Search this site

October 05, 1988 WOODRUFF: On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I am pleased to welcome you to this Vice Presidential debate. I'm Judy Woodruff of PBS' MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour and Frontline. My colleagues on the panel are: John Margolis of the Chicago Tribune; Tom Brokaw of NBC NEWS; and Brit Hume of ABC NEWS. The importance of tonight's debate is underscored by two facts. Both George Bush and Michael Dukakis said their selections of a running mate would reveal a lot about themselves. And based on the history since World War II, there is almost a 50-50 chance that one of the two men here tonight will become President of the United States. The candidates are Senator Dan Quayle, the Republican nominee, and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic nominee. (Applause) WOODRUFF: For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two campaigns. However, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and I may ask this evening. By prior agreement between the two candidates, the first question goes to Senator Quayle, and you have two minutes to respond. Senator, you have been criticized, as we all know, for your decision to stay out of the Vietnam War, for your poor academic record. But more troubling to some are some of the comments that have been made by people in your own party. Just last week former Secretary of State Haig said that your pick was the dumbest call George Bush could have made. Your leader in the Senate. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Your leader in the Senate Bob Dole said that a better qualified person could have been chosen. Other Republicans have been far more critical in private. Why do you think that you have not made a more substantial impression on some of these people who have been able to observe you up close? QUAYLE: The question goes to whether I am qualified to be Vice President, and in the case of a tragedy, whether I'm qualified to be President. Qualifications for the office of Vice President or President are not age alone. You must look at accomplishments, and you must look at experience. I have more experience than others that have sought the office of Vice President. Now let's look at qualifications, and let's look at the three biggest issues that are going to be confronting America in the next presidency. Those three issues are national security and arms control; jobs and education; and the Federal budget deficit. On each one of those issues I have more experience than does the Governor of Massachusetts. In national security and arms control, you have to understand the difference between a ballistic missile, a warhead, what throwweight, what megatonnage is. You better understand about telemetry and encryption. And you better understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength. These are important issues, because we want to have more arms control and arms reductions. In the area of jobs and education, I wrote the Job Training Partnership Act, a bipartisan bill, a bill that has trained and employed over three million economically disadvantaged youth and adults in this country. On the area of the Federal budget deficit, I have worked eight years on the Senate Budget Committee. And I wish that the Congress would give us the line item veto to help deal with that. And if qualifications alone are going to be the issue in this campaign, George Bush has more qualifications than Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen combined. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen - I'm going to interrupt at this point and ask once again that the audience please keep your responses as quiet as possible. We know that many of you here are for one candidate or another. But you are simply taking time away from your candidate, and more likely than not, you'll be causing the partisans for the other candidate to react again when their candidate speaks. So please. Senator Bentsen, you have one minute to respond. BENTSEN: This debate tonight is not about the qualifications for the Vice Presidency. The debate is whether or not Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen are qualified to be President of the United States. Because Judy, just as you have said, that has happened too often in the past. And if that tragedy should occur, we have to step in there without any margin for error, without time for preparation, to take over the responsibility for the biggest job in the world, that of running this great country of ours; to take over the awesome responsibility for commanding the nuclear weaponry that this country has. No, the debate tonight is a debate about the presidency itself, and a presidential decision that has to be made by you. The stakes could not be higher. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, a question for you, and you also have two minutes to respond. What bothers people is not so much your qualifications but your split on policy with Gov. Dukakis. He has said that he does not want a clone of himself, but you disagree with him on some major issues: aid to the Nicaraguan Contras; the death penalty; gun control; among others. If you had to step into the presidency, whose agenda would you pursue, yours or his? BENTSEN: Well, I am delighted to respond to that question, because we agree on so many things and the vast majority of the issues. We agree on the fact that we have to cut this deficit. And Gov. Dukakis has been able to cut that deficit ten budgets in a row in the State of Massachusetts, while he lowered the tax burden on their people from one of the highest to one of the lower in the United States. That is a major sense of achievement. And I admire that. And I'm just delighted to be on the ticket with him. Gov. Dukakis and I agreed that we ought to have a trade policy for this country; that we've seen this Administration more than double the national debt, that; they've moved this country from the number one lender nation in the world to the number one debtor nation in the world under their Administration; that they have not had a trade policy; that they have let trade be a handmaiden for their foreign policy objectives of the country; that this country has exported too many jobs and not enough products. And as I worked to pass a trade bill through the United States Senate, they threw roadblocks in the way every step of the way. But we passed a trade bill that has this premise, that any country that has full access to our markets, we're entitled to full access to their markets. Now, that means that we're going to stand tough for America, and we're going to protect those jobs, and we're going to push American products, and we're going to open up markets around the world. We'll show leadership in that respect, and turn this deficit and trade around. That's the sort of thing that Michael Dukakis and I will do to bring about a better America for all our people. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, a minute to respond. QUAYLE: As you notice, Senator Bentsen didn't tell you very much about what Gov. Dukakis would do - Gov. Dukakis, one of the most liberal governors in the United States of America The one thing he tried to point out about Gov. Dukakis is that he's cut taxes. The fact of the matter is, Senator Bentsen, he's raised taxes five times. He just raised taxes this past year. And that's why a lot of people refer to him as Tax-hike Mike. That's why they refer to the State of Massachusetts as Taxachusetts. Because every time there's a problem, the liberal governor from Massachusetts raises taxes. I don't blame Senator Bentsen for not talking about Gov. Michael Dukakis. He's talking more about his record. If I had to defend the liberal policies of Gov. Michael Dukakis, I wouldn't talk about it either. WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Bentsen. MARGOLIS: Senator Bentsen, you have claimed that Vice President Bush and the Republicans will raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and you have vowed to protect it. But as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, you must know that there is something to the argument of your fellow Democrat Bob Strauss that some restraint on Social Security growth may be needed, or at least some decision to tax most Social Security benefits as regular income. In fact, you once voted for and spoke for a six-month delay on cost of living adjustment increases for Social Security. Senator, aren't you and Gov. Dukakis using this issue politically, rather than dealing with it responsibly? BENTSEN: Well, I must say I hate to disappoint my good friend Bob Strauss, but we have a contract with the American people on Social Security. And Social Security is an issue where Senator Quayle voted eight times to cut the benefits on Social Security, where this administration came in and tried to cut the benefits, the minimum benefits, $122 a month for widows, for retirees, tried to cut the benefits for 62-year-old retirees by 40 percent, tried to do an end run on Social Security when they first came in after promising not to cut it - to cut it by some 20 billion, and while we were working together to reform the Social Security system and to be certain that that money was going to be there for people when they retired. At that point they tried a $40-billion end run to cut Social Security. Now, the record is clear. And we saw Vice President Bush fly back from the west coast to break a tie in the United States Senate. He doesn't get to vote very often in the Senate, but he made a special trip to come back and vote against a cost-of-living increase. Now, when you talk about Social Security, the people that are going to protect it are the Democrats that brought forth that program. And I think it's very important that we not see these kinds of end runs by this administration. When they talk about the fact that they are going to continue to cut this budget, I know too well what their rack record is. And we should be concerned with that kind of an effort once again after the election is over. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response? QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen, you know that I did not vote to cut Social Security benefits eight times. What I have voted for and what Senator Bentsen has voted for is to delay the cost-of-living adjustments. Senator Bentsen two times in the United States Senate voted to delay the cost-of-living adjustments. The governor of Massachusetts at a governors' conference supported a resolution to delay the cost-of-living adjustment. And, John, you are right: they use this for political advantage. What they try to do time and time again is to scare the old people of this country. That's the politics of the past. In 1983 Republicans and Democrats dropped their political swords and in a bipartisan effort saved the Social Security system. Republicans and Democrats banded together because we know that this program is not a Republican program, it's not a Democrat program - it's a program for older Americans. And that program is actuarially sound to the turn of this century. WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Quayle. MARGOLIS: Senator, since coming to the Senate you have voted against environmental protection legislation about two-thirds of the time. This includes votes against pesticide controls, the toxic waste superfund, and health and safety protection from nuclear wastes. Senator, do you consider yourself an environmentalist, and, if you do, how do you reconcile that with your voting record? QUAYLE: I have a very strong record on the environment in the United States Senate. (Laughter) I have a record where I voted for the superfund legislation. I have a record where I voted against my president on the override of the Clean Water Act. I have voted for the major pieces of environmental legislation that have come down and been voted on in the United States Senate. This administration - and I support this administration and its environmental efforts - has moved in the area for the first time to deal with the ozone problem. We now have an international treaty, the treaty that is commonly referred to as the Montreal Treaty. For the first time we are talking about the impact of CO2 to the ozone layer. That's progress with the environment. We are committed to the environment. I take my children hiking and fishing, walking in the woods, in the wilderness. Believe me, we have a commit to preserving the environment. You bring up the environment, you can't help but think about the environmental policy of the governor of Massachusetts. He talks about being an environmentalist. Let me tell you about his environmental policy. The Boston Harbor - the Boston Harbor, which is the dirtiest waterway in America, tons of raw sewage go in there each and every day. What has the governor of Massachusetts done about that? Virtually nothing. And then he has the audacity to go down to New Jersey and tell the people of New Jersey that he's against ocean dumping. This is the same governor that applied for a license to dump Massachusetts sewage waste off the coast of New Jersey. Who has the environmental record? Who has the environmental interest? George Bush and I do. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: This late conversion is interesting to me. (Laughter and applause) I must say, when they talk about Boston Harbor and he says he hasn't done anything, the facts are he has a $6-billion program under way on waste treatment. And it was this administration, their administration, that cut out the money early on to be able to clean up water, and made it impossible to move ahead at that time on Boston Harbor. We are the authors, the Democratic Party, of Clean Air, of Clean Water, of the superfund. I am one who played a very major role in passing the superfund legislation. And every environmental organization that I know, every major one, has now endorsed the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket. And I am one who has just received the environmental award in Texas for the work I've done to clean up the bays, to clean up the water, off the coast of Texas. No, I think we know well who's going to help clean up this environment. The record is there, the history is there. And Dukakis and Bentsen will be committed to that. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Quayle. BROKAW: Thank you, Judy. Senator Quayle, there's been a lot of talk during the course of this campaign about family. It was a principal theme, as I recall, in your acceptance speech in New Orleans. Tonight I'd like to ask you about the sixty-five million American children who live with their families in poverty. I'd like for you to describe to the audience the last time that you may have visited with one of those families personally and how you explain to that family your votes against the school breakfast program, the school lunch program, and the expansion of the child immunization program. (Applause) QUAYLE: I have met with those people, and I met with them in Fort Wayne, Indiana, at a food bank. You may be surprised, Tom, they didn't ask me those questions on those votes, because they were glad that I took time out of my schedule to go down and to talk about how we are going to get a food bank going and making sure that a food bank goes in Fort Wayne, Indiana. And I have a very good record and a commitment to the poor, to those that don't have a family, that want to have a family. This administration, and a George Bush administration, will be committed to eradicating poverty. Poverty hasn't gone up in this administration; it hasn't gone down much either, and that means we have a challenge ahead of us. But let me tell you something, what we have done for the poor. What we have done for the poor is that we in fact - the homeless bill, the McKinney Act, which is the major piece of legislation that deals with homeless - the Congress has cut the funding that the administration has recommended. The poor and the poverty - the biggest thing that we have done for poverty in America is the Tax Simplification Act of 1986: six million working poor families got off the payroll; six million people are off the taxpaying payrolls because of that tax reform, and they are keeping the tax money there. To help the poor, we'll have a commitment to the programs and those programs will go on. And we are spending more in poverty programs today than we were in 1981 - that is a fact. The poverty program we are going to concentrate on is creating jobs and opportunities, so that everyone will have the opportunities that they want.] (Scattered applause) WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, your response. BENTSEN: I find that very interesting, because he has been of no help at all when it comes to passing the most major welfare reform bill in the history of our country, one where we are working very hard to see that people can get off welfare, break that cycle, take a step up in life, doing the kinds of things that we did there to let them have Medicaid for a year. That's a positive thing that's done. What also frustrates me with the kind of report that I have just heard here is the kind of votes that he has cast against child nutrition programs, the fact that he has voted against money that we needed for further immunization, the denial of polio shots to kids where the parents couldn't afford to get that kind of a shot. Now, I don't really believe that that is identifying with the concerns of people in poverty. WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Bentsen. BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, I'd like to take you back to the question that Judy asked you about your differences with Michael Dukakis on contra aid. After all, the contra aid is one of the cutting issues of foreign policy of this country in the last eight years. You and Michael Dukakis seem to be diametrically opposed on that. 1 have been told that in a closed session of the U.S. Senate you made one of the most eloquent and statesmanlike speeches in behalf of contra aid that anyone had made in the eight years of the Reagan term, that in fact you alluded to the threat that the Sandinista regime could pose to your own state of Texas. Governor Dukakis, on the other hand, has described the contra aid policy as immoral and illegal. Is he wrong? (Scattered applause) BENTSEN: Gov. Dukakis and I have disagreed on the contra program; no question about that. But my big difference with this Administration is, they look at the contra aid program as the only way to resolve that problem. They concentrate on that. And I really think we have to give peace a chance. And that's why I have been a strong supporter of the Arias plan, a plan that won the Nobel Prize for President Arias, the President of Costa Rica. I believe you have to work with the leaders of those other Central American countries to try to bring about the democratization of Nicaragua - by negotiation, by pressure, by counseling, by diplomatic pressure, that we ought to be trying that first. But in concentrating so much just on the Contras, this Administration has not paid enough attention to the rest of Central America. The concern I have is that we have a country with 85 million people sharing a 2,000mile border with us, with half of those people under the age of 15, a country that's had its standard of living cut 50 percent in the last six years. Now we ought to be concerned about that, and we ought to be involved. I was born and reared on that Mexican border. I speak their language. I've spent a good part of my life down there. Gov. Dukakis speaks Spanish, too. He's spent a good deal of time in Central and South America. And we believe that we ought to be working with a new Alliance for Progress, bringing in other countries to help; bring in Europeans, the Spanish, who have a real affinity for that area; bringing in the Japanese who have a great surplus now and looking for places to invest it. Those are the positive things I think we could do to bring about peace in that area, to help raise that standard of living and give them the kind of stability where democracy can proceed and can prosper and bloom. Those are the kinds of things that we'd be committed to in a Dukakis-Bentsen Administration to try to make this world a better place in which to live. