah President of China, I
think he was here for the U.N. celebration. And he talked about
something that I would like you to comment because of your
foreign relations background and how you see this. Because this
guy sounded to me like he was gonna take over Taiwan and it was
like we we'd appreciate if you guys would step out of the way and
let us do it. We we prefer to do it politically but we're gonna
do it by military means if necessary. And we don't want inter
any interference from anybody else. And since I've heard nothing
of this on, you know, other people talking about it, first of all
what background you have, of you know, what do you know about the
background of this problem. And then what are the options that
you would explore, okay?
Lugar: Background in the long way is the Shanghai communicae
which initiated about 20 years ago. The United States and China
agreed there is one China and Taiwan is part of that China. Uh
the Chinese, at this point, are trying to get us to reiterate
that that's the way we still feel and that that is still our
policy because given the um visits by the Taiwanese President to
his class reunion in Cornell this year, uh the Chinese say we
were mislead. We believe Secretary Christopher said he would not
be coming. And then the Congress had a resolution, the president
apparently caved, he came. Uh he had an unofficial visit. But
for the Chinese the question's very serious. Ah they're saying
it's a question of sovereignty, it is a question of communicae
and where you are. And and to reinforce that they had some
missile firings in the general direction to sort of indicate that
they were there and they're fully capable of military action.
Now I, I interpreted the statements that you heard as being an
attempt by the Chinese to once again uh enforce upon our minds
that this is serious business not to be tampered with. As
opposed to a declaration of war, or a promise that within "X"
number of months they are going to get there. They are worried
secondarily about the Taiwanese elections; they're going to elect
a president ah and President Lee is subject to reelection, same
man that came over here to Cornell. And democracy is moving
ahead there. And one can say it's sort of flourishing, given a
slow start really moving strongly.
So the Chinese, also noting changes in Hong Kong that are going
to come about, Democratic stirrings there, the council elections,
are concerned about all of this. And and they are making that
known too, that ah Taiwan should not get to far out of step with
the mainland. There's still one China as they see it.
Moderator: Does any one else have a foreign relations question
since Martin started with foreign relations?
Question: I'd like to ask the Senator you think the United
States' position should be in relationship to the Panama Canal?
Lugar: For the moment, our mission is to wind up affairs in
Panama and to move our military authorities and for that matter
most of the civil authorities out of the way so that the
Panamanians can fulfill the treaty which is to take control of
the canal. Ironically, as that day approaches, the Panamanians
are more and more skittish as to whether that is a very good
idea. And and they're saying perhaps we could talk about this,
because, in essence, it's an aging facility, a lot of repair work
and maintenance, just the technical aspects in making that asset
work for Panama are very serious.
And the American presence is important in terms of money. All
the military people there as well as civilian Americans there
contribute an enormous amount to the Panamanian economy.
So uh I'm not certain how this is going to work out. At at the
one level of officialdom in Panama, there is serious talk about
asking the Americans to stay for a while. At other levels, there
are Panamanians who say the American presence has not been good
for us historically, don't get any ideas about staying. We want
to see that fulfilled and and so a debate ensues on in Panama as
to what their presentation ought to be to us. Ah I I think as a
matter of fact, we are going to fulfill the treaty. And we will
be leaving in most ways. But there could be some accommodations
simply because our shipping, the shipping of the world going
through that passage is important. Pragmatically, we want to
make certain the locks work, that the maintenance and engineering
occurs and that's going to take some doing, quite apart from the
doctrinaire, ideological disputes.
Question: Senator, I would like to tie in foreign relations and
and and what's going on here in this country.
Sen. Lugar: Yes.
Question continued: Um namely violence, that we've just lost
another major figure, the death of the Prime Minister Rabin and
ah it's almost getting commonplace to lose the head of a country
and and you as a candidate, this must be very sobering for you.
We're living in very violent times. What is your approach to
violence in this in this country.
Sen. Lugar: My approach would be the same as each one of you and
common sense. And that is we must try to diminish violence. We
do so first of all basically by good police work, good work at
the local sheriff's level. Good work in the courts, so there is
predictability of seizure of persons, a proper trial,
incarceration. Certainly we understand as citizens that we take
that seriously.
I think beyond that we really have to talk in America about the
importance of democracy and democratic resolution of problems.
Ah this is a new problem in Israel because after 48 some years of
the state, they've had a democracy and they've not had a serious
attempt upon a political leader. It is a terribly shocking
situation. In the Middle East there are attempts all the time on
leadership, but this is because frequently people have
rationalized in a dictatorship, the only way to have a change of
policy was the assassination of the leader. That is not true in
a democracy. I think we've got to underline that point. There
are groups of people in our country who are are saying, "That
things are so desperate that government at whatever level local,
state and federal is oppressive. And and therefore we have to
take up arms and we have to reserve the right to somehow solve
this by violence if we get an idea of doing that."
We better try to disabuse people of those ideas because some
persons have become mentally unstable or totally fanatical
believing they've heard the word of God or some other word ah act
upon it. That was the part of the case with this 27 year old
legal student who assas apparently assassinated the Prime
Minister last night, thought he heard a special word. And that
kind of tradition of solution by violence is terribly dangerous.
Moderator: Let let me ask you what you mean by predictability of
incarceration, you mentioned that early.
Sen. Lugar: Predictability, by that I mean simply that
statistics now indicate that the chances first of all finding a
perpetrator of a crime, successfully prosecuting the person, and
then successfully putting the person away in prison are a very
small percentage of the number of crimes committed. Uh so there
is a lower and lower confidence level on how well the judicial
criminal justice system works. And there are all sorts of
reasons for this, but its something we have to be concerned
about, because if people do not believe that through the regular
means that they have safety, there is an inclination to
rationalize, there's never justify but to rationalize ah somehow
justice in some other form. Uh you know in other societies
where you do not have a regular judicial system people have
handled criminal activity all sorts of ways, there's tribal
warfare or clans or retribution or what have you, totally
unsatisfactory but very violent and that is anticipated in most
societies, it is not anticipated in ours and it must not be.
There has to be confidence in the criminal justice system.
Moderator: So do you have specific ideas in mind in terms of
reforms?
Lugar: My my reforms are simply very basic from my experience.
I was mayor of a large city for eight years ah during a very
tough period, 1968 to 1975, the problem of crime and police is
not new to me, or the civil disorder, potential of riots and
difficulty. What I noticed, to begin with, was we had only 850
policemen in Indianapolis, 1100 authorized, and we didn't have
very many volunteers. Now I had a problem first of all
recruiting people to be policemen, then of beefing up the
requirements so that they went to graduate school at our IU
extension there. Begin to get a sense of civil rights, how to
handle a case, how to handle evidence in in ah changing society.