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response. QUAYLE: There's no doubt in a Dukakis Administration that the aid would be cut off to the democratic resistance in Nicaragua, and that is unfortunate. The reason it is unfortunate, because it is beyond me why it's okay for the Soviet Union to put in billions of dollars to prop up the communist Sandinistas, but somehow it's wrong for the United States to give a few dollars to the democratic resistance. There's a thing called the Monroe Doctrine, something that the Governor of Massachusetts has said has been superseded. I doubt if many Americans agree with that. I think they believe in the Monroe Doctrine. Senator Bentsen talked about the entire Central America. There's another issue that Michael Dukakis is wrong on in Central America, and that's Grenada. He criticized our rescue mission in Grenada, according to a UPI report. Criticized that, yet 85 percent of the American people supported our rescue mission, and we turned a communist country into a noncommunist country. The Governor of Massachusetts is simply out of step with mainstream America. WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Bentsen. HUME: Good evening, Senator Bentsen, Senator Quayle. I'm sort of the cleanup man in this order, and I've been asked by my colleagues to try to deal with anything that's been left on base. Senator, I have a follow up question for you, Senator Quayle. But Senator Bentsen, I first want to ask you a question about PAC money, a thing I'm sure you're prepared to talk about. Gov. Dukakis has tried to make ethics a major issue in the campaign. And he has you as a running mate, a man who leads the league at last count in the receipt of PAC money, that being the money raised by the special interest organizations. That is a kind of campaign financing which Gov. Dukakis finds so distasteful that he has refused to accept any of it. Do you find that embarrassing, Senator? BENTSEN: No, I don't find it embarrassing at all. Because you have to remember that PAC money is the result of the last campaign reform bill, one that talks about employees have greater participation. And what I've done in PAC money is just what my opponent in my campaign has done in his campaign. He has been raising PAC money, too. So what you have to do is comply with the laws as they are, whether you're paying taxes or you're playing a football game. Whether you like those laws or not, you comply with them. Now, I have been for campaign reform, and have pushed it very hard. I believe that we have to do some things in that regard. But I've noticed that the Senator from Indiana has opposed that campaign reform and voted repeatedly against it. The things we have to do, I believe, that will cut back on soft money, for example, which I look on as frankly one of those things that we've had to do because the Republicans have done it for so long. But I think it's a loophole, frankly. But campaign reform, changing the rules of the game, is something we tried repeatedly in this session of the Congress, but only to have the Republicans lead the charge against us and defeat us. And I wish that Senator Quayle would change his mind on that particular piece of legislation and give us the kind of a campaign reform law that I think is needed in America. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle, your response. QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen is the number one PAC raiser. As a matter of fact, he used to have a $10,000 breakfast club. $10,000 breakfast club. It only costs high paid lobbyists, special interests in Washington, to come down and have breakfast with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the one that oversees all the tax loopholes in the tax code, $10,000. I'm sure they weren't paying to have cornflakes. Well, I'll tell you the kind of campaign reform I'm supporting, Senator Bentsen. I think it's time we get rid of PAC money. Support our legislation where we totally eliminate contributions by special interests and political action committees, and let's have the individual contribute and the political parties contribute. That's the kind of campaign reform that Republicans are for. They want to get rid of this special interest and rely on the individuals, and also, the political parties. WOODRUFF: Brit, your question for Senator Quayle. Once again, let me caution the audience: please, keep your reactions as quiet as possible. Brit? HUME: Senator, I want to take you back if I can to the question Judy asked you about some of the apprehensions people may feel about your being a heart beat away from the presidency. And let us assume if we can for the sake of this question that you have become Vice President and the President is incapacitated for one reason or another, and you have to take the reins of power. When that moment came, what would be the first steps that you'd take, and why? QUAYLE: First - first, I'd say a prayer for myself and for the country that I'm about to lead. And then I would assemble his people and talk. And I think this question keeps going back to the qualifications and what kind of Vice President in this hypothetical situation, if I had to assume the responsibilities of President, what I would be. And as I have said, age alone, although I can tell you, after the experiences of these last few week in the campaign, I've added ten years to my age, age alone is not the only qualification. You've got to look at experience, and you've got to look at accomplishments, and can you make a difference. Have I made a difference in the United States Senate where I've served for eight years? Yes, I have. Have I made a difference in the Congress that I've served for 12 years? Yes, I have. As I said before, looking at the issue of qualifications - and I am delighted that it comes up, because on the three most important challenges facing America, arms control and national security, jobs and education and budget deficit, I have more experience and accomplishments than does the Governor of Massachusetts. I have been in the Congress and I've worked on these issues. And believe me, when you look at arms control and trying to deal with the Soviet Union, you cannot come at it from a naive position. You have to understand the Soviet Union. You have to understand how they will respond. Sitting on that Senate Armed Services Committee for eight years has given me the experience to deal with the Soviet Union and how we can move forward. That is just one of the troubling issues that's going to be facing this nation, and I'm prepared. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Well, I can't leave something on the table that he's charged me with, and so let's get to that one. When you talk about the breakfast club, as you know, that was perfectly legal. And I formed it, and I closed it down almost immediately because I thought the perception was bad. But it's the same law - it's the same law - that lets you invite high priced lobbyists down to Williamsburg. And bring them down there and entertain them playing golf, playing tennis, and bringing Republican Senators down there, to have exchanged for that contributions to their campaign. It's the same kind of law that lets you have honorariums - and you've collected over a quarter of a million dollars of honorariums now, speaking to various interest groups. And there's no control over what you do with that money. You can spend it on anything you want to. You can spent it on golf club dues, if you want to do that. (Applause) BENTSEN: Now, that's what I've seen you do in this Administration. And that's why we need campaign reform laws, and why I support them. And you in turn have voted against them time and time again. (Applause) WOODRUFF: John Margolis, question for Senator Quayle. MARGOLIS: Senator Quayle, in recent years the Reagan administration has scaled back the activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, prompted in part by Vice President Bush's Task Force on Regulatory Relief. The budget for the agency has been cut by 20 percent and the number of inspections and manufacturing plants has been reduced by 33 percent. This has had a special effect in this area where many people work in the meat packing industry, which has a far higher rate of serious injuries than almost any other injury, a rate which appears to have been rising, although we're not really sure, because some of the largest companies have allegedly falsifying their reports. Would you acknowledge to the hundreds of injured and maimed people Nebraska, Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest that in this case deregulation may have gone too far and the government should reassert itself in protecting workers' rights. QUAYLE: The premise of your question, John, is that somehow this administration has been lax in enforcement of the OSHA regulations. And I disagree with that. And I'll tell you why. If you want to ask some business people that I talk to periodically, they complain about the tough enforcement of this administration and, furthermore, let me tell you this for the record, when we have found violations in this administration, there has not only been tough enforcement, but there have been the most severe penalties - the largest penalties in the history of the Department of Labor - have been levied when these violations have been found. There is a commitment and there will always be a commitment to the safety of our working men and women. They deserve it and we're committed to them. Now, the broader question goes to the whole issue of deregulation and has deregulation worked or has deregulation not worked. In my judgment deregulation has worked. We have a deregulated economy and we have produced through low taxes, not high taxes, through deregulation - the spirit of entrepreneurship, the individual going out and starting a business, the businessman or women willing to go out and risk their investments to start up a business and hire people. We have produced 17 million jobs in this country since 1982. Deregulation as a form of political philosophy is a good philosophy. It's one that our opponents disagree with. They want a centralized government. But we believe in the market, we believe in the people and yes, there's a role of government and the role of government is to make sure that those safety - and health and the welfare of the people is taken care of. And we'll continue to do that. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen? BENTSEN: Well, I think you see once again a piece of Democratic legislation that's been passed to try protect the working men and women of America. And then you've seen an administration that came in and really didn't have it's heart in that kind of an enforcement. A good example of that is the environmental protection laws that we were talking about a moment ago. This administration came in and put in a James Watt, an Ann Gorsuch, now that's the Bonnie and Clyde, really, of environmental protection. And that's why it's important that you have people that truly believe and trying to represent the working men and women of America. Most employers do a good job of that, but some of them put their profits before people and that's why you have to have OSHA and that's why you have to have tough and good and fair enforcement of it and that's what a Democratic administration would do to help make this working place a safer and better place to be employed. WOODRUFF: John Margolis, another question for Senator Bentsen. MARGOLIS: Senator Bentsen, since you have been in the Senate, the government has spent increasing amounts of money in an effort to protect the family farmer. Though most of the subsidies seem to go - do go to the largest and richest farmers who presumably need it least, while it's the smaller farmers who are often forced to sell out, sometimes to their large farmer neighbor who's gotten more subsidies to begin with. Despite the fact that I believe you, sir, are a rather large farmer, yourself, do you believe that it's time to uncouple the subsidy formula from the amount of land the farmer has and target Federal money to the small and medium size farmer? BENTSEN: Well, I've supported that. I voted for the 50,000 limitation to get away from the million dollar contributions to farmer. You know, of the four that are on this ticket, I'm the only on that was born and reared on a farm and still involved in farming, so I think I understand their concerns and their problems. Now, I feel very strongly that we ought to be doing more for the American farmer and what we've seen under this administration is neglect of that farmer. We've seen them drive 220,000 farmers off the farm. They seem to think the answer is move them to town, but we ought not to be doing that. What you have seen them do is cut the farm assistance for the rural areas by over 50 percent. We're seeing rural hospitals close all over the country because of this kind of an administration. We've seen an administration that has lost much of our market abroad, because they have not had a trade policy. We saw our market loss by some 40 percent. And that's one of the reasons that we've seen the cost of the farm program, which was only about two and a half billion dollars when they took office, now go to about $25 billion. Now, we can bring that kind of a cost down and get more to market prices if we'll have a good trade policy. I was in January visiting with Mr. Takeshita, the new Prime Minister of Japan. I said, "You're paying five times as much for beef as we pay for our in country - pay for it in our country, six times as much for rice. You have a $60 billion trade surplus with us. You could improve the standard of living of your people. You're spending 27 percent of your disposable income. We spend 14 or 15 percent." "When you have that kind of barrier up against us, that's not free and fair trade and we don't believe that should continue." We would be pushing very hard to open up those markets and stand up for the American farmer and see that we recapture those foreign markets and I think we can do it with the Dukakis-Bentsen administration. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle? QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen talks about recapturing the foreign markets. Well, I'll tell you one way that we're not going to recapture the foreign markets and that is if, in fact, we have another Jimmy Carter grain embargo. (Equal amounts of cheering and booing) Jimmy Carter - Jimmy Carter grain embargo set the American farmer back. You know what the farmer's interested in? Net farm income. Every one percent in increase in interest rates, a billion dollars out of the farmer's pocket. Net farm income, increased inflation, another billion dollars. Another thing that a farmer is not interested in and that's supply management that the Democratic platform talks about. But the Governor of Massachusetts, he has a farm program. He went to the farmers in the Midwest and told them not to grow corn, not to grow soybeans, but to grow Belgium [sic] endive. That's what his - that's what he and his Harvard buddies think of the American farmer, grow Belgium endive. To come in and to tell our farmers not to grow corn, not to grow soybeans, that's the kind of farm policy you'll get under a Dukakis administration and one I think the American farmer rightfully will reject. WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Bentsen. BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, you were a businessman before you entered the U.S. Senate. Let me offer you an inventory if I may: Lower interest rates, lower unemployment, lower inflation and an arms control deal with the Soviet Union. Now two guys come through your door at your business and say, "We'd like you to change," without offering a lot of specifics. Why would you accept their deal? BENTSEN: You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too. (Laughter and applause) This is an administration that has more than doubled the national debt, and they've done that in less than eight years. They have taken this country from the No. 1 lender nation in the world to the No. 1 debtor nation in the world. And the interest on that debt next year, on this Reagan-Bush debt of our nation, is going to be $640 for every man, woman, and child in America because of this kind of a credit-card mentality. So we go out and we try to sell our securities every week, and hope that the foreigners will buy them. And they do buy them. But every time they do, we lose some of our economic independence for the future. Now they've turned around and they've bought 10 percent of the manufacturing base of this country. They bought 20 percent of the banks. They own 46 percent of the commercial real estate in Los Angeles. They are buying America on the cheap. Now, when we have other countries that can't manage their economy down in Central and South America, we send down the American ambassador, we send down the International Monetary Fund, and we tell them what they can buy and what they can sell and how to run their economies. The ultimate irony would be to have that happen to us, because foreigners finally quit buying our securities. So what we need in this country is someone like Mike Dukakis, who gave ten balanced budgets in a row there, and was able to do that, meet that kind of a commitment, set those tough priorities. We need an administration that will turn this trade policy around and open up those markets, stand tough with our trading partners to help keep the jobs at home and send the products abroad. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle. QUAYLE: Senator Bentsen talks about running up the debt. Well, the governor of Massachusetts has run up more debt than all the governors in the history of Massachusetts combined, going back to the days of the Pilgrims. I don't believe that that's the kind of policy that we want. The question went to the heart of the matter, Tom. You asked the question why would we change. Well, we have changed since 1980. We've got interest rates down, we've got inflation down, people are working again, America is held in respect once again around the world. But we are going to build on that change. And as we made those positive changes of lower interest rates, lower rate of inflation, the governor of Massachusetts fought us every step of the way. We are proud of the record of accomplishment and the opportunities and the hope for millions of Americans. Hope and opportunity of these Americans is because of the policies that we have had for the last eight years, and we want to build on that and change it for even the better. WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Quayle. BROKAW: Senator Quayle, as you mentioned here tonight, you actively supported the invasion of Grenada, which was a military operation to rescue some American medical students and to rescue an island from a Marxist takeover. If military force was necessary in that endeavor, why not use the military to go after the South American drug cartels and after General Noriega, for that matter, in a surgical strike, since drugs in the minds of most Americans pose a far greater danger to many more people? (Scattered applause) QUAYLE: You are absolutely right that the drug problem is the No. 1 issue. BROKAW: But would you please address the military aspect of it. QUAYLE: I will address the military aspect, if I may respond. The military aspect of the drug problem is being addressed. As a matter of fact, we are using the Department of Defense in a coordinated effort, in reconnaissance. But I don't believe that we are going to turn the Department of Defense into a police organization. We are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction, and we've made some success in this area. Seventy tons of cocaine have been stopped. But, you know, when you look at the drug problem - and it is a tremendous problem, and there are no easy solutions to it - it's a complicated problem, and it's heading up the effort to try to create a drug-free America, which is a challenge and a goal of all of us. Not only will we utilize national defense and the Department of Defense, but we've got to get on the demand side of the ledger; we've got to get to education. And education ought to begin at home, and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. And there's another thing that will be more important than the premise of this question on a hypothetical of using troops. We will use the military assets, we will use military assets - but we need to focus on another part of this problem, and that problem is law enforcement. And here is where we have a major disagreement with the governor of Massachusetts. He is opposed to the death penalty for drug kingpins. We believe people convicted of that crime deserve the death penalty, as does the legislation that's in the Congress that is supported by a bipartisan, including many Democrats of his party. He also was opposed to mandatory drug sentencing for drug dealers in the state of Massachusetts. You cannot have a war on drugs, you cannot be tough on drugs and weak on crime. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: It's interesting to see that the Senator from Indiana, when we had a resolution on the floor of the United States Senate sponsored by Senator Dole, that this government would make no deal with Noriega - that the Senator from Indiana was one of the dozen senators that voted against it. It's also interesting to see that one of his campaign managers that's trying to help him with his image was also hired by Noriega to help him with his image in Panama. (Shouts and applause) What we have seen under this administration - we have seen them using eight cabinet officers, twenty-eight different agencies, all fighting over turf - and that is one thing we would correct under a Dukakis-Bentsen administration. We would put one person in charge in the war against drugs, and we would commit the resources to get that job done. Now, Mike Dukakis has been able to do that type of thing in the state of Massachusetts by cutting the drug use in the high schools while it's going up around the rest of the country, by putting in a drug educational program that the Drug Enforcement Agency said was a model to the country. We would be doing that around the rest of the country. That's a positive attack against drugs. WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Quayle. HUME: Senator, I want to take you back to the question that I asked you earlier about what would happen if you were to take over in an emergency, and what you would do first and why. You said you would say a prayer, and you said something about a meeting. What would you do next? (Laughter) QUAYLE: I don't believe that it's proper for me to get into the specifics of a hypothetical situation like that. The situation is that if I was called upon to serve as the president of this country, or the responsibilities of the president of this country, would I be capable and qualified to do that? And I've tried to list the qualifications of twelve years in the United States Congress. I have served in the Congress for twelve years; I have served in the Congress and served eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have traveled a number of times - I've been to Geneva many times to meet with our negotiators as we were hammering out the INF Treaty; I've met with the western political leaders - Margaret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl - I know them, they know me. I know what it takes to lead this country forward. And if that situation arises, yes, I will be prepared, and I will be prepared to lead this country, if that happens. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Once again I think what we are looking at here is someone that can step in at the presidency level at the moment, if that tragedy would occur. And if that's the case, again you have to look at maturity of judgment, and you have to look at breadth of experience. You have to see what kind of leadership roles that person has played in his life before that crisis struck him. And if you do that type of thing, then you arrive at a judgment that I think would be a wise one. And I hope that would mean that you would say we are going to vote for Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Brit, question for Senator Bentsen. HUME: Senator, I want to take you back if I can to the celebrated Breakfast Club, when it was first revealed that you had a plan to have people pay $10,000 a plate to have breakfast with you. You handled it with disarming, not to say charming, candor, you said it was a mistake, and you disbanded it and called the whole idea off. And you were widely praised for having handled it deftly. The question I have is: If The Washington Post had not broken that story and other media picked up on it, what can you tell us tonight as to why we should not believe that you would still be having those breakfasts to this day? (Scattered laughter) BENTSEN: I really must say, Brit, I don't make many mistakes, but that one was a real doozy. And I agree with that. And, as you know, I immediately disbanded it. It was perfectly legal. And you have all kinds of such clubs on the Hill - and you know that. But I still believe that the better way to go is to have a campaign reform law that takes care of that kind of a situation. Even though it's legal, the perception is bad. So I would push very strong to see that we reform the entire situation. I'd work for that end, and that's what my friend from Indiana has opposed repeatedly, vote after vote. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle. QUAYLE: He disbanded the club, but he's still got the money. He is the number one - he is the number one receiver of political action committee money. Now, Senator Bentsen has talked about reform. Well, let me tell you about the reform that we're pushing. Let's eliminate political action committees, the special interest money. There's legislation before the Congress to do that. That way, we won't have to worry about breakfast clubs, or who's the number one PAC raiser. We can go back and get the contributions from the working men and women and the individuals of America. We can also strengthen our two party system - and it needs strengthening - and rely more on the political parties than we have in the past. That's the kind of campaign reform that I'm for, and I hope the Senator will join me. WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Bentsen. MARGOLIS: Senator, we've all just finished - most America has just finished one of the hottest summers it can remember. And apparently this year will be the fifth out of the last nine that are among the hottest on record. No one knows, but most scientists think, that something we're doing, human beings are doing, are exacerbating this problem, and that this could, in a couple of generations, threaten our descendants comfort and health and perhaps even their existence. As Vice President what would you urge our government to do to deal with this problem? And specifically as a Texan, could you support a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels which might be necessary down the road? BENTSEN: Well, I think what you can do in that one, and which would be very helpful, is to use a lot more natural gas, which burns a lot cleaner. And what Mike Dukakis has said is that he'll try to break down those regulatory roadblocks that you have in the regulatory agency that denies much of the passage of that natural gas to the northeast, a way, in turn, can fight against acid rain which is another threat, because it's sterilizing our lakes, it's killing our fish. And it's interesting to me to see in the resume of Senator Quayle that he brags on the fact that he's been able to fight the acid rain legislation. I don't think that that's a proper objective in trying to clean up this environment. But the greenhouse effect is one that has to be a threat to all of us, and we have to look for alternative sources of fuel. And I've supported that very strongly. The Department of Energy is one that has cut back substantially on the study of those alternative sources of fuels. We can use other things that'll help the farmer. We can convert corn to ethanol, and I would push for that very strong. So absolutely. I'll do those things that are necessary to put the environment of our country number one. Because if we don't protect that, we'll destroy the future of our children. And we must be committed to trying - to clean up the water, clean up the air, and do everything we can, not only from a research standpoint, but also in the applied legislation to see that that's carried out. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle? QUAYLE: Vice President George Bush has said that he will take on the environmental problem. He has said further that he will deal with the acid rain legislation and reduce millions of tons of the S02 content. That legislation won't get through the Congress this year. But it will get through in a George Bush Administration, a George Bush Administration that is committed to the environment. Now the greenhouse effect is an important environmental issue. It is important for us to get the data in, to see what alternatives we might have to the fossil fuels, and make sure we know what we're doing. And there are some explorations and things that we can consider in this area. The drought highlighted the problem that we have, and therefore, we need to get on with it, and in a George Bush Administration, you can bet that we will. WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Quayle. MARGOLIS: Senator, as Vice President your most important contribution would be the advice you gave the President. One of the most troubling facts that's going to face the new Administration is the fact that the United States has now become the world's largest debtor nation. In 1987 foreigners underwrote our debts to the tune of about $138 billion. Last week a top official of the Japanese Economic Planning Agency bragged that Japan now is in a position to influence the value of the dollar, of our interest rates, and even our stock prices. And he warned that one day maybe they'd do just that. If you were Vice President of the United States and Japan did that, what would you tell the President to do? QUAYLE: When you look at dealing with this total problem - it's not just with the Japanese, but the underlying question on this total world debt problem - you have got to see, why are we a debtor, and what is attracting the foreign investment into our country today, whether it's Japanese or others. I would rather have people come over here and to make investments in this country, rather than going elsewhere. Because by coming over here, and making investments in this country, we are seeing jobs. Do you realize that today we are producing Hondas and exporting Hondas to Japan? We are the envy of the world. The United States - (Laughter) QUAYLE: Some of Senator Bentsen's supporters laugh at that. They laugh at that because they don't believe that the United States of America is the envy of the world. Well, I can tell you, the American people think the United States of America is the envy of the world. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Senator - oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. QUAYLE: We are the greatest nation in this world, and the greatest economic power. Now, there's been some talk in Congress about forgiveness of debt. Forgiveness of debt is wrong. Forgiveness of international debt would be counterproductive. And I would like to see those that talk about forgiving debt, Senator Bentsen, go out and talk about a farmer that's in debt that doesn't have his forgiven. That's not the kind of policy George Bush will have. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Well, I've told you what I'd do about trade and trying to help turn that situation around. But what we also should do is get them to give us more burden sharing when it comes to national defense. We have a situation today where, on a per capita basis, people in Western Europe are spending about one-third as much as we are in our country. And then when you go to Japan, where we're spending 6-1/2 percent on defense of the democracies, they're spending one percent. I met with some of the Japanese business leaders, talking to them about it. And I said, you know, we have 50,000 troops here in Japan, protecting the democracies of Asia. And it costs $3.5 billion a year. You're the number two economic power in the world. You ought to measure up to that responsibility and carry some of that cost. I said, if we were not doing what we're doing, we'd have a big budget surplus. And I said, you'd have chaos, because you get 55 percent of your oil from the Persian Gulf, and you wouldn't have the U.S. Navy down there to take care of that. Now, the Senator from Indiana, when we passed a resolution in the United States Senate to ask for burden sharing on that cost to keep those sea lanes open from the Japanese, he votes against that. I don't understand that. WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a question for Senator Quayle. BROKAW: Senator Quayle, I don't mean to beat this drum until it has no more sound in it. But to follow up on Brit Hume's question, when you said that it was a hypothetical situation, it is, sir, after all, the reason that we're here tonight, because you are running not just for Vice President - (Applause) BROKAW: And if you cite the experience that you had in Congress, surely you must have some plan in mind about what you would do if it fell to you to become President of the United States, as it has to so many Vice Presidents just in the last 25 years or so. QUAYLE: Let me try to answer the question one more time. I think this is the fourth time that I've had this question. BROKAW: The third time. QUAYLE: Three times that I've had this question - and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is what kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president, what kind of qualifications do I have and what would I do in this kind of a situation. And what would I do in this situation? I would make sure that the people in the cabinet and the people that are advisors to the president are called in, and I would talk to them, and I will work with them. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because as vice president I will sit on the National Security Council. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because I'm going to be coordinating the drug effort. I will know them on a firsthand basis because Vice President George Bush is going to recreate the Space Council, and I will be in charge of that. I will have day-to-day activities with all the people in government. And then, if that unfortunate situation happens - if that situation, which would be very tragic, happens, I will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency of the United States of America. And I will be prepared to do that. I will be prepared not only because of my service in the Congress, but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. It is not just age; it's accomplishments, it's experience. I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the - WOODRUFF: Please, please, once again you are only taking time away from your own candidate. QUAYLE: That was really uncalled for, Senator. (Shouts and applause) BENTSEN: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator - and I'm one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken. WOODRUFF: Tom, a question for Senator Bentsen. BROKAW: Since you seem to be taking no hostages on the stage, let me ask you a question - (Laughter) - about the American hostages, nine, still in brutal captivity in the Middle East. Senator Bentsen, you have been critical of the Iran-contra affair, but tell me, does the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket have any realistic plan for getting the American hostages being held in the Middle East released in any due time? BENTSEN: Tom, that's one of the toughest problems that any chief executive will face, because you can't help but have sympathy for that family, and for those hostages in the cells. But the one thing we ought to know by now is that you can't go out and make secret deals with the Ayatollah, you can't trade arms for hostages. When you try to do that there is no question but what you just encourage more taking of hostages. And that's been the result by this dumb idea that was cooked up in the White House basement. And I want to tell you that George Bush, attending seventeen of those meetings, and having no record of what he said - if Lloyd Bentsen was in those meetings, you would certainly hear from him and no one would be asking: Where is Lloyd? (Shouts and applause) Because I would be saying: That's a dumb idea, and now let's put an end to it. And I would speak up on that type of thing. So all you can do in that is to continue to push, use every bit of diplomatic pressure you can, what you can do in the way of economic pressure in addition to that. And that's what you would strive to do to have a successful release finally of those hostages. But not to encourage more taking of hostages. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle. QUAYLE: There's no doubt about it that arms for hostages is wrong, and it will never be repeated - we learn by our mistakes. But there have been a number of successes in foreign policy in this administration. But the question goes to a very difficult one: How do you do it? No one has the answer. If they did, we would certainly do it. But we will keep trying, we'll keep the doors open, and hopefully some day Iran and others who control those hostages will want to return to civilized international community. And they can do that, starting now, by releasing those hostages that are held illegally. WOODRUFF: Brit Hume, a question for Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Senator, much of the Dukakis and Bentsen campaign of late has been devoted to the notion that Senator Quayle isn't ready for the vice presidency and perhaps the presidency, and certainly nothing that you have said here tonight suggests that you think otherwise. I wonder if you think it's really fair for you to advance that view in light of the fact that you ran for the presidency, not the vice-presidency, in 1976 having not yet completed one full term in the Senate and having previously served three terms in the House almost a quarter of a century earlier, when in fact your time in Washington was about equal to what he has now. BENTSEN: Well, I think what you have to look at is the record of a man who has served his country - (Shouts, laughter) - served his country in war, headed up a squadron in combat, a man who built a business, knew what it was to meet a payroll and create jobs, and then serve in the United States Senate; and one who has been able to bring about some of the kinds of legislation that I've been able to bring about in my service there. I must say I didn't do a very good job of running for the presidency, and I'm well aware of that. But what we are looking at today is trying to judge once again the breadth of experience and the maturity of someone taking on this kind of a task. That is the judgment that has to be exercised by the people of America. It's a presidential decision that you are facing, and a very important one, because we are talking about who is going to lead this country into its future. And you can't have a more important responsibility than that one. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle. QUAYLE: When you look at qualifications, you look at accomplishments as well as experience. And one of the accomplishments I'm proudest of is the authorship of the Job Training Partnership Act that has trained and educated and employed over three million young people and adults that are economically disadvantaged. And we did it in a way that we got the private sector to involve itself with the public sector on private industry councils throughout America that serve over the service delivery areas. We have 51 percent of that private industry council that are businessmen and women; we have members of unions; we have community-based organizations; we have education leaders. And what we have been able to do is establish a program that is working, that is putting people back to work. That is an accomplishment, and that is an accomplishment that I will take with me into the White House. WOODRUFF: Brit, a question for Senator Quayle. HUME: Senator, I want to ask you a question that may be a little off the subject of politics, but which is aimed to get more at the question of what sort of person you are. I would hope that, Senator Bentsen, if you choose to, you might choose to answer the same question in your rebuttal time. Senator, can you identify any work of literature or art or even of film that you have seen or read or experienced in any way in the last two years that has had a particularly strong effect on you, and tell us why. QUAYLE: In the last six months, I think there are three very important books that I read that have had an impact. The three books are, one, Richard Nixon's Victory in 1999, Richard Lugar's - Senator Richard Lugar's - Letters to the Next President, Bob Massey's Nicholas and Alexandra, which deals with the fall of the Russian empire and the coming of Leninism in 1917. Those three books, which I read over the last spring vacation and early summer, had a very definite impact, because what former President Nixon and Senator Richard Lugar were talking about was a foreign policy as we move toward the 21st century. And the historical book of the downfall of the czar and the coming of Leninism, combining those three books together, gave me a better appreciation of the challenges that we have ahead of us. In Senator Lugar's book, he talks about the advancement of human rights around the world; he talked about his leadership effort in the Philippines and South Africa, where we now see human rights advancement on the Reagan agenda. Former President Nixon talked about what we are going to do after detente and arms control, and how we are going to pursue new arms control with the Soviet Union; he talked a little bit about how we deal with the Soviet Union - and this is one of the differences between George Bush and Michael Dukakis, because George Bush understands that to deal with the Soviet Union and to get progress you must deal from a position of strength. And the governor of Massachusetts doesn't understand that. I understand it. And a George Bush administration will pursue that policy. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Well, I think reading "Winds of War" and "Guns of August" back to back - I think that really shows you how we make the same mistakes too often, over and over again. And it seems to me that the Senator from Indiana is beginning to do that one. As I look toward our progress that's been made toward disarmament and cutting back on nuclear weapons and see what Ronald Reagan has been able to do with the INF treaty - and I think he deserves great credit with that one. I see a situation where the Senator from Indiana has now jumped off the reservation, when we talk about building on what Ronald Reagan has done and opposes what Ronald Reagan wants to do, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense and says let's go slow on further disarmament in trying to get the next treaty. I think that's a mistake. I think that you have to deal with the Russians from strength and we have to understand that you have to have a strong modernized nuclear deterrent, but I think we can make substantial progress and we ought to take advantage. I think he's arrived at a very dangerous judgment in the question of war and peace and it concerns me very much. Because I saw him also try to sabotage the INF treaty when it was on the Floor of the United States Senate with what he was doing there. He's listening once again to the winds of the radical right. WOODRUFF: Senator. BENTSEN: My light was still on, Judy. WOODRUFF: John Margolis, a question for Senator Quayle. MARGOLIS: Senator Quayle, I want to go back to the matter of qualifications, which I think for most people is more than just your - BENTSEN: John, we can't hear you. MARGOLIS: Can you hear now? QUAYLE: I can hear you. [Laughter.] MARGOLIS: I want to go back to the question of qualifications, which I think for most people is more than just how long you've been in the Senate and how long you've been in public life. There's also a question of candor and of consistency. And several of the things you've said, both here and earlier, I think have raised some reasonable questions. Each of them alone might seem rather trivial, but I think together they create a pattern that needs to be asked. You've talked a few times today about the Job Training Partnership Act, which you authored. In fact, I believe you co-authored it with another Senator, whom you almost never name. Earlier in the campaign when you were asked why you got a very - a desk job in the National Guard after being trained as a welder, you said at the time you had a very strong background in journalism, which at that time was summer jobs at your family-owned newspaper, which you have not been very forthcoming about what they were. As you have not been very forthcoming about your college record. Now, I have to say - at least the males on this panel have earlier agreed that your record was probably comparable to ours, but - [Laughter.] MARGOLIS: Nonetheless, these examples of sort of overstatement and exaggeration and not being forthcoming - this what has led a lot of people to question this part of your qualifications, not your experience, but your character. Would you like to set some of these things straight now as to what you did in your summer jobs in college, what your grades were like and would you like to identify your co-sponsor of the Job Training Partnership Act? QUAYLE: All in two minutes? MARGOLIS: Sure. QUAYLE: Let me start with the underlying premise, that somehow I haven't been straightforward. And I have. And let's go to the - right to the very first question - the Job Training Partnership Act. I was the author of that. The co-author in the United States Senate was Senator Kennedy. I was the Chairman of the Employment and Productivity Subcommittee. Chairmen of the committee write that legislation. Chairmen of the committee write the legislation and then they go out and get co-sponsorship. And when you are the chairman of the committee and you sit down and you write the legislation, you are the author of that. And I'm proud to have been the author of that. Because you know what we had, we had a CETA program that spent $50 billion from about 1973 through 1982 and when we concluded that program - when we concluded that program, unemployment was higher than when it began. It was a program that didn't work and the Job Training Partnership Act does work. Now, the issue of releasing all the - my grades - I am - and I stand before you tonight - as the most investigated person ever to seek public office. (Applause) QUAYLE: Thousands of journalists have asked every professor I've had, all my teachers and they know - and I have never professed to be anything but an average student. I have never said I was anything more than that, but it's not whether you're an average study, it's what are you going to do with your life. And what have I - going to do with my life. I have committed it to public service since I was 29 years of age - elected to the House of Representatives. Elected to the United States Senate when I was 33. I now have the opportunity at 41 to seek the office of the Vice Presidency. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen? BENTSEN: I have absolutely no quarrel with Senator Quayle's military record. But I do strongly disagree with him on some of the issues. You make great patriotic speeches and I enjoy them, but I don't understand your vote on veterans issues. Senator Quayle has one of the worst voting records in the United States Senate on veterans issues. And one of them that particularly bothers me, sponsoring legislation to put a tax on combat pay and disability pay for veterans, for fighting men and women of America. Tax on their disability pay when they're lying there in the hospital, people who have sacrificed for our country. I think you ought to explain that to the people of America and you ought to explain it tonight. WOODRUFF: John, a question for Senator Bentsen. MARGOLIS: Senator, you're Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and you're generally considered rather an orthodox conservative on fiscal matters, meaning someone who would be very concerned about the budget deficit. With everybody in politics afraid even to mention taxes, more social security cuts or even very much restrain in defense sending, would you now list a few specific programs which would reduce or eliminate - which you would reduce or eliminate, to cut the deficit by about $50 billion, the deficit which is expected to be about $135 billion this Fiscal Year. BENTSEN: One of them that I'd work on - and I do this as a farmer - I try to turn the situation around where we have seen the subsidy payments go from two and a half billion to ten times that under this administration. And the way I would accomplish that--was with a tough trade policy, opening up those markets, getting those prices back up to market prices. We can do that if we have an aggressive trade policy for our country, if we make trade a number one priority and not trade it off for some foreign policy objective at the moment. That means we have to stand up for the American farmers and that cuts back on the regulation on American farmers. That's a positive way to accomplish that. In addition to that, we do some of the things that I think have to be done insofar as doing a better job of procurement, particularly when we're talking about some of our military things that we should buy. I know that I fought very hard to put in an independent inspector general for the Defense Department, that the Senator from Indiana opposed me on that. But we were finally able to put that into effect and we saved over a quarter of a billion dollars this year, almost enough to buy a squadron of 716s. Those are the kids of things that I'd work on. One of the things I learned in business is that you can expect what you inspect. So, we'd be a - doing a much tougher job of auditing, to try to get rid of some of these kickbacks to consultants on military contracts, to be much more aggressive on that. In addition, those types of things would bring the interest rate down. I'd try to turn this trade deficit around and that too would help us and help us very substantially. And I'd get rid of some things like these planes that - are going to have - that the administration wants that'll fly from New York to Tokyo and take those investment bankers over there in four hours. I don't think we can afford a piece of technological elegance like that. I'd strike that sort of thing from the ticket. I don't know how many people have ridden the Concorde, not many, but I voted against it, said it would be a financial disaster and it's been just that. WOODRUFF: Senator. BENTSEN: So, those are the types of things that I would work on. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle? QUAYLE: The way we're going to reduce this budget deficit, and it is a challenge to make sure that it is reduce, is first to stick to the Gramm-Rudman targets. The Gramm-Rudman targets have worked. We've reduced the Federal budget deficit $70 billion. Senator Bentsen voted against Gramm-Rudman, the very tool that has been used to bring the Federal budget deficit down. We're going to need all the tools possible to bring this Federal budget deficit down. We need the tools of a line item veto. A line item veto that 43 governors in this country have, but not the President of the United States. The President of the United States needs to have a line item veto. When Congress goes ahead and puts into appropriations bills unrequested and unnecessary spending, let the President put a line through that, send it back to the Congress and let the Congress vote on it again. Congress has to help out in reducing this budget deficit as much as the Executive Branch. WOODRUFF: Tom Brokaw, a last question for Senator Bentsen. BROKAW: Senator Bentsen, I'd like to ask you about your split personality during this election year. You're running on the ticket with Michael Dukakis, a man who is opposed to the death penalty, a man who is in favor of gun control, and at the same time you're running for the United States Senate in the state of Texas, where your position on many of those same issues is well known, and absolutely opposed to him. How do you explain to the people of Texas how you can be a social conservative on those cutting issues and still run with Michael Dukakis on the national ticket? BENTSEN: Michael Dukakis wasn't looking for a clone. I think it's part of the strength and the character of this land that he reaches out, and that he wants someone that will speak up - and that I'll do. I've seen many chief executives come into my office and say they're going over and tell the president of the United States off, they're going to pound the desk, and go into that office and turn to Jello. Now, I've dealt with many a president, and I don't hesitate for a minute to speak up. But when you're talking about something like the death penalty, where Michael Dukakis and I do disagree, what you really ought to get to is what's being done against crime, and what kind of progress he's been able to make. In the state of Massachusetts he has the homicide rate down to the lowest of any industrial state. It's substantially ahead of the national average. He's been able to do that with an educated program for the people of that state by adding some 1,500 new police officers; he's done it in turn by the leadership that I think he will bring to the ticket when he becomes president of the United States and fighting drugs. He's taken it down some four percent in the high schools of that state, while it's gone up about the rest of the nation. But you would seem him as president of the United States being very aggressive in this fight against crime, and having that kind of a successful result. And that's one of the reasons I'm delighted and proud to be on the ticket with him. Sure, we have some differences, but overall we have so many things we agree on. This situation of a trade policy, of cutting back on the deficit. Those are positive, plus things, and major issues facing our nation. WOODRUFF: Senator Quayle. QUAYLE: One of the things that they don't agree on is in the area of national defense. National defense, and how we're going to preserve the freedom in this country. Michael Dukakis is the most liberal national Democrat to seek the office of presidency since George McGovern. He is for - he is against the MX missile, the midgetman, cutting two aircraft carriers. He is opposed to many defense programs that are necessary to defend this country. That's why former Secretary of Defense and former Energy Secretary in the Carter administration, Jim Schlesinger, in an open letter to Time magazine asked Governor Dukakis, "are you viscerally anti-military?" Jim Schlesinger never got an answer. And the reason he did is because the governor of Massachusetts doesn't want to answer former Secretary Jim Schlesinger on that very important question. WOODRUFF: Tom, a last question for Senator Quayle. BROKA W: Senator Quayle, all of us in our lifetime encounter an experience that helps shapes our adult philosophy in some form or another. Could you describe for this audience tonight what experience you may have had, and how it shaped our political philosophy? QUAYLE: There are a lot of experiences that I've had that have shaped my adult philosophy, but the one that I keep coming back to time and time again - and I talk about it at commencement addresses, I talk about it in the high schools. I talk about it when I visit the job training centers. And it's the advice that my maternal grandmother, Martha Pulliam, who's 97 years old. We are a modern day, four generation family. The advice that she gave me when I was growing up is advice that I've given my children, and I've given to a number of children, number of people. And it's very simple. It's very common sense. And she says, "You can do anything you want to if you just set your mind to it, and go to work." Now, the Dukakis supporters sneer at that because it's common sense. (Laughter) QUAYLE: They sneer at common sense advice. Midwestern advice. Midwestern advice from a grandmother to a grandson. Important advice. Something that we ought to talk about, because if you want to, you can make a difference. You, America can make a difference. You're going to have that choice come this election. Everyone can make a difference if they want to. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen? BENTSEN: I think being born and reared on the Rio Grande, to have spent part of my life seeing some of the struggles that have taken place in one of the lowest per capita incomes in the United States. And that's one of the reasons I worked so hard to try to assist on education. And when I found that the bankers in that area found that they could not handle the loans because of some of the detail and the expense, couldn't make a profit on it, I went down there and helped form a nonprofit organization, to buy out those loans from them, and to manage them, and do it in a way where they'd continue to make those loans. Now they have. And they've educated more than 20,000 of those students, loaned out over a hundred million dollars. And it hasn't cost the taxpayers of this country one cent. That's one of the reasons I've worked so hard to bring better health care to the people, because what I've seen in the way of poverty down there in that area, and the lack of medical attention, and trying to see that that's turned around; why I've worked so hard on the welfare reform bill--to give them a chance to break these cycles of poverty, a chance for a step up in life. Judy, something's happened. My light's still on. WOODRUFF: Your light's not working. BENTSEN: All right. WOODRUFF: We're sorry about that if that's the case. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bentsen. Thank you, Senator Quayle. We have now come to the end of the questions, and before I ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I'd like to thank all of you for joining us. Senator Quayle, yours is the first closing statement. QUAYLE: Thank you. Tonight has been a very important evening. You have been able to see Dan Quayle as I really am, and how George Bush and I want to lead this country into the future. Thank you, America, for listening, and thank you for your fairness. Now you will have a choice to make on election day. You will have a choice of whether America is going to choose the road of Michael Dukakis or the road of George Bush as we march toward the 21st Century. The road of Michael Dukakis comes down to this: Bigger government, higher taxes. They've always believed in higher taxes; they always have, and they always will. Cuts in national defense. Back to the old economics of high interest rates, high inflation, and the old politics of high unemployment. Now the road of George Bush is the road to the future, and it comes down to this: An America second to none, with visions of greatness, economic expansion, tough laws, tough judges, strong values, respect for the flag and our institutions. George Bush will lead us to the 21st Century, a century that will be of hope and peace. Ronald Reagan and George Bush saved America from decline. We changed America. Michael Dukakis fought us every step of the way. It's not that they're not sympathetic; it's simply that they will take America backwards. George Bush has the experience, and with me, the future, a future committed to our family, a future committed to the freedom. Thank you, good night, and God bless you. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen, your closing statement. BENTSEN: In just 34 days, America will elect new leadership for our country. It's a most important decision, because there's no bigger job than governing this great country of ours, and leading it into its future. Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen offer you experience, tempered, capable leadership, to meet those challenges of the future. Our opposition says lower your sights, rest on your laurels. Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America can do better, that America can't just coast into the future, clinging to the past. This race is too close. The competition is too tough, the stakes are too high. Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America must move into that future united in a commitment to make this country of ours the most powerful, the most prosperous nation in the world. As Americans, we honor our past, and we should. But our children are going to live in the future, and Mike Dukakis says the best of America is yet to come. But that won't happen. Taking care of our economy, just putting it on automatic pilot. It won't happen by accident. It's going to take leadership, and it's going to take courage. And the commitment, and a contribution by all of us to do that. I've worked for the betterment of our country, both in war and peace, as a bomber pilot, as one who has been a businessman, and a United States senator, working to make this nation the fairest and the strongest and the most powerful in the world. Help us bring America to a new era of greatness. The debate has been ours, but the decision is yours. God bless you. (Applause) WOODRUFF: Thank you both, thank you. Presidential Candidate Debates, Vice Presidential Debate in Omaha, Nebraska Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217195

October 13, 1988 SHAW: On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate. I am Bernard Shaw of CNN, Cable News Network. My colleagues on the panel are Ann Compton of ABC NEWS; Margaret Warner of Newsweek magazine; and Andrea Mitchell of NBC NEWS. The candidates are Vice President George Bush, the Republican nominee; and Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. (Applause) SHAW: For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two campaigns. However, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and I can ask this evening, and the candidates have no prior knowledge of our questions. By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond. Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? DUKAKIS: No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that's something I want to lead, something we haven't had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that's one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We've had great success in my own state. And we've reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your one-minute rebuttal. BUSH: Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Bernie, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I'd say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I'm glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn't. SHAW: Now to you, Vice President Bush. I quote to you this from Article III of the 20th amendment to the Constitution. Quote: "If at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become president," meaning, if you are elected and die before inauguration day BUSH: Bernie. SHAW: automatically automatically, Dan Quayle would become the 41st President of the United States. What have you to say about that possibility? BUSH: I'd have confidence in him. And I made a good selection. And I've never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young Senator in my entire life. And I've never seen a presidential campaign where the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee; never seen one before. (Applause) BUSH: But you know, Lloyd Bentsen jumped on Dan Quayle, when Dan Quayle said, he's had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress. He had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term. He founded authored, the job training partnership act. It says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own that they're going to have jobs. We're moving into a new competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense; helped amend the INF treaty so we got a good, sound treaty, when these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we'd listened to them, we would never have had a treaty. And so I have great confidence in him. And it's turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don't like it when there's an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I'm proud of my choice. And you know, I don't think age is the only criterion. But I'll tell you something, I'm proud that people who are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be vice president of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it, and I'm proud of it; that's what I'd say. And he could do the job. SHAW: Gov. Dukakis, your one-minute rebuttal. DUKAKIS: Bernard, this was the first presidential decision that we as nominees were called upon to make. And that's why people are so concerned. Because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make. The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War II, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the President and commander in chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, because I thought he was the best qualified person for the job. (Applause) GOY. DUKAKIS: Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle, and before he did it, he said, watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all And it sure did. It sure did. (Applause) SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President. COMPTON: Thank you, Bernie. Mr. Vice President, yes, we read your lips: no new taxes. But despite that same pledge from President Reagan, after income tax rates were cut, in each of the last five years, some Federal taxes have gone up, on Social Security, cigarettes, liquor, even long distance telephone calls. Now that's money straight out of people's wallets. Isn't the phrase, no new taxes, misleading the voters? BUSH: No, because I'm pledged to that, and yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is, taxes have been cut, and yet income is up to the Federal Government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. More Americans at work today than at any time in the history of the country, and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don't want to do that, and I won't do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it's going to take discipline of the executive branch; it's going to take discipline of the congressional branch. And that is what I call a flexible freeze that allows growth about 4 percent or the rate of inflation but does not permit the Congress just to add on spending. I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart: they know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress. And by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes. So I'm pledged to do that. And those pessimists who say it can't be done, I'm sorry, I just have a fundamental disagreement with them SHAW: Gov. Dukakis, your one-minute response. DUKAKIS: Ann, the Vice President made that pledge. He's broken it three times in the past year already. So it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And what I'm concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening, the flexible freeze somebody described it the other day as a kind of economic slurpee he wants to spend billions on virtually every weapons system around. He says he's not going to raise taxes, though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country a five-year $40 billion tax break, and we're going to pay for it. And he's been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. Now if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that's already been added on the backs of the American taxpayer is going to increase even more, and if we continue with this for another four years, then I'm worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around. No, we need a chief executive who is prepared to lead; who won't blame the Congress; who will lead to bring down that deficit, who will make tough choices on spending SHAW: Governor DUKAKIS: will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do it with the Congress of the United States. (Applause) SHAW: And to Governor Dukakis. COMPTON: Governor, let me follow up on that by asking you you've said it many times that you have balanced ten budgets in a row in Massachusetts. Are you promising the American people here tonight that within a four-year presidential term, you will balance the federal budget? DUKAKIS: No, I'm not sure I can promise that; I don't think either one of us can really. There is no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this: that we will set as our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending; it will require a good strong rate of economic growth; it will require a plan that the president works out with the Congress doesn't blame them, works it out with them, which brings that deficit down; it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren't being paid in this country. And that's grossly unfair to the average American who is paying his taxes and paying them on time and doesn't have any alternative: it's taken out of his paycheck. Mr. Bush says we are going to put the IRS on every taxpayer. That's not what we are going to do. I'm for the taxpayer bill of rights. But I think it's unconscionable, Ann, that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans when there are billions out there, over $100 billion, in taxes owed that aren't being paid. Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily, $20, $25, $30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we are standing on a good strong fiscal foundation. Senator Bentsen said, as you recall at the debate with Senator Quayle, that if you give any of us $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, we can create an illusion of prosperity. But sooner or later that credit card mentality isn't going to work. And I want to bring to the White House a sense of strength and fiscal responsibility which will build a good strong foundation under which this country, or above which country can move, grow, invest, and build the best America for its people and for our kids and our grandkids. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your response. BUSH: The Governor has to balance the budget in his state he is required to by law. He has raised taxes several times. I wish he would join me, as a matter of fact, in appealing to the American people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government and for the line-item veto. (Applause) I'd like to have that line-item veto for the president, because I think that would be extraordinarily helpful. And I won't do one other thing that he's had to do: took $29 million out of his state pension fund that's equivalent at the federal level of taking out of the Social Security trust fund. I'm not going to do that; I won't do that. (Applause) And so I'm still a little unclear as to whether he's for or against the tax increase. I have been for the taxpayer bill of rights all along. And this idea of unleashing a whole bunch-an army, a conventional force army, of IRS agents into everybody's kitchen I mean, he's against most defense matters, and now he wants to get an army of JRS auditors going out there. (Laughter) I'm against that; I oppose that. (Boos and applause) SHAW: I'm going to say this and I'm going to say it once to every person in this auditorium: what these candidates are about is of utmost seriousness to the American voters; they should be heard and you should be quiet. If you are not quiet, I am going to implore the candidates to do something about quieting their own partisans. But we cannot get through this program with these outbursts. Margaret Warner for Governor Dukakis. WARNER: Good evening, Governor, Mr. Vice President. Governor, you won the first debate on intellect, and yet you lost it on heart. BUSH: Just a minute. WARNER: You'll get your turn. DUKAKIS: I don't know if the vice president agrees with that. WARNER: The American public admired your performance, but didn't seem to like you much. Now, Ronald Reagan has found his personal warmth to be a tremendous political asset. Do you think that a president has to be likable to be an effective leader? DUKAKIS: Margaret, may I go back and just say to the vice president that I didn't raid the pension fund of Massachusetts you are dead wrong, George, we didn't do that. As a matter of fact, I'm the first governor in the history of my state to fund that pension system, and I'm very proud of that. (Applause) I have been in politics for twenty-five years, Margaret; I've won a lot of elections, I've lost a few, as you know, and learned from those losses. I won the Democratic nomination in fifty-one separate contests. I think I'm a reasonably likable guy. (Laughter, scattered applause) I'm serious though I think I'm a little more lovable these days than I used to be back in my youth when I began in my state legislature. But I'm also a serious guy. I think the presidency of the United States is a very serious office, and I think we have to address these issues in a very serious way. So I hope and expect that I will be liked by the people of this country as president of the United States; I certainly hope I will be liked by them on the 8th of November. (Laughter) But I also think it's important to be somebody who is willing to make those tough choices. Now, we have just heard two or three times from the vice president: he's not going to raise taxes. I repeat, within days after you made that pledge, you broke it; you said, well, maybe as a last resort we'll do it. And you supported