Civil rights revolution started in Indianapolis in that period of
time. And then the problem was to make sure that we were working
with the prosecutor's office, separate office, with, that good
citizens were standing for election to judges, all these judges
were elected. Some appoint higher levels, but not local levels.
All of this was tremendously important to bring about confidence
and to have a significant reduction in the crime rate which I
believe comes with predictability of of how things work and and,
in addition, of course, you need a lot of good luck. I I think
that is only part of this process if you're an elected official
and you are asking people to do tremendously different things to
upgrade systems and to make very large changes as we were in
uniting the city and the county sort of a basic reformation of
government.
Question: Predictability, I presume you mean they are going to be
sentenced, they are going to spend some time as guests of the
state or federal government.
Sen. Lugar: Right.
Question cont': Where does the money come from to build the
prisons?
Lugar: Well the federal government in the crime bill has said a
lot of it is going to come from the federal government and as a
result there has been a showering down of funds, primarily state
governments for a prison bill. Some of the money has come in
much smaller forms to a local law enforcement officers to higher
more personnel but in a specific answer to your question, the
prison building has come with a lot of federal money. But then a
lot of state money too. We have a prison population in our
country now larger than in any time in our history and it is
growing. So this is a serious problem in terms of simply finance
by states, local, federal, wherever the tax money is as opposed
to other things we might be doing in society if we were not
spending the money on this prison construction.
Question: If I may Senator, what do you feel is the main route
of crime in this country and to contextualize that, do you
believe that money towards the crime problem is best spent on the
corrections end and through incarceration and punishment, or
through preventative measures such as, urban renewal?
Lugar: I would say for the moment and probably for the
foreseeable future its on corrections and incarceration. The
dilemma of having so many persons who have criminal backgrounds
in our society who are apparently incorrigible is a crisis
problem. I wish this was not so. I I I hear people as they are
incarcerated for the third time at 19 years of age, I didn't have
a father that I could talk to, or a mother that waS
irresponsible, or a grandparent - I was set lose. Again and
again, 80% of young people in these situations had a terrible
home life, maybe none at all. Quite apart from having a job or a
chance for this kind of thing. But the dilemma for all the rest
of us is, what ever were their backgrounds, at this particular
time, they are dangerous people. And to the extent that they are
in prison, correctly if they have committed crimes, we are safer.
Now having said that, if we are able to get over the crest of
this, of course we'll have to take a look at underlying problems
in society. But I'm not one that sort of starts in that. The
crime is in fact a function, a dysfunction of society. Ah
clearly that's part of it. Uh crime finally comes down to
individual persons and personal responsibility. And we all have
an obligation to make our society better. But in the meanwhile
if you're asking me on terms of priority, predictability, with
regard to serving the sentence and the safety of the rest of us
while that occurs.
Moderator: I think John had a question.
Question: Yea, it was really a follow-up on what Joe is saying.
Uh I'll I'll expand a little bit on that. It's the old story of
if you don't take the step today, you'll never make the journey
tomorrow and I think, how do you feel about say the five year
old, the three year old, ah what are you going to do to prevent
them from being the 19 year old in the future so that we have to
spend this money on prisons and so forth, how are you going to
attack the root of violence and that hopelessness that our
population is seeing?
Lugar: Fundamentally, first of all by saying that marriage is
important for a man and a woman to live together and raise
children, this is fundamental. With without that we will begin
to send other societal back drops whether it be in our schools,
in the Boy Scouts and the welfare department, anybody that may
help out. But with one primary reason we keep getting to is that
a for variety of reasons, a majority of people in this country
who have marriages which end up in divorce, a large majority.
That is true of western Europe, not unique, but but it's a
growing dilemma here. WE we have a growing problem of children
who are born out of wedlock and we have a large number of people
who seem to have no roots at all with adult society. Um so I
would start with hoping that we could have a national
conversation about family. Uh and that's a complex subject, but
it's an important subject and about the problem, and the
obligation and the privilege we all have as parents.
Now having said that from the beginning of my public career
largely because as a father I was interested in my first son's
public school experience, I have four sons who had this, I became
a candidate for the Indianapolis school board. I was plunged
into the inner city schooling in Indianapolis which I had not
perceived before. In 1964, at the beginning of the Civil Rights
Revolution, the beginning of Title 1, compensatory study, the
Montessori system school lunches, all the rest of it. And this
made a profound impact on my life, I would probably still be
there if I had been elected to the school board in 1966, but I
was not. People felt that I was getting too heavily involved
with desegregation and with all these inner city children, giving
lunches to them and this sort of thing. And they they were of
sterner stuff and they said ah we've had enough of this. And the
NAACP filed suit, and we've been in courts ever since. There
were consequences to that particular election. But this is
simply to say, the public schools, for me at least, at that time
was I was a school board member and when I was mayor, were
absolutely central.
Now granted that marriage is not going to be perfect and some
people are not going to be parented, uh but that was at least the
next place where we tried to have [word inaudible] schools. We
opened up all kinds of community possibilities for interaction.
We brought churches into the school thing, always a difficult
thing, a skittish thing in America, how churches and the boys
club and the schools come together, but they can if you're
thoughtful and sensitive about that. And I've been at that ever
since, this has been a large part of my life in trying to think
through with young people how you make it. And and I'm excited
about people who do very well. As eagle scouts, I write to every
Eagle Scout in Indiana when he gets the Eagle badge and now it's
a comparable awards for young women, so that we're not
discriminatory. But so exalt that, we understand not everyone is
going to be an Eagle Scout and then then we really try to find
people where they are and and offer some encouragement.
Moderator: Let me ask you then about education, since you
brought up education, what kinds of things, specifically, would
you do in terms of education, beyond getting parents more
involved in education, like you yourself were?
Lugar: Well, as President of the United States as opposed to a
local school board member, you you try to talk about your
experiences as a local board member. This is where educational
battles are being fought in America, most of them and that's
where we want them to be fought. We we want local control. Now
from time to time local people say well we also need a certain
degree of state money, to equalize opportunities throughout our
states and that has been an axiom in many state-local relations
around the country.
Uh for a while we had the Department of Education, I think
symbolically as a way of recognizing education was important at a
federal level. I don't think it worked out particularly well in
terms of the either the acceptance of the local and state level
of the Department of Education, and certainly the money has never
been there, so that's been a disappointment. I would just say,
we're sort of back to square one, and that is as citizens at the
local level we're wrestling and we we must wrestle at the quality
of education for our children. We would like to displace this
somewhere else, on occasion, and hope somebody will rescue us
from our lack of foresight. But uh as President I would try to
concentrate it back there again. I would say these are things
we've got to wrestle through. There isn't going to be money at
the federal government, we're downsizing that very substantially
to get to zero deficit, that's going to continue for seven years.
And as a result there's going to be a new order of things at the
local level.
Moderator: Now I think Barb has a question for you.
Question: Yes I do. Specifically about education at the local
level and the federal government's role in that. Would you, if
you were elected president, push to refund Headstart, for
example, school lunch programs, other federal aid to local
schools?
Lugar: Well I would maintain Headstart, I don't think that we're
going to have additional federal moneys to advance the number of
students that are covered by Headstart, but I I clearly believe
that is an important program and ought to be maintained.
Uh within the Agriculture Committee for which I have some
responsibility, we have maintained the school lunch program, at
least in the Senate Bill uh for welfare reform we retained the
program with the federal government with is a safety net that is
completely national. And at the same levels of funding. Now we
are still in conference with the House who have sent this in
block grants back to the states as a part of the welfare bill,
and I I hope our position prevails we've had strong support from
groups around the country.
It's not the states could not run the school lunch program,
some states could do it very well, but what with food stamps and
the school lunches and the WIC program, I've argued that these
are a safety net for Americans' basic nutrition, wherever they
are. And not not to be a chance as whether they end up in
Arizona as opposed to Missouri, or what have you. And in some
cases, the food stamps the threshold that qualify will be higher
but that will not be through the school lunches and with WIC and
we are at least maintaining standards at that level.
Question: What's exactly my problem with the school lunch
program and its this threshold of who qualifies, we have places
like Rye, who I don't believe, I don't know of any individual in
Rye who needs that, there are perhaps some. But, nevertheless,
when people who are fairly well off, use this as simply a baby
sitting mechanism, that's where I object, I really get hot under
the collar about that. But what I'd like to know is where would
you, how would you implement that as far as those people who need
it, amen, go ahead. How do you make that threshold, you know?
Lugar: Very difficult to do and I wish I could give you a
totally satisfying answer. The problem of administration has
always been within a class of students or within a school, how do
you pluck out which ones that are needy and the not so needy.
And and the administrative hassles of making that discrimination
has usually proven to be more costly than simply serving
everybody a fairly economical lunch. Uh maybe the pragmatism of
this is ah is not philosophically justifiable, but that is the
basic rationalization of the school lunch authority. Because we
have the men from the states and local governments every year ask
the same question. Senators penetratingly say, why did this
person who came with a family income of 75,000 get lunch today.
Well because he was with a class of uh 50 people who didn't have
that kind of money. You know who in fact were poor students.
Question: You mention food and agriculture. My question is is
with the gentleman from Indiana, how can we prevent the
destruction of America's farm land due to urban sprawl and also
some pollution. What are your thoughts on how this can be coped
with so we can keep on feeding, whether its through the school
lunch or our own country and we also have demands for food from
other countries?
Lugar: Well, you'll have to stop me because this is something
that ah you know I as a farmer and ah this is sort of my
[inaudible].
There you go. Quickly, the conservation reserve program that I
and Senator Lahey have fostered in a bipartisan way, has taken 36
million acres out of cultivation that we believe are most
critically the most vulnerable in terms of soil erosion, in terms
of some type of damage to our riparian ways, our water ways, and
I think we've done some good with regard to wildlife where ah
that's a subsidiary but an important consideration.
That that program is going to continue in the farm bill that we
are now enacting and so that's important. Let me just say that
ah we have, ironically, because many people don't appreciate
this, the ability to produce enormous amounts. Our, our entire
Ag policy from the New Deal onward, was to stop growing to ah
prevent farmers from planting too much. The assumption always
was if you let these fellows plant as much as they wanted to,
they would do too much. It would be coming out of our ears,
price would go down, that was the philosophy of burning the
little pigs and plowing the corn under. Now our problem is
entirely different. It is that the world depends upon our
productivity and the farm bill, that I have been responsible for,
finally takes off the shackles. There will be no more federal
government saying you can't plant on these acres. Quite to the
contrary you can plant anything everywhere, because the export
markets opened up by the Chinese, by the Southeastern Asians in
particular, and by others, Japan is a great costumer, come from
the fact that they have they have urban sprawl. In China you
know we were shocked when they became self sufficient, but they
are no longer self sufficient. As they have become more
affluent, they have used more and more of their scarce acres for
building houses, factories, whatever they have. And so their
demands for food are enormous.
The great irony of our system is in this very year which
follows a corn crop of ten billion bushels and the Department of
Agriculture wants to set aside seven and a half percent of the
corn land so farmers won't produce too much and create a glut,
but in fact the price of corn is going sky high because we don't
have a glut. The demand all over the world for our corn, our
soybeans, our wheat, has never been stronger. And I think as a
secular matter will always be that way and I think we have to
adjust to that fact, so we can serve in vulnerable areas, but we
try to get people to produce on the rest because that helps our
to balance our payments, helps to feed the world.
Moderator: I think we have several questions are Barbara and Joe
and ...
Question: Just real quickly while we're talking farmland. Um
automatically then it logically follows that you would remove
subsidies. So you would stop paying farmers not to produce.
Lugar: That would be my preference, yea categorically. Now my
preference and what is going to happen are two different things.
Now from the beginning of this farm bill, I said that as part of
getting to a zero deficit we're going to have to come up with $15
million in savings and agriculture. And I propose to cut the
target price three percent a year for five years in a row for
corn, wheat, cotton, and rice. These are the big subsidies.
Question: Is it fifteen now?
Lugar: Well well the target price now is simply set at a
historical wish as to what it might be. All I'm saying is its
important because the payments are made on the difference between
the target price and the actual market price. So if the target
price comes down, it begins to hit the market price and that
means the end of the subsidies. Now um as a matter of fact the
committee finally decided to limit the number of acres in which a
subsidy could be paid to 70% of your historical base as opposed
to 100% or 85 so the money will be saved in that way. The
subsidies will be substantially less. They will still be there.
Ah I I've been an advocate all along of getting rid of the
subsidies in the same line I'm an advocate of people planting for
the market. We're making a headway in both areas ah politics is
never a situation of getting all that you wanted in one year.
Moderator: I think Joe has a question.
Question: Would your administration take a leadership role in
transforming the agricultural methods in this nation from some of
the ah herbicidally and ah chemically dependent methods that they
currently in to more sustainable and more ecologically sound
practices in order to prevent the environmental degradation
that's going on?