legislation this year that's involved tax increases not once, but twice. So that pledge isn't realistic, and I think the vice president knows it; I think the people of this country know it. The fact of the matter is that the next president of the United States is going to have to go to the White House seriously, he is going to have to work with the Congress seriously he can't turn to the Congress and blame them for the fact that we don't have a balanced budget and that we have billions and billions of dollars in red ink. And I am going to be a president who is serious, I hope and expect will be liked by the American people. But more than that, to do the kind of job that I'm elected to do, will do it with as much good humor as I can, but at the same time will do it in a way which will achieve the goals we want for ourselves and our people. And I think we know what they are: a good strong future, a future in which there is opportunity for all of our citizens. SHAW: One minute from the Vice President. BUSH: I don't think it's a question of whether people like you or not to make you an effective leader. I think it's whether you share the broad dreams of the American people, whether you have confidence in the people's ability to get things done or whether you think it all should be turned over, as many of the liberals do, to Washington, D.C. You see, I think it's a question of values, not likability or loveability, it's a question in foreign affairs in experience, knowing world leaders, knowing how to build on a superb record of this administration in arms control, because you'd know exactly how to begin. You have to learn from experience that making unilateral cuts in defense system is not the way that you enhance peace. You've got to understand that it is only the United States that can stand for freedom and democracy around the world and we can't turn it over to the United Nations or other multilateral organizations. It is, though, trying to understand the heartbeat of the country. And I know these campaigns get knocked a lot, but I think I'd be a better President now for having had to travel to these communities and understand the family values and the importance of neighborhood. (Applause) BUSH: Please. SHAW: Margaret Warner for the Vice President. WARNER: I'd like to follow up on that Mr. Vice President. The tenor of the campaign you've been running, in terms of both the issues and your rhetoric has surprised even some of your friends. Senator Mark Hatfield who's known your family a long time and who knew your father, the late Senator Prescott Bush, said, and I quote, "If his father were alive today, I'm sure his father would see it as a shocking transformation." Is Senator Hatfield right? BUSH: What was he referring to? WARNER: He was referring to your performance in the campaign. BUSH: I think my dad would be pretty proud of me, because I think we've come a long long way and I think, you know three months ago, I remember some of the great publications in this country had written me off. And what I've had to do is define, not just my position, but to define his and I hope I've done it fairly. And the reason I've had to do that is that he ran on the left in the Democratic primary, ran firmly and ran with conviction and ran on his record. And then at that Democratic convention, they made a determination and they said there, ideology doesn't matter, just competence. And in the process the negatives began. It wasn't me that was there at that convention. Thank God I was up in the with Jimmy Baker camping out and I didn't have to hear all the personal attacks on me out of that Democratic convention. And I'm not the one that compared the President of the United States rotting from like a dead fish from the head down. I didn't do that. But I have defined the issues and I am not going to let Governor Dukakis go through this election without explaining some of these very liberal position he's the one a liberal, traditional liberal a progressive liberal Democrat. He's the one that brought up, to garner primary votes, the whole question of the ACLU. And I have enormous difference with the ACLU on their politic agenda. Not on their defending some minority opinion on the right or the left. I support that. But what I don't like is this left wing political agenda and therefore I have to help define that and if he's unwilling to do it, if he says ideology doesn't matter, I don't agree with him. (Applause) SHAW: One minute from Governor Dukakis. DUKAKIS: Well, Margaret, we've heard it again tonight and I'm not surprised, the labels. I guess the Vice President two or three times, said I was coming from the left. In 1980, President Reagan called you a liberal for voting for Federal gun control. And this is something Republicans have used for a long time. They tried it with Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. It's not labels. It's our vision of America. And we have two fundamentally different visions of America. The Vice President is complacent, thinks we ought to stick with the status quo, doesn't think we ought to move ahead, thinking things are okay as they are. I don't. I think this is a great country, because we've always wanted to do better, to make our country better, to make our lives better. We've always been a nation which was ambitious for America and we move forward. And that's the kind of America I want. That's the kind of leadership I want to provide. But I don't think these labels mean a thing and I would hope that tonight in the course of the rest of this campaign, we can have good solid disagreements on issues. There's nothing the matter with that. But let's stop labeling each other and lets' get to the heart of the matter which is the future of this country. (Applause) SHAW: Andrea Mitchell, for the Vice President. MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, Governor. Mr. Vice President, let me return for a moment to the issue of the budget, because so much has already been put off limits in your campaign that most people do not believe that the flexible freeze alone will solve the problem of the deficit. So, let's turn to defense for a moment. Pentagon officials tell us that there is not enough money in the budget to handle military readiness, preparedness, as well as new weapons systems that have been proposed, as well as those already in the pipeline. You were asked in the first debate what new weapons systems you would cut. You mentioned three that had already been canceled. Can you tonight share with us three new weapons systems that you could? BUSH: If I knew of three new weapons systems that I thought were purely waste and weren't protected by the Congress, they wouldn't be in the budget. They would not be in the budget, but you want one now? I'll give you one, that HMET, that heavy truck, that's cost what is it $850 million and the Pentagon didn't request it and, yet, a member of Congress, a very powerful one, put it in the budget. I think we can save money through this whole very sophisticated concept, Andrea, that I know you do understand of competitive strategies. It is new and it is very very different than what's happened, but it's not quite ready to be totally implemented. But it's very important. I think we can say, through the Packard Commission Report and I'm very proud that David Packard, the originator of that report, is strongly supporting me. So, it's not a question of saying our budget is full of a lot of waste. I don't believe that. I do think this. We're in the serious stages of negotiation with the Soviet Union on the strategic arms control talks. And we're protecting a couple of options in terms of modernizing our strategic forces. My Secretary of Defense is going to have to make a very difficult decision in which system to go forward with. But we are protecting both of them. We are moving forward with negotiations and, you see, I just think it would be dumb negotiating policy with the Soviets to cut out one or the other of the two options right now. The Soviets are modernizing. They continue to modernize and we can't simply we've got enough nuclear weapons, let's freeze. We can't do that. We have to have modernization, especially if we achieve the 50 percent reduction in strategic weapons that our President is taking the leadership to attain. And, so, that's the way I'd reply to it and I believe we can have the strongest and best defense possible if we modernize, if we go forward with competitive strategies and if we do follow through on the Packard Commission report. SHAW: Governor Dukakis, one minute. DUKAKIS: Well, Andrea, we've just had another example of why the Vice President's mathematics just don't add up. I think you know because you've covered these issues, that there's no way that we can build all of the weapons the Vice President says he wants to build within the defense budget. Everybody knows that including the people at the Pentagon. Now, my defense secretary is going to have a lot to do with those decisions, but it's going to be the President who's going to have to ultimately decide before that budget goes to the Congress what weapons systems are going to go and what are going to stay. We are not going to spend the billions and trillions that Mr. Bush wants to spend on Star Wars. We're not going to spend billions on MX's on railroad cars, which is a weapons system we don't need, can't afford and won't help our defense posture at all. We're not going to spend hundreds of millions on a space plane from Washington to Tokyo. Those are decisions that the chief executive has to make. Yes, we're going to have a strong and credible and effective nuclear deterrent. We're going to go forward with the Stealth and the D-5 and the advance cruise missile and good conventional forces. But the next President of the United States will have to make some tough and difficult decisions. I'm prepared to make them, the Vice President is not. SHAW: Governor, Andrea has a question for you. MITCHELL: Governor, continuing on that subject, then, you say we have to do something about conventional forces. You have supported the submarine launch missile, the D-5 you just referred to. Yet, from Jerry Ford to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of modernizing the land based missiles. Now, you have ruled out the MX and the Midgetman. More recently, some of your aides have hinted at some flexibility you might show about some other new form of missile. Can you tell us tonight why you have rejected the wisdom of people as diverse as Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, Al Gore, people in both parties and what type of land based missile would you consider? DUKAKIS: Well, Andrea, today we have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads, on land, on air and in the sea. That's an incredibly powerful nuclear deterrent. I don't rule out modernization, and there are discussions going on now in the Congress, I know with the Pentagon, about a less expensive modernized land-based leg of the triad. But there are limits to what we can spend. There are limits to this nation's ability to finance these weapons systems. And one of the things that the Vice President either ignores or won't address is the fact that you can't divorce our military security from our economic security. How can we build a strong America militarily that's teeter-tottering on a mountain of debt? And if we go forward with the kinds of policies that the Vice President is suggesting tonight and has in the past, that debt is going to grow bigger and bigger and bigger. So military security and economic security go hand in hand. And we will have a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. We're going to have conventional forces that are well maintained, well equipped, well trained, well supported. And we have serious problems with our conventional forces at the present time, and they'll get worse unless we have a president who is willing to make some of these decisions. And we also have important domestic priorities, in education and housing and health care, in economic development, in job training, in the environment. And all of these things are going to have to be addressed. That's why I say again to all of you out there who have to deal with your household budgets and know how difficult it is that the next President has to do the same. I want the men and women of our Armed Forces to have the support they need to defend us; the support they need when they risk our lives to keep us free and to keep this country free. But we cannot continue to live on a credit card. We cannot continue to tell the American people that we're going to build all of these systems, and at the same time, invest in important things here at home, and be serious about building a strong and good America. And that's the kind of America I want to build. SHAW: One minute for the Vice President. BUSH: I think the foremost (Applause) BUSH: Can we start the clock over? I held off for the applause. SHAW: You can proceed, sir. BUSH: I think the foremost responsibility of a president really gets down to the national security of this country. The Governor talks about limits, what we can't do, opposes these two modernization systems, talks now about well, we'll develop some new kind of a missile. It takes eight years, ten years, to do that. He talked about a nuclear freeze back at the time when I was in Europe trying to convince European public opinion that we ought to go forward with the deployment of the INF weapons. And thank God, the freeze people were not heard. They were wrong. And the result is, we deployed, and the Soviets kept deploying, and then we negotiated from strength. And now we have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age to ban weapons. You just don't make unilateral cuts in the naive hope that the Soviets are going to behave themselves. World peace is important, and we have enhanced the peace. And I'm proud to have been a part of an administration that has done exactly that. Peace through strength works. SHAW: Ann Compton for Gov. Dukakis. COMPTON: Governor, today they may call them role models, but they used to be called heroes, the kind of public figure who could inspire a whole generation, someone who was larger than life. My question is not, who your heroes were. My question instead is, who are the heroes who are there in American life today? Who are the ones who you would point out to young Americans as figures who should inspire this country? DUKAKIS: Well, I think when I think of heroes, I think back, not presently, Ann. But there are many people who I admire in this country today. Some of them are in public life in the Senate, the Congress. Some of my fellow governors who are real heroes to me. I think of those young athletes who represented us at the Olympics were tremendously impressive. We were proud of them. We felt strongly about them, and they did so well by us. I can think of doctors and scientists, Jonas Salk who for example discovered a vaccine which cured one of the most dread diseases we ever had. And he's a hero. I think of classroom teachers, classroom teachers that I have had, classroom teachers that youngsters have today who are real heroes to our young people. Because they inspire them. They teach them. But more than that, they are role models. Members of the clergy who have done the same. Drug counselors out there in the street who are providing help to youngsters who come up to me and others who ask for help and want help, are doing the hard work, the heroic work, which it takes to provide that kind of leadership, that kind of counseling, that kind of support. I think of people in the law enforcement community who are taking their lives in their hands everyday, when they go up to one of those doors and kick it down and try to stop this flow of drugs into our communities and into our kids. So there are many, many heroes in this country today. These are people that give of themselves everyday and every week and every month. In many cases they are people in the community who are examples, and are role models. And I would hope that one of the things I could do as president is to recognize them, to give them the kind of recognition that they need and deserve so that more and more young people can themselves become the heroes of tomorrow, can go into public service, can go into teaching, can go into drug counseling, can go into law enforcement, and be heroes themselves to generations yet to come. SHAW: One minute for Vice President Bush. BUSH: I think of a teacher right here, largely Hispanic school, Jaime Escalante, teaching calculus to young kids, 80 percent of them going on to college. I think of a young man now in this country named Villadaris, who was released from a Cuban jail. Came out and told the truth in this brilliant book, Against All Hope, about what is actually happening in Cuba. I think of those people that took us back into space again, Rick Houk and that crew, as people that are worthy of this. I agree with the Governor on athletics. And there's nothing corny about having sports heroes, young people that are clean and honorable and out there setting the pace. I think of Dr. Fauci. Probably never heard of him. You did, Ann heard of him. He's a very fine research, top doctor, at the National Institute of Health, working hard doing something about research on this disease of AIDS. But look, I also think we ought to give a little credit to the President of the United States. He is the one who has gotten us that first arms control agreement. SHAW: Mr. Vice President BUSH: And the cynics abounded. And he is leaving office with a popularity at an all-time high, because American people SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your time has expired. BUSH: say, he is our hero. (Applause) SHAW: Ann has a question for you, Mr. Vice President. COMPTON: Let's change the pace a little bit, Mr. Vice President. In this campaign some hard and very bitter things have been spoken by each side about each side. If you'd consider for a moment Gov. Dukakis and his years of public service, is there anything nice you can say about him, anything you find admirable? BUSH: You're stealing my close. I had something very nice to say in there. COMPTON: Somebody leak my question to you? BUSH: No, let me tell you something about that. And Barbara and I were sitting there before that Democratic convention. And we saw the Governor and his son on television the night before and his family, and his mother who was there. And I'm saying to Barbara, you know, we've always kept family as a bit of an oasis for us. You all know me, and we've held it back a little. But we used that as a role model, the way he took understandable pride in his heritage, what his family means to him. And we've got a strong family. And we watched that. And we said, hey, we've got to unleash the Bush kids. And so you saw ten grandchildren there jumping all over their