Lugar: Yes. In a word of course, because clearly that is safer
for all of us Americans in the food supply as well as the
residual dust that flies around. It's less expensive in terms of
the bottom line for farmers and more efficient way of managing
the resources more carefully which which modern farming does. In
fairness, young farmers coming on now have gone through Purdue or
agricultural schools throughout the country, they understand this
and their practices are mighty good. But we still have a lot of
problems at the well head where people have dumped nitrogen or
have to wash off their tractors. They've got a point source of
pollution, egregious dilemmas that anybody in the field knows and
tries to combat.
Question: We've ah recognized that food, a basic level of food,
is everyone's right in this country. Another basic right that ah
we've seemed to have had an abortive attempt of trying to rectify
within the last few years is health care. What would your
position be on a health care system that would be universally
available to all the citizens of the United States?
Lugar: Well I believe we're moving in that direction and I would
like to see it come about, but I I would say that the reforms
that we are in the process of making, albeit, as a part of the
budget situation and because of the potential failure of
medicare in seven years, are leading us to steps that are going
to bring about this universitality. And, specifically, we're
headed in the medicaid reforms toward state base systems that ah
in some states are going to lead universal coverage very rapidly
because most people of low income are most vulnerable to be a
part of the system. Tenessee has tried this out in waivers in
the Department of Human Resources now, a revolution. Seven
hubndred thousand people on the rolls with pretty much universal
care. So we're beginning to see how that might come about.
While at tehj samew time we've devolved the responsibility to the
states. It's a very big leap all in one year, with welfare on
top of it and with large changes in health care. But ah
nevertheless, this I believe is going to be a constructive way
and we will all have to see it very carefully, to make sure the
results really come to universal care.
Question: Are you saying, Senator, that you are going, that you
advocate ah putting the responsibility on individual states to ah
solve this problem?
Lugar: Yes. And that's clearly what's occuring ah with the...
Question: And how do you, then how do you equalize that with
what you said before that ah you felt that you shouldn't have to
live in any one particular state to have uh school lunch. Ah if
someone lives in a poor state or if someone lives in a state
where the government, the government of that state doesn't really
care for health care. Do you say that they should move to
another state?
Lugar: There is no way to rationalize that that I I in other
words I am going to have to accept your premise that eating is
the same thing as health care and I can't. I think it's very
very important, but I would say that the appropriate way to solve
the problem presently is to move towards state control of
medicaid. I've supported that idea as to legistlation's
progressed because I think it will lead to more efficient care
and wider care and and probably better supervised care at that
level as we devolve that responsibility.
Question: Do you think Senator that we should advocate a system
where the United States will tilt towards one side of the
country, the other, whoever has the best health care in that
state?
Lugar: No. But I I would say that essentially every state
government and legislature will have in a democracy a
responsibility and a great deal of scrutiny from local citizens
about quality of care. You won't have to go to Washington to
complain about it you, you rather close at hand find the culprits
of their persons who are not doing so well.
Moderator: I'm going, do you have our last question before our
break so...
Question: When you talked before about agriculture, agricultural
subsidies gradually ending, did that include ethanol?
Lugar: Ah no, ethanol really goes along on a separate track, in
large part is because the issue there is whether we ought to have
a degree of energy independence from some type of agricultural
based fuel. Ah that's an argument we will continue on. Some
people would say well probably but nevertheless for the time
being we have an oil based economy. We are importing more oil
from around the world than we're producing and that tilt will
continue. But, if we ever needed to, we could grow a corn crop
and and sort of get the ethanol out of the ground. I think we
ought to have at least a small ethanol industry. Uh clearly the
value of it in terms of anti-pollution, I think is proven. We
ought not to go overboard about it, but I would say that the
alternative based fuel idea is an important one.
Question: Well, the reason I'm asking is apparently there was
going to be a six cent reduction in the amount that ah, the
exemption amount. And I believe the phone calls started about
depressions hitting the mid-west over six cents and I just kind
of found that hard to believe.
Lugar: Well your, I think those reports were accurate. The
calls came and decisions made not to do that, largely because the
economics changed so radically by the six cents change that
bankrupt most of the facilities and to stop ah any new investment
act.
Question: If it's only existing on a tax break, should it exist?
Lugar: Yes because essentially as I say, we've decided as a
nation to spend some money for an alternative fuel source. The
expenditure comes in the form of subsidy of plants that find it
profitable, maneuver with the subsidy and would not without that
and that's the nature of where the expenditure comes. The
argument I suppose would be, can you get along with out any
alternative fuel situations in the works at all. If you should
have an embargo again or in fact, finally the world resources
available to us, of oil based, dry up. We are coming to that
point somewhere within the next century, and I don't know how
much foresight is required but I know a little bit ought to be.
Moderator: Okay, I'm going to stop right now so that we can have
about a five minute break.
Moderator: We're going to go ahead and begin the second half of
our citizen ah candidate forum. And they have many many
questions for you, in fact, they're asking who can ask the first
question and Joe has a question he can start off the second half
here.
Question: Yea, thank you. We talked in the first half about
education, I'd like to take it to a next level and talk about
higher education, in some cases, particularly, public higher
education. Ah it's well known that in ah the rush to balance the
budget ah some of the sacrifices have been ah one Americorps
which is an opportunity for young people to serve their country,
while also getting the opportunity to educate themselves, but
also the direct lending program, and other, federal
subsidations[sic] of student loans. Uh what are your feelings
about whether or not those are the things that should be
sacrificed to balance the federal budget or if they're
investments in America's future that need to be made maintained?
Lugar: The Americorps dispute is not over balancing the budget
and regret this has been a very bipartisan dispute between
President Clinton who started the program and many Republicans
who wished he had not started it. Ah I'm prepared to let a trial
run occur for Americorps. I think, I'm not one that's lining up
to try to embarrass the President over a program that he wants,
but but it's going to be a part of the negotiations that occur
when the President vetoes the budgets and so much more will be
heard. The direct loan situation, I'm not satisfied direct loans
are going to bring lower rates for students, or better
administration by Universities. There is enormous argument among
university presidents, at least all the ones from Indiana descend
upon my office frequently, and they can argue both cases
persuasively, but ah the majority believe that we were better off
with the other system in terms of both the rates and the
administration of the loans. That it is a fiction in a way that
direct lending by the federal government to students will bring
about the idea that the President has espoused. So I, the jury
is out, we're going to have a bit of both and the experiment will
continue for a while to see which case really works out
pragmatically.
Question: What two systems, I I , fill me in here what are the
two systems going?
Lugar: Well, essentially under the previous systems, banks loan
students money and the banks do the administration of the loans.
Now the University's come into it obviously because you can't
have a whole raft of defaults without there being some jeopardy
and universities found to be suspect. But the direct loan is
that, the student gets a direct loan with the federal
government underwriting it. Now sometimes this might be shared
with other places but the university bears much more of the
responsibility, in addition to the student, himself or herself in
the process. And the thought was without the middle man, maybe
the bank, some how it would work out, but it is only true if the
University doesn't have administrative costs that are, sizable
that were being born by the bank before.
Question: Well the difference, at least the way it works here, I
don't know about Indiana, I've never been there actually. but
the way it works here is that when um when you get a loan from a
bank, any loan you get you have to go through the University. Um
and the University is responsible for helping you do your
financial aid. Uh and with the direct the direct loaning program
there's much easier repayment schedules and much more flexible
repayment schedules, because it's not a profit driven enterprise.
And often times the interest rates of the loans and the grace
periods after graduation of the repayments of the loans are much
more student friendly under the direct lending program, so when
you say there's easier under the old system that under the direct
lending, I'm not sure easier for who? Cause in my experience
it's not a whole heck of a lot easier for the student.
Lugar: Easier for the university, as a rule, somebody has to
pick up the costs, now if the student is not picking it up it
happens somewhere and the university presidents, or people that
talk to me say we're the people bearing the burden. But now
whether that is a fair assumption or not, this hasn't run that
long, now we've, but ah, but a certain percentage of colleges
throughout the country are trying this out on an experimental
basis, not a small pilot project, it's fairly large. So the
university experience I think will be known in the next two or
three years I think fairly well. And my guess is during the
current legislation, you're still going to have two systems. The
the argument is over what percentage of students ought to be in
which.
Moderator: Somebody have a question on a different topic that
you wanted to bring up?
Question: I want to go back to foreign relations, if I may where
we're debating now whether the U.S. is going to be sending troops
into Bosnia and I'd like you to address that issue, your views.
Lugar: Ah currently my views about this are colored with several
years of argument with the President, or or help as the case may
be. Which the administration has been in denial for a long
stretch and now suddenly Dick Holbrook has done a remarkable
diplomatic job and the parties are in Dayton, Ohio, Wright
Patterson hopefully coming to a peace treaty. That treaty is of
the essence if in fact it does not really show evidence if the
parties want peace. And furthermore something that Sam Nunn and
I have added to the argument, there is a so-called build-down
that is disarmament of the parties. They they in fact to give up
their tanks their artillery, their aircraft. They can not shoot
at each other, or at us, in harms way. Then I would not be in
favor of sending troops, either NATO or ours. I think clearly
they would be in jeopardy and the contending parties will either
fire at our troops as renegade groups or they will wait until we
leave and go at it again. So the the nature of this peace treaty
is the important aspect.
Now I don't know how they're doing out there. My guess is not
very well. Uh in large part is because they hate each other and
there's been all history that we know of. And furthermore, most
ah people in those countries think they could still do a little
bit better on the battle front, before they draw the line. So
long there is a hankering to do that this is a volatile
predicament. But I am not subverting the talks, I don't know in
fact that they're making the head way. If they are however, I
would want to look at that treaty very hard and and the President
has an obligation not to just consult the Congress and send the
troops in 96 hours, but in this case he really needs to get a
vote of support, because it will cost a billion and a half
dollars at minimum and we don't have the billion and a half. And
and therefore the American people at some point, if things don't
go particularly well are going to feel, "What are we doing there
and get em out." And the money will be cut off and the President
will be embarrassed. We've now gone down that route a couple of
times and we better not repeat it. So while we're all thinking
about it, the president needs to approach the Congress. He's
very tentative about this. He says, "He would welcome support
by the Congress." But when pressed he says he doesn't need it,
in fact, to send the troops, and he intends to do that if he is
satisfied, the peace agreement is satisfactory.
Moderator: So if the peace treaty falls through then you would
support what specifically?
Lugar: Well I would hope by this time ah it seems to be
interminable, but we've tried to get across the idea the
countries who have peace keepers in the area ought to get them
out. I would hope even as we speak they are leaving, they could
walk out, that no one is obstructing them. But in the event that
ah that they may wait long enough, they may be in trouble again,
they may be taken hostage and then we will have the military
problem of getting them out.
Uh so I I I'm just saying that the U.N. [inaudible] mission is
over. Those people ought to be on the way out. Ironically many
countries want to leave their people in because they're getting
paid for the the troops by the head. They're non-combatants, but
they simply use this as a ah an asset.
Moderator: I think Jim has a question for you.
Question: Senator, would it have made more sense instead of
cutting medicaid, medicare that much with the tax cut to just
forgo the tax cut, the deficit either comes back is eliminated
earlier or there is less unsureness in a country about what is or
is not going to happen?
Lugar: Well I would say perhaps Jim but I I think not, I mean
I'm I'm gonna argue the other side of that equation that the tax
cuts I believe are important for economic growth for stimulus in
the economy. I think a part of the deficits reduction is more
likely to come that route than even the budget cuts. This is a
very important part of doing it, I think both are important. Now
beyond that Republicans in the `94 campaign promised both.
[Inaudible]
Questioner cont': Nobody would be surprised if it didn't happen.
Nobody would be surprised.
Lugar: I think though that um there's very strong feeling on the
part of Republicans who were elected in `94 to fulfill both parts
of that obligation and they are going to do so. So ah we will
see how it works out but my own guess is that we ought to proceed
on both on the on the formula that the Senate set up. Namely you
got to have a credible zero deficit planned to get there in four
years before you have a tax cut. Now we still have to satisfy
CBO or whoever the scoring people are if that's the case.
Question: Um earlier in the year with the balanced, balanced
budget amendment, Senator Hatfield voted against it and there
were some people in your party who wanted his head bad.
Lugar: Yes I remember that.
Question: Why is it in this country, we really value
individualism except when it comes to politics then we're all
supposed to be in lock step?
Lugar: Well I think we all still value it and the fact is that
you are correct, some members in our party wanted to have a
meeting of the Republican caucus right away and censure Mark
Hatfield. We in fact had a meeting and he was not censured. A
majority of people felt the other way. So I you know in a free
country people can say whatever they want to. But the facts of
life are that Mark is still serving as chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. People are hoping he'll run for
reelection in in our party in Oregon. Now because he seems to be
the most likely candidate to win election in that seat.
Question: Now contrasting that with him, them wanting to get rid
of Hatfield because he did them actually a vote of conscious and
how long Senator Packwood stay there?
Lugar: Well the Packwood case was a question of how long the
investigation by the Ethics Committee, giving due process to
Packwood, would proceed. Now Packwood, by raising a number of
constitutional questions prolonged that. I'm not one as a civil
libertarian would say you shouldn't raise those in his own
defense. He raised all of them. he finally raised all he could
think of and he ran out the end of the string and resigned. Now
ah we could all say that we wished it all happened sooner for the
sake of Senate and what have you and maybe for the sake of
Packwood himself. He has enormous legal debt and lots of
problems but ah once again in due process in a country a person
fighting for what he believes is vindication has a many defenses
as we've seen in some other celebrated cases outside of the
Senate.