grandfather at the convention. You see our five kids, all over this country, and their spouses. And so I would say that the concept of the Dukakis family has my great respect. And I would say, I don't know whether that's kind or not, it's just an objective statement. I think the man anybody that gets into this political arena and has to face you guys everyday deserves a word of praise. Because it's gotten a little ugly out there. It's gotten a little nasty. It's not much fun sometimes. And I would cite again Dan Quayle. I've been in politics a long time, and I don't remember that kind of piling on, that kind of ugly rumor that never was true, printed. Now, come on. So some of it is unfair. But he's in the arena. Teddy Roosevelt used to talk about the arena, you know, daring to fail greatly or succeed, no matter. He's in there. So I salute these things. I salute those who participate in the political process. Sam Raybum had a great expression on this. He said here were all these intellectuals out there griping and complaining and saying it was negative coverage. Rayburn says, yeah, and that guy never ran for sheriff either. Michael Dukakis has run for sheriff, and so has George Bush. SHAW: Governor, a one-minute response. DUKAKIS: I didn't hear the word "liberal" or "left" one time. I thank you for that. BUSH: That's not bad. That's true. DUKAKIS: And doesn't that prove the point, George, which is that values like family and education and community, decent homes for young people that family on Long Island I visited on Monday where Lou and Betty Tolamo (phonetic) bought a house for some $19,000 back in 1962, have had seven children, they're all making good livings. They can't live in the community which they grew up in. Those are basic American values. I believe in them. I think you believe in them. They're not left or right. They're decent American values. I guess the one thing that concerns me about this, Ann, is this attempt to label things which all of us believe in. We may have different approaches. We may think that you deal with them in different ways. But they're basically American, I believe in them. George Bush believes in them. I think the vast majority of Americans believe in them. And I hope SHAW: Governor. DUKAKIS: the tone we've just heard might just be the tone we have for the rest of the campaign. I think the American people would appreciate that. (Applause) SHAW: Margaret Warner for the vice president. WARNER: Vice President Bush, abortion remains with us as a very troubling issue, and I'd like to explore that for a minute with you. You have said that you regard abortion as murder, yet you would make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. My question is, why should a woman who discovers through amniocentesis that her baby will be born with Tay-Sachs disease, for instance, that the baby will live at most two years, and those two years in incredible pain, be forced to carry the fetus to term, and yet a woman who becomes pregnant through incest would be allowed to abort her fetus? BUSH: Because you left out one other exception, the health of the mother. Let me answer your question and I hope it doesn't get too personal or maudlin. Barb and I lost a child, you know that we lost a daughter, Robin. I was over running records in west Texas, and I got a call from her, come home; went to the doctor; the doctor said, beautiful child, your child has a few weeks to live. And I said, what can we do about it. He said, no, she has leukemia, acute leukemia, a few weeks to live. We took the child to New York. Thanks to the miraculous sacrifice of doctors and nurses, the child stayed alive for six months and then died. If that child were here today, and I was told the same thing, my granddaughter, Noel for example that child could stay alive for ten or fifteen years, or maybe for the rest of her life. And so I don't think that you make an exception based on medical knowledge at the time. I think human life is very, very precious. And, look, this hasn't been an easy decision for me to meet. I know others disagree with it. But when I was in that little church across the river from Washington and saw our grandchild christened in our faith, I was very pleased indeed that the mother had not aborted that child, and put the child up for adoption. And so I just feel this is where I'm coming from. And it is personal. And I don't assail him on that issue, or others on that issue. But that's the way I, George Bush, feel about it. (Scattered applause) SHAW: One minute for Governor Dukakis. DUKAKIS: Margaret, Kitty and I had very much the same kind of experience that the Bushes had: we lost a baby, lived about twenty minutes after it was born. But isn't the real question that we have to answer not how many exceptions we make, because the vice president himself is prepared to make exceptions. It's who makes the decision, who makes this very difficult, very wrenching decision? (Applause) And I think it has to be the woman, in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs, that makes that decision. Who are we to say, well, under certain circumstances, it's all right, but under other circumstances it isn't? That's a decision that only a woman can make, after consulting her conscience and consulting her religious principles. And I would hope that we would give to women in this country the right to make that decision, and to make it in the exercise of their conscience and religious beliefs. (Applause) SHAW: Governor, Margaret has a question for you. WARNER: Governor, I'd like to return to the topic of the defense budget for a minute. You have said in this campaign that you would maintain a stable defense budget, yet you are on the board, on the advisory board DUKAKIS: And, incidentally, may I say that that's the decision of the Congress, and the president has concurred. WARNER: Yet you are on the board of a group called Jobs with Peace, in Boston, that advocates a 25-percent cut in the defense budget and the transfer of that money to the domestic economy. My question is, do you share that goal perhaps as a long-range goal, and, if not, are you aware of or why do you permit this group to continue to use your name on its letterhead for fundraising? DUKAKIS: I think I was on the advisory committee, Margaret. No, I don't happen to share that goal. It's an example of how oftentimes we may be associated with organizations all of whose particular positions we don't support, even though we support in general the hope that over time, particularly if we can get those reductions in strategic weapons, if we can get a comprehensive test ban treaty, if we can negotiate with the Soviet Union and bring down the level of conventional forces in Europe with deeper cuts in the Soviet side, yes, at some point it may be possible to reduce defense outlays and use those for important things here at home, like jobs and job training and college opportunity and health and housing and the environment and the things that all of us care about. But I do think this, that the next president, even within a relatively stable budget and that's what we are going to have for the foreseeable future will have to make those tough choices that I was talking about and that Mr. Bush doesn't seem to want to make. And that really is going to be a challenge for the next president of the United States; I don't think there's any question about it. But I also see a tremendous opportunity now to negotiate with the Soviet Union to build on the progress that we've made with the INF Treaty, which I strongly supported and most Democrats did to get those reductions in strategic weapons, to get a test ban treaty, and to really make progress on the reduction of conventional forces in Europe. And if we can do that and do it in a way that gets deeper cuts on the Soviet side, which is where they ought to come from, then I think we have an opportunity over the long haul to begin to move some of our resources from the military to important domestic priorities that can provide college opportunity for that young woman whose mother wrote me from Texas just the other day, from Longview, Texas: two teachers, a mother and a father who have a child that's a freshman in college, an electrical engineering major, a very bright student and they can't afford to keep that child in college. So I hope that we can begin to move those resources. It's not going to happen overnight; it certainly will have to happen on a step-by-step basis as we make progress in arms negotiation and arms control and arms reduction. But it certainly ought to be the long-term goal of all Americans and I think it is. SHAW: One minute for the vice president. BUSH: The defense budget today takes far less percentage of the gross national product than it did in President Kennedy's time, for example moved tremendously. And you see, I think we're facing a real opportunity for world peace. This is a big question. And it's a question as to whether the United States will continue to lead for peace. See, I don't believe any other country can pick up the mantel. I served at the UN. I don't think we can turn over these kinds of decisions of the collective defense to the United Nations or anything else. So, what I'm saying is, we are going to have to make choices. I said I would have the Secretary of Defense sit down. But while the President is negotiating with the Soviet Union, I simply do not want to make these unilateral cuts. And I think those that advocated the freeze missed the point that there was a better way and that better way has resulted in a principle asymmetrical cuts. The Soviets take out more than we do and the principle of intrusive verification. And those two principles can now be applied to conventional forces, to strategic forces, provided SHAW: Mr. Vice President BUSH: We don't give away our hand before we sit down at the head table. (Applause) SHAW: Andrea Mitchell for Governor Dukakis. MITCHELL: Governor, you've said tonight that you set as a goal the steady reduction of the deficit. And you've talked about making tough choices, so perhaps I can get you to make one of those tough choices. No credible economist in either party accepts as realistic your plan to handle the deficit by tightening tax collection, investing in economic growth, bringing down interest rates, and cutting weapons systems DUKAKIS: And some domestic programs as well, Andrea. MITCHELL: And some domestic programs as well. So, let's assume now, for argument purpose, that it is the spring of 1989 and you are President Dukakis, and you discover that all of those economists were right and you were wrong. You are now facing that dreaded last resort increase taxes. Which tax do you decide is the least onerous? DUKAKIS: May I disagree with the premise of your question? MITCHELL: For the sake of argument, no. (Applause) DUKAKIS: As a matter of reality, Fm going to have to because we have had not one but two detailed studies which indicate that there are billions and billions of dollars to be collected that are not being paid these are not taxes owed by average Americans. We don't have an alternative. We'll lose it when it's taken out of our paycheck before we even get it. But it's the Internal Revenue Service which estimates now that we aren't collecting $100 billion or more in taxes owed in this country. And that is just absolutely unfair to the vast majority of Americans who pay their taxes and pay them on time. The Dorgan Task Force, which included two internal revenue commissioners, one a Republican, one a Democrat. It was a bipartisan commission, a study by two respected economists, which indicated that we could collect some 40, 45, 50 billion dollars of those funds. The point is you've got to have a president who's prepared to do this and to begin right away and, preferably, a president who was a governor of a state that's had very, very successful experience at doing this. In my own state, we did it. In other states, we've done it. Republican governors as well as Democratic governors. And we've had great success at revenue enforcement. Now, the Vice President will probably tell you that it's going to take an army of IRS collectors again. Well, his campaign manager, who used to be the secretary of the treasury, was taking great credit about a year ago and asking and receiving from the Congress substantial additional funds to hire internal revenue agents to go out and collect these funds, and I'm happy to join Jim Baker in saying that we agree on this. But, the fact of the matter is that this is something that we must begin it's going to take at least the first year of the new administration. But, the Dorgan Task Force, the bipartisan task force estimated that we could collect about $35 billion in the fifth year, $105 billion over five years, the other study even more than that SHAW: Governor. DUKAKIS: and that's where you begin. SHAW: One minute response, Mr. Vice President. BUSH: Well, Andrea, you didn't predicate that lack of economists' support for what I call a flexible freeze, because some good very good economists do support that concept. And I think where I differ with the Governor of Massachusetts, because I am optimistic. They jumped on me yesterday for being a little optimistic about the United States. I am optimistic and I believe we can keep this longest expansion going. I was not out there when that stock market dropped wringing my hands and saying this was the end of the world as some political leaders were, because it isn't the end of the world. And what we have to do is restrain the growth of spending. And we are doing a better job of it. The Congress is doing a better job of it. And the dynamics work. But they don't work if you go raise taxes and then the Congress spends it continues to spend that. The American working man and woman are not taxed too little. The Federal Government continues to spend too much. (Applause) BUSH: Hold it. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, Andrea has a question for you. MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, you have flatly ruled out any change in Social Security benefits, even for the wealthy. Now, can you stand here tonight and look at a whole generation of 18 to 34 year olds in the eye the very people who are going to have to be financing that retirement and tell them that they should be financing the retirement of people like yourself, like Governor Dukakis, or for that matter, people such as ourselves here on this panel? BUSH: More so you than me. MITCHELL: We could argue about that. BUSH: No, but you got to go back to what social security was when it was created. It wasn't created as a welfare program. It wasn't created that is it was created as a whole retirement or supplement to retirement program. It wasn't created as a welfare program. So, here's what's happened. We came into office and the Social Security Trust Fund was in great jeopardy and the President took the leadership working with the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress some tough calls were made and the Social Security Trust Fund was put back into sound, solvent condition. So, I don't want to fool around with it. And there are several there's a good political reason because it's just about this time of year that the Democrats start saying the Republicans are going to take away your Social Security. It always works that way. I've seen it. In precinct politics in Texas and I've seen it at the national level. We have made the Social Security Trust Fund sound. And it is going to be operating at surpluses and I don't want the liberal Democratic Congress to spend out of that Social Security Trust Fund or go and take the money out for some other purpose. I don't want that. And I will not go in there and suggest changes in Social Security. I learned that the hard way and the Governor and I both supported slipping the COLAs for one year. He supported it at the National Governors Conference and I supported it in breaking a tie in a major compromise package and we got assailed by the Democrats in the election over that. And I am going to keep that Social Security Trust Fund sound and keep our commitment to the elderly and maybe down the line, maybe when you get two decades or one into the next century, you're going to have to take another look at it, but not now. We do not have to do it. Keep the trust with the older men and women of this country. SHAW: Governor, you have one minute, sir. DUKAKIS: Andrea, I don't know which George Bush I'm listening to. George Bush, a few years ago, said that Social Security was basically a welfare system. BUSH: Oh, come on. DUKAKIS: And in 1985, he flew back from the West Coast to cut that COLA. I voted against that at the National Governors Association. We won a majority, we didn't win the two-thirds that was necessary nor to pass that resolution, George. But everybody knew what we were doing and I've opposed that. The reason that we raise concerns, not just in election years, but every year, because Republicans, once they're elected and start cutting. You did it in 1985. The Administration tried to do it repeatedly, repeatedly in 81 82. And I'm sure you'll try to do it again. Because there's no way you can finance what you want to spend. There's no way you can pay for that five year, $40 billion tax cut for the rich and still buy all those weapons systems you want to buy unless you raid the Social Security Trust Fund. (Applause) SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President. COMPTON: Mr. Vice President, there are three Justices on the Supreme Court who are in their 80's and it's very likely that the next President will get a chance to put a lasting mark on the Supreme Court. For the record, would your nominees to the Supreme Court have to pass something that has been called a kind of conservative ideological litmus test and would you give us an idea of perhaps who two or three people on your short list are for the Court. BUSH: One I don't have a list yet. I feel pretty confident tonight, but not that confident. (Laughter) BUSH: Secondly, I don't have any litmus test. But what I would do is appoint people to the Federal Bench that will not legislate from the Bench, who will interpret the Constitution. I do not want to see us go to again and Fm using this word advisedly a liberal majority that is going to legislate from the Bench. They don't like the use of the word, but may I remind his strong supporters that only last year in the primary, to capture that Democratic nomination, he said, "I am a progressive liberal Democrat." I won't support judges like that. There is no litmus test on any issue. But I will go out there and find men and women to interpret. And I don't have a list, but I think the appointments that the President has made to the Bench have been outstanding, outstanding appointments. COMPTON: Including Bork? BUSH: Yeah. I supported him. (Applause) DUKAKIS: If the Vice President of the United