Moderator: Joan has a question.
Question: Ah yes Senator I'd like to follow up on your talk
about a tax cut um I worry about what's going on in big business
now in other words I see, I would like to see some relationship
between a tax cut and accountability. I see big business firing
all kinds of people and hiring temps, not willing to pay
benefits, overworking the employers they have, um not at all
trying to balance family values. Ah families supporting
marriages you said earlier. We have so little of that in your
country so how if you are in favor of granting more tax cuts to
these people who are being very abusive I think to the American
family now. How would you address that problem.
Lugar: Well let me just say in fairness to my position I'm not
singling out large business for tax cuts or some privilege. I
think generally ah the rate of taxation ought to go down in the
country for everybody and this particular tax cutting we're
involved now, the principle feature is the $500 credit for child
and families. That's where the bulk of the money would go. Now
if there's a capital gains reduction for corporations, and that's
one element that may survive in 33 to 28 percent, that I think is
the only benefit that would hit a large corporation or a small
one for that matter.
Question cont': But it would be such a substantial benefit,
shouldn't there be some way to , it just seems that business, if
left to it's own devices, is always greedy. It's not generous on
it's own. I guess that's where I see some kind of national...
Lugar: Well sometimes that's true and sometimes not. Let me
just say for the federal government to try to regulate the
conduct of business is to get into some territory that we ought
not to get into any further. There are enormous regulations now
we're trying to get rid of some of them now because essentially
we feel that probably the over-reach of bureaucracy has gone too
far. I hear you as you see the problem for business whether it's
too large or small is that we live in a competitive world in
which most businesses are trying to be competitive with people
all around the world. They're trying to downsize their costs.
Now I would say as someone who is involved in manufacturing food
machinery before I came here into this current calling, and we
were exporting abroad and so we had to make some decisions. We
had only a business of 120 employees, $16 million in sales, very
different from, but still you know a good size outfit for a
family business and I owned it and my brother and so forth so it
was ours. Now we felt a lot of civic obligations but likewise
continuity of our employment. We thought it was pretty good
business to keep everybody employed because we had skilled
craftsmen, a very cyclical business, you lay them all off, when
you have a down turn hard to find them coming up against
competition of General Motors are employed. Now I think smart
business people have a broader view as opposed to the quarterly
returns, but I would grant you this is a very big debate in
business circles now as to the ethics and the background.
Moderator: So how does your tax proposal respond to Joan's
question. I mean you have a fairly radical tax proposal.
Lugar: My tax proposal is very different from what we're talking
about in the Congress now that's easily modest touch on this.
Now I am in favor of eliminating all income taxes. Individual
corporate capital gains, the estate tax, the gift tax, the IRS,
the whole lot, in other words moving forward, moving form
taxation on the income savings stream to taxation on spending
and consumption. With uh proper exemptions for people so that is
no more regressive than the one we left behind. That is you
take out food, shelter, clothing, medicine - elements that are
basic for living.
The difference is simply that I think we are at a very low
growth area generally. I think that the anxiety that I see not
only in New Hampshire, and I recently been campaigning a lot in
Maine, is that people have not seen much growth. They're afraid
they're gonna lose what they have and they will. We have a very
flat predicament. And until we have a lot more of an investment
pool that comes from savings, uh we're gonna continue to be
vulnerable. So that's a long subject and a very radical solution
but one I think is important.
Question: What I was specifically addressing, for instance, is
the tendency has been in the last ten years is a CEO in any
business company is taking a huge bite of the profits. There has
been no effort to distribute it widespread over the employees who
are left, who have been fewer and fewer. I mean do you still
feel that this is always an individual business choice and that
there should be no national program to ...
Lugar: Yes I do. If you were to ask me in the abstract ah
whether we ought to define an incomes as policy or a wage policy
for private businesses. You know the federal government intruded
in a strange way in this and said you cannot deduct a salary more
than a million dollars, if you want to pay someone more than
that, you can't deduct that. I was surprised because an
amendment came up the other day on this tax bill that said ah
let's let's universalize this to ball players, to actors, to
Hollywood. And 99 to 0 it passed. Now now suddenly people out
here at the Boston Celtics or wherever you know they pay people
these large sums, are saying, "My God what happened? You know
how did this come on the books?" Well uh most people were not
aware that was a cap at a millions dollars before unless you have
performance based formula, which then people readily, I suppose,
how many baskets you shoot or something you know maybe get around
it.
It was an attempt at this sort. So you're you're being heard
at the Congress has actually gone that far. I I think that is
dubious philosophy, ah ah that must have come on as a strange
rider that most of us didn't see. We we did see this other thing
and we probably thought we must get rid of all of these
amendments, as a matter of fact.
Moderator: Ruth has had her hand up for a while now.
Question: Going back to foreign affairs and the status of
Russia's president, or Soviet Union's I should say, what are you
priorities in regard to the control that make nuclear weapons as
it relates to the fact that they've been shipping some out of
Russia to Europe?
Lugar: Well I believe this the most serious foreign policy and
security problem that we face. It is both the shipments and
deliberately the ones we know of technology say from Russia to
Iran. But it's that which we don't know, the leakage of highly
enriched plutonium from laboratories in Russia. Or the hearings
that Senator Nunn and I had this week on the dangers of chemical
and biological disasters. We have a detail now this own group in
Japan that have 30,000 members, over a billion dollars in
resources, had members in Russia secreting materials out of
there, trying to buy materials over here, had a sheep farm in
Australia where they were experimenting with sarin gas. Now
these are the people who finally, you know, killed the people in
the subways of Tokyo and the attempt there was to overthrow the
Japanese government. Now this was really not on the radar screen
of the Japanese intelligence and certainly well off of ours. But
but it makes my point that were still fighting the last war. The
dilemma for us right now is the spread of these weapons of mass
destruction and the spread that can come by carrying them into
here with a suitcase. We're still expecting an ICBM to hit us
from 5,500 miles. The greater dangers is terrorists, very odd
and strange people with causes who want to create fear. The
World Trade Center bombing being a case in point of an
international conspiracy of some sophistication.
Moderator: So Ruth does that, does that answer you question.
Lugar: High priority.
Questioner cont': I'm glad
Lugar: High priority.
Question: I' glad that you're concerned.
Moderator: Okay, did you have a question earlier John?
Question: No thanks.
Questioner: While you're out on a campaign trail in New England
this weekend, Colin Powell is mulling.
Lugar: Yes.
Question: And I wonder...
Lugar: Behind his front door.
Question: I wonder A - what you think he will decide, and B -
what, how that decision will affect your candidacy?
Lugar: Well, two very speculative answers but uh I I think he
will finally decide not to run, now if tomorrow if he indicates
that he's leapt into it, why that will be overtaken by events
very rapidly. But my my guess is that he will decide not to run.
Now let me say if he does decide to run as a Republican and enter
the Republican primaries enters into this thing with all the rest
of us, the impact will be enormous. You know it wasn't the most
artful language but at the Godfrey Sperling breakfast the other
day I I said it would be like a skyscraper falling into a harbor
and displacing a lot of water, people get splashed all around.
And and this is an event of enormous proportions. So then the
question for all of us will be is how then do you adapt your
campaign given this great splash, this great displacement. And
we'll have to give a lot of thought to that. But I would have to
just say simply he is a very popular person a remarkable public
servant in this country and ah I have a great deal of affection
for him. I've dealt with him a lot during the last few years.
And and so I just have no idea precisely what his would mean in
terms of the competition, but it would be quite an impact.
Question: Back up one, you had a, before you just touched on it,
you said you were, I think you're for a national sales tax.
Lugar: I am.
Question: How, why did you not chose value added or why are you
not for a flat tax, you know the three comparison?
Lugar: Well these are other rivals plus the Nunn-Domenici
savings tax idea that others have worked up too, that's still
another rival in the field. Well the value added tax is a hidden
tax most of the time at various levels of production, some would
argue it's more efficiently collected because there are fewer
collectors. But because it is hidden it has political
difficulties that are very substantial, as well as the fact that
it's never been utilized as a total substitute, add on in most
European systems to other forms of taxation. I think it's less
satisfactory both on the transparency issue as well as the
sufficiency issue.
Um the flat tax seem to be an improvement over our current
status. They they go some direction toward getting this savings-
investment thing going. But the dilemma is that you still have
the IRS and you still have audits and the five billion hours we
all spend finding our forms, filling them out and fighting the
audits. This is a huge and monumental ah involuntary expenditure
in American life. 200 billion spent by corporations is trying to
come into compliance, all dead loss. So that's a problem.
In addition, the flat taxes come in all forms, ah in pure
forms, say Dick Armey's idea, Representative Armey. Says, say a
17% tax, no exemption, no deductions, as pure a case as you can
make. Well, immediately people come in and say, "Well what about
my my mortgage interest, can't I deduct that?"
And Armey says, "No, no this is what I meant." Well they'll
say we'll see. I mean ah this is a vanguard of people in this
country who see or or they'll say, "How about the churches?
surely you're not going to." And he says "Yeah, I am." And they
say, "Well not on our lives."
So people begin to add in a few things, then they say well
we'll throw in more exemptions, throw in charitable contributions
and you're sort of off to the races as to what else can still
make it back underneath the pillow. I would guess though that is
what defeated us in `86. We headed toward a flat tax in that
debate. We finally got in down to three rates, if you remember
and a whole host of deductions that were washed out, but ever
since we've been adding them back on, both in terms of rates and
deductions because many people believe this is the way social
causes are pushed. That that by changing the tax code you modify
human behavior, and frequently people like to use the tax code to
do that.
Question: Are you against that? Using the tax code for uh,
modifying human behavior. [background laughter]
Lugar: In general, yes. That's why I come down to wipe the
whole thing off. I, I think you can't rewrite it I think from
where we are. Nor get the computers up to speed or all the
disaffected employees, and the I.R.S. misses every one out of six
dollars now. It's a very inefficient way of collecting the money
in terms of equity. A 127 billion missed by their own their own
testimony.
Moderator: Let me, let me um ask you if have a particular, if
you have a question for anybody here because we are coming close
to the end of our time. We have about 10 minutes left and I'm um
going to ask people to comment in a minute. Is there anything
you want to ask of these individuals?
Lugar: I mean just ask if, if I may is almost presumptuous
because this ought to be your question. But frequently I'm asked
"Do you really believe that the American people want for
president, a serious, well qualified person?" And this question
is raised in my candidacy by people who write ah,very nice
columns for at least the first 800 words. Which they would say
uh "This guy seems to be intelligent and ah, and well motivated,
and has a background as a businessman, a farmer, a schoolboard
member, a lay minister in a Methodist church, mayor of a large
city, chairman of foreign relations. All the rest of this seems
to ah be really be very well qualified and ah be very serious
about pursuing this." But then the last two paragraphs say,
"This kind of person never wins. This is ah, not really finally,
the way it works out in American politics." Now, it may, may be
for me that for me if may be that lack of qualifications ah, ah,
would be fatal. But I,I suspect that I just something that I'm
curious among this panel as to what people want in a president.
Moderator: John wants to answer that, that nice guys finish
last.
Question: I'll, I'll answer that. I think absolutely. I want
someone who is qualified, well intentioned, but in addition to
that, I look at the parallelism between what his views for the
country would be and mine.
Lugar: Sure.
Question: And when they don't match, I vote for someone else.
Lugar: Yes.
Question: I think unfortunately the media creates images, and we
fall for those images because that's all we see are those images,
but just because you're well qualified and serious, doesn't mean
that you're views, your programs are parallel to Phil Gramm's.
Lugar: That's a very important distinction.
Moderator: Who, who else? Joe?
Question: Yeah, yeah, possibly the reason with that is that
people who um, spend a great deal of time, um, decades, in many
cases, becoming well qualified, um, that progression leads them
away from being touch with what's really going on. When you talk
about some of your qualifications of ah working on a school board
and being major of a city. Things that happened, 25 and 30 years
ago. And uh when that progression of uh, of, gathering
qualification leaves one into, into, positions of ah, high power
in Washington, often times those, those earlier positions tend to
fade in memory or the connections are made with things that
happened in the past.
Lugar: Yeah.
Questioner cont': and cut, and you loose touch with what's going
on out there today and often times that leads to a divergence
with, what the American people want despite perhaps uh a litany
of qualifications.
Lugar: Uh-huh uh-huh.
Moderator: So uh, Ruth, what did you want to say?
Question: Well, I was going to say that, each of us needs
somebody who looks at what is best for the country. Not what is
best for the party, but what is best for the people; the young,
the middle, the elderly, the sick, and I believe with Lincoln,
that it isn't right to do things for people, that they could and
should be doing for themselves.
Question: I would like to congratulate you for jumping into a
time in American history when it would be difficult for anyone to
run for president, and I think um, if you do as you seem to be
doing today; express your own views, as clearly as possible, so
that we know what you believe, that helps us make our decisions,
and whether you win or not, uh, I think it's to be appreciated
that, that you cared enough, to say your piece and, and try to do
what you think is going to be best for the country. I'm sure
that's where you're coming from, and to hang tough because you're
going to hear all kinds of angry voices because we're in turmoil
right now.
Question: Yes, you said serious and qualified. I just want to
expand on what I mean by that. Answer is: Yes, I want somebody
serious, I don't want anybody out imitating the Blues Brothers,
or asking questions about their underwear. I don't want, or
answering questions about it. But that's what I mean by serious
okay? Give some dignity to the office. Second thing is,
qualified. I disagree with what was said prior. Uh, I think
you, uh because you had that experience in Indianapolis. I don't
think you'll ever forget the lessons. Do you think you will? I
don't think uh...
Lugar: Still...
Question: He hasn't lived long enough. She hasn't lived long
enough to say that. And the uh third thing, I just confirm what
John said. After you get through those two, filters, then it
comes up coincidence of, do you support my views. You know, and
that's what it is. So the answer I think, is yes. People do
want it.
Lugar: I have great respect for many people in the Senate. We
vote differently however, because we very strong views on how
life ought to be lived or, or what we do, which are honest views
in that way. I uh, I appreciate your responses.
Moderator: Um, I want to thank everybody for being involved in
this and before we close I just want to go around and have
everybody make a final comment uh, either something that you
learned from this experience, or some closing comment that you
would like to make in about 30 seconds or so. John? Start with
you.
Question: Well I think it's been very positive uh, I think that
we said that sometimes our views aren't always the same. But uh,
as Joan said I think that it's always enlightening to find out
where the other one's views are coming from, and I respect,
number one, someone standing up and taking a position and staying
there. If you don't believe in your position and hold it, that's
where I lose respect.
Moderator: Jim?
Question: I had one more question. [laughs]
Moderator: Okay, alright.
Jim: Why is there all this media hoopla about Colin Powell.
What does that say about the current field of candidates. You
know, this guy, has been in the Army all of his life. Never ran
for office. You and all your brother candidates have been out
there and all of a sudden this guy is getting all this ink. Why?
Lugar: My simple answer is that uh 60% plus, of the people
polled indicate that they don't like any of the front runners.
And uh, therefore they are looking for somebody else. Now the
Ross Perot group says we might help fulfill that, and they might.
The Colin Powell candidacy might, if he runs or if other people
that come into it. Um, essentially, my own view, and this is a
self-serving one so you just count in advance, is that, probably
people in our party, uh, want to see a candidate who is somewhat
more constructive, positive, about things, more humane I think.
Uh, the candidate meetings I've been attending are almost a
contest as who the mean spirited person is of the night or where
are their enemies in America. I think that that's a loser and,
um, I would hope that if I had the same recognition that Colin
Powell has I would be filled into that gap, and maybe in due
course I will be, but I think that's the reason. There is a
yearning for an alternative right now.
Question: Maybe you need a book. [laughter]
Lugar: Maybe, yeah, book tour. There we go.
Moderator: Joe?
Question: Yeah, I may only be 20 years old and not have lived a
lifetime in this country,
Background: Don't take it personally. [laughter]
Question: But uh, apparently the American people feel that uh,
we're old enough to vote and to have a say in, in the kind of
America that we're going to be living in, working in, paying
taxes in, and leading as we get older. And I feel that, that
remarks like that are not constructive because they encourage
people of my age group not to take a part, in that. And uh, the
more we sit at home and say that our votes don't matter, the less
those votes are going to matter. And uh, our responsibility to
partake in the political process is perhaps the most vital of any
group, because it's not the shaping of America that we are living
in but it's the one we are going to have to spend the rest of our
lives, sometimes fixing, as the case may be today. So, um, the
reason I ask a lot of questions about you know, what are you
going to do for younger people is because you know, the
investment that is made in younger people today is going to be
the main determining factor in what kind of a country you are
all going to be living in your elderly years. So, hopefully
you'll want a ah, a young, group of young people who are going to
be well qualified and well trained to take care of you in your
older years. So policies that promote education and health and
wellness and economic opportunity for younger people are going to
be the kind of policies that get somebody elected.
Lugar: Let me just say that, Joe, I have four sons of my own
that are 30 to 37 you know, only slightly older than you are.
This has been very much a part of my life as I see life through
their eyes and it's tough. And maybe because of that in my re-
election campaign in Indiana last time I received the votes of
78% of all people who were 18 to 29. How? because I think we try
to speak to an America that needs to be better, and a generation
that needs to succeed. This is why I go into radical things like
the change of the income tax, we're going to have to have a jump
start that really brings a different playing ground, as opposed
to the zero sum game that I think we were in.
Moderator: Martin?
Question: I have the same reaction as I did with Arlen Spector
when he was here. Uh, one of the things I felt, was that I got a
much better view of Arlen Spector and yourself, here than I did
on the press, because, number one, the breadth of your position
across a whole series of views. Yours, all I heard was foreign
rel.. as, as I come here, that's all I here is foreign relations,
foreign relations. And the fact that you have a well thought out
plan helps me greatly in deciding. So that, and also, the other
thing, both of you did, was you dispelled much of the mistrust I
have about the so-called established, you know, you know those
guys who have been in office 15 or 20 years.
Question: I'm very pleased that um, we've all of us, for the most
part, maintained a very good level of civility. [laughter] And
um, yeah well, that is not what we see on tv and I would hope
that no matter what happens to you when you are through with this
that you get a chance to do more small group talking because we
get to know you better and you get to know individual American
people better. We just have to keep the faith that that king of
person is going to win in the end, maybe not the next election
but in the end.
Moderator: Okay, thank you Joan. Barb?
Question: Um, I've learned a lot from being here. Both from you
Senator and from my fellow panelists. We could not stay on one
topic and probably would not have chosen to. All of have such
concerns, that the spectrum of our concerns was overwhelming and
every candidate has to address all those things and think about
all those things. And my hat goes off to anybody who has the
uh... what it takes [laughter], for the long run.
Moderator: Okay, Ruth.
Question: Well, it's been a privilege to be a part of Mr.
Spector's interview and your own.
Lugar: Thank you.
Question: And I value you seasoned judgement, that would be my
one question about General Powell. Does he have seasoned
judgement on how to deal with Congress because a President
doesn't live all by himself. He has to deal with the House and
the Senate, his public, at home and abroad, and I think that it's
an opportunity for anybody to have participated in Voter's Voice.
I thank you.
Moderator: Okay, thank you very much.
Lugar: I'm grateful for that opportunity also. Thank you.