States thinks that Robert Bork was an outstanding appointment (Cheers and Applause) DUKAKIS: that is a very good reason for voting for Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen on the 8th of November. (Cheers and Applause) DUKAKIS: And I think the Vice President supported the Bork nomination. You know, Mr. Bush has never appointed a judge. I've appointed over 130, so I have a record. (Laughter) DUKAKIS: And I'm very proud of it. I don't ask people whether they're Republicans or Democrats. I've appointed prosecutors, I've appointed defenders. I don't appoint people I think are liberal or people who think - who I think are conservative. I appoint people of independence and integrity and intelligence, people who will be a credit to the Bench. And those are the standards that I will use in nominating people to the Supreme Court of the United States. These appointments are for life. These appointments are for life. And when the Vice President talks about liberals on the Bench, I wonder who he's talking about? Is he talking about a former Governor of the State of California, who is a former prosecutor, a Republican named Earl Warren, because I think Chief Justice Earl Warren was an outstanding Chief Justice and I think most Americans do too. SHAW: Ann Compton has a question for you, Governor Dukakis. COMPTON: Governor, millions of Americans are entitled to some of the protections and benefits that the Federal Government provides, including Social Security, pensions, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor. But in fact, there are so many millions of Americans who are eligible the government just can't continue to pay for all of those programs as they're currently constituted. A blue ribbon panel shortly after the election is likely to recommend that you go where the money is when you make budget cuts, and that means entitlements. Before the election would you commit yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements have to be redrawn? DUKAKIS: Andrea, why do people who want balanced budgets or to bring the deficit down always go to those programs which tend to benefit people of very modest means? Now, two-thirds of the people in this country who receive Social Security checks live entirely on that check; they have no other income. And yet Mr. Bush tried to cut their cost of living increase in 1985. Medicare is not getting less expensive; medical care for the elderly is getting more expensive, with greater deductibles, with fewer benefits, the kinds of things we've had under this Administration that have cut and chopped and reduced the kind of benefits that one gets under Medicare. Yes, we now have catastrophic health insurance, but it's going to cost, and that's going to be an additional burden on elderly citizens. It had bipartisan support; it should have had bipartisan support. But I suggest that we understand that those are going to be additional costs on senior citizens across this country. So I'm not going to begin, and I'm not going to go to entitlements as a means for cutting that deficit when we're spending billions on something like Star Wars, when we're spending billions on other weapon systems which apparently the Vice President wants to keep in his back pocket or some place, but which, if we continue to spend billions on them, will force us to cut Social Security, to cut Medicare, to cut these basic entitlements to people of very, very modest means. Now there are some things we can do to help people who currently do get entitlements to get off public assistance. I talked in our first debate about the possibilities of helping millions and millions of welfare families to get off of welfare, and I'm proud to say that we finally have a welfare reform bill And the Ruby Samsons and Dan Lawsons, hundreds of thousands of welfare mothers in this country and in my state and across the country who today are working and earning are examples of what can happen when you provide training to those welfare mothers, some daycare for their children so that those mothers can go into a training program and get a decent job. SHAW: Governor DUKAKIS: That's the way you bring a deficit down and help to improve the quality of life for people at the same time. SHAW: One minute for the Vice President. BUSH: I think I've addressed it. But let me simply say for the record, I did not vote to cut COLAs. And I voted the same way that he did three months before in a national governors' conference. And he said at that time, in a quote, and this is a paraphrase, a freeze, that's easy. So I don't believe that we need to do what you've suggested here. And I've said that I'm going to keep this Social Security entitlement, to keep that trust fund sound. But I do think there are flexible ways to solve some of the pressing problems, particularly that affect our children. And I have made some good sound proposals. But again, we have a big difference on child care, for example. You see, I want the families to have the choice. I don't want to see the Federal Government licensing grandmothers. I don't want to see the Federal Government saying to communities, well, you can't do this any more. We're going to tell you how to do it all. I want flexibility, and I do you know, these people laugh about the thousand points of light. You ought to go out and see around this country what's happening in the volunteer section: Americans helping America. And I want to keep it alive in child care and in other entitlements. SHAW: Margaret Warner for Gov. Dukakis. WARNER: Governor, I'm going to pass on the question I originally planned to ask you, to follow up on your rebuttal to a question Andrea asked, and that involves Social Security. Now it is true, as you said, that originally you sought an exemption for Social Security COLAs in this national governors' association vote. But when you lost that vote, you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal. And what's more, you had great criticism of your fellow governors who wouldn't go along as political cowards. DUKAKIS: That is absolutely not true. WARNER: You said it takes guts and it takes will. DUKAKIS: That is absolutely not true. It had nothing to do with the debate on Social Security. It had to do with the discussion we had had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget. WARNER: My question is: Aren't you demagoguing the Social Security issue? DUKAKIS: No, and I have to (Applause) DUKAKIS: I just have to correct the record. That simply isn't true. Now, we're not a parliamentary body, the National Governors Association. We vote on resolutions. If you don't get a two-thirds, then your resolution doesn't pass. But everybody knew that those of us who voted against the freezing of COLAs did so, we did so emphatically. And I never made that statement; never would. The point is that as we look at this nation's future, and we have two very different visions of this future. I want to move ahead. The Vice President talks about a thousand points of light. I'm interested in 240 million points of light. I'm interested in 240 million citizens in this country who share in the American dream, all of them in every part of this country. But as we look at the decisions that the next president of the United States is going to have to make, I just don't believe the place you go first is those programs, those so-called entitlements, which provide a basic floor of income and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, the disabled, for people who can't make their way on their own, and in many cases, have given a great deal to this country. The Vice President did call Social Security a few years ago basically or largely a welfare program. It isn't. It's a contract between generations. It's something that we pay into now so that we will have a secure retirement, and our parents and grandparents will have a secure retirement. It's a very sacred contract, and I believe in it. So that's not where we ought to go. There are plenty of places to cut. There's lots we can do in the Pentagon where dishonest contractors have been lining their pockets at the expense of the American taxpayer. There are we certainly ought to be able to SHAW: Governor DUKAKIS: Give our farm families a decent income with spending $20to $25 billion a year on farm subsidies, and I'm sure we can do that. That's where we ought to go, and those are the programs we ought to review first. SHAW: One minute for the Vice President. BUSH: Well, let me take him up on this question of farm subsidies. We have a fundamental difference, approach on agriculture. He favors this supply maintenance or production controls. He said that. He's been out in the state saying that, in Midwestern states. I don't. I think the farm bill that he criticizes was good legislation, outstanding legislation. And I believe the answer to the agricultural economy is not to get the government further involved, but to do what I'm suggesting. In the first place, never go back to that Democratic grain embargo, that liberal Democrat grain embargo that knocked the markets right out from under us and made Mr. Gorbachev say to me when I was here, how do I know you're reliable suppliers? We never should go back to that. And we ought to expand our markets abroad. We ought to have rural enterprise zones. We ought to move forward swiftly on my ideas of ethanol which would use more corn, and therefore, create a bigger market for our agricultural products. But let's not go back and keep assailing a farm bill that passed with overwhelming Democrat and Republican support. SHAW: Mr. Vice President. BUSH: The farm payments are going down because the agricultural economy is coming back. SHAW: Margaret Warner has a question for you, Mr. Vice President. WARNER: Mr. Vice President, I'd like to cover a subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. You have said in this campaign, I am an environmentalist, and described yourself as having zero tolerance for polluters. And yet your record does seem to suggest otherwise. When you were head of the President's task force on regulatory relief, you did urge EPA to relax regulations involving the elimination of lead from gasoline. I believe you urged suspension of rules requiring industries to treat toxic waste before discharging them in sewers. And your group also urged OSHA to weaken the regulations requiring that workers be informed of dangerous chemicals at the work site. Finally, I believe you did support the President's veto of the Clean Water Act. My question is, aren't you--how do you square your campaign rhetoric with this record? BUSH: 90 percent reductions in lead since I chaired that regulatory task force; 90 percent. It's almost you remember that expression, get the lead out? It's almost out. Almost gone. Clean water? I'm for clean water. But what I'm not for what I'm not for is measuring it the way that the Democratic Congress does. We sent up a good bill on clean water, a sound bill on clean water. But the only way you can express your love for clean water is to double the appropriations for clean water, and then rant against the deficit. I am for clean water. I've been an outdoorsman and a sportsman all my life. I've been to these national parks. I led for the Earl Wallop bill or formerly Dingell-Johnson. I headed the task force when I was a member of the Congress way back in the late '60s on these kinds of things, on the Republican side. I led for that. And so I refuse to measure one's commitment as to whether you're going to double the spending. That is the same old argument that's gotten us into trouble on the deficit side. So I'll just keep saying, I am one. I'm not going to go down there and try to dump the sludge from Massachusetts off the beaches off of New Jersey. I'm not going to do that. That boo was excessively loud. Can you add five seconds, Bernie, out of fairness? Come on, give me five. I mean, this guy, this is too much. But I'm not going to do that. I'm an environmentalist. I believe in our parks. I believe in the President's commission on outdoors. And I'll do a good job, because I am committed. SHAW: Gov. Dukakis, you have one minute to respond. DUKAKIS: Margaret, I'm not sure I can get all of this in in one minute. George, we have supply management today under the 1985 bill. It's called set-asides. Secondly, if you were so opposed to the grain embargo, why did you ask the godfather of the grain embargo to be one of your top foreign policy advisers? I'm against the grain embargo; it was a mistake. I'm also against the pipeline embargo, which you folks attempted to impose. That was a mistake as well, and it cost thousands of jobs for American workers in the Midwest and all over the United States of America. Margaret, once again, I don't know which George Bush I'm talking about here or looking at. The George Bush who was the charter member of the environmental wrecking crew that went to Washington in the early '80s and did a job on the EPA, or the one we've been seeing and listening to the past two or three months. But let me say this, because he spent millions and millions of dollars of advertising on the subject of Boston Harbor. George, Boston Harbor was polluted for 100 years. I'm the first governor to clean it up. No thanks to you. No thanks to you. We've been cleaning it up for four years. We passed landmark legislation in '84. No thanks to you. You did everything you could to kill the Clean Water Act SHAW: Governor. DUKAKIS: And those grants which make it possible for states and local communities to clean up rivers and harbors and streams. (Applause) MITCHELL: Mr. Vice President, Jimmy Carter has called this the worst campaign ever. Richard Nixon has called it trivial, superficial and inane. Whoever started down this road first, of negative campaigning, the American people, from all reports coming to us, are completely fed up. Now, do you have any solutions to suggest? Is there time left to fix it? There are 26 days left. For instance, would you agree to another debate, before it's all over, so that the American people would have another chance before election day to compare you two? BUSH: No. I will not agree to another debate. The American people are up to here with debates. They had thirty of them; we had seven of them. Now we've got three of them. I am going to carry this election debate all across this country in the last whatever remains of the last three and a half weeks, or whatever we have and the answer is no; I am not going to have any more debates, we don't need any more debates. I've spelled out my position. In terms of negative campaigning, you know, I don't want to sound like a kid in the schoolyard: he started it. But take a look at the Democratic convention take a look at it. Do you remember the Senator from Boston chanting out there and the ridicule factor from that lady from Texas that was on there; I mean, come on, this was just outrageous. But I'll try harder to keep it on a high plane. If you could accept a little criticism, I went all across central Illinois and spoke about agricultural issues, about seven stops. We had some fun Crystal Gayle and Loretta Lynn with us, and they got up and sang, went to little towns and I talked agriculture. And not one thing did I see, with respect, on your network about my views on agriculture, and not one did I read in any newspaper. Why? Because you are so interested in a poll that might have been coming out, or because somebody had said something nasty about somebody else. And so I don't know what the answer is. Somebody hit me and said Barry Goldwater said you ought to talk on issues more. How can Barry Goldwater sitting in Arizona know whether I'm talking on the issues or not when we put out position paper after position paper, he puts out position paper after position paper; and we see this much about it, because everyone else is fascinated with polls and who's up or down today and who's going to be up or down tomorrow. So I think we can all share, with respect, in the fact that maybe the message is not getting out. But it's not getting out because there are too few debates. There will be no more debates. (Applause) SHAW: Governor Dukakis, you have one minute to respond, sir. DUKAKIS: I can understand, after the vice presidential debate, why Mr. Bush would want no more debates. (Laughter, boos) That's my five seconds. Andrea, I think we both have a responsibility to try to address the issues. Yes, we have fundamental differences. I think a great many of them have come out today. And I think if we get rid of the labels--and I'm not keeping count, but I think Mr. Bush has used the label "liberal" at least ten times if I had a dollar, George, for every time you used that label, I'd qualify for one of those tax breaks for the rich that you want to give away. (Laughter, applause) Isn't that the point? Most Americans believe in basic values. We have differences about how to achieve them. I want to move forward, I want this nation to move forward. I am concerned about the fact that 10 percent of our manufacturing and 20 percent of our banking and nearly half of the real estate in the city of Los Angeles are in the hands of foreign investors. I am concerned about what that does to our future. I'm concerned about the fact that so many of our securities are in the hands of foreign banks because of these massive deficits. But those are the issues on which we ought to be debating and if we can just put away the flag factories and the balloons and those kinds of thing and get on to a real discussion of these issues, I think we will have a good success. SHAW: Andrea Mitchell has a question for you, Governor Dukakis. MITCHELL: We are talking about issues, so let's return to something you said earlier about the modernization of land-based missiles. You said that you didn't rule it out that there are limits to what we can spend, and then you went on to talk about a much more expensive part of our defense strategy, namely, conventional forces. Do you somehow see conventional forces as a substitute for our strategic forces, and in not talking about the land-based missiles and not committing to modernizing, do you somehow believe that we can have a survivable nuclear force based on the air and sea legs of our triad? DUKAKIS: I think we ought to be looking at modernization, I think we ought to be exploring less expensive ways to get it on land, and we ought to make sure that we have an effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent. But we also need well-equipped and well-trained and well-supported conventional forces. And every defense expert I know, including people in the Pentagon itself, will tell you that given the level of defense spending and the level of defense appropriations which the Congress has now approved and the president has signed, there's no way that you can do all of these things and do them well. That's why tough choices will be required, choices I am prepared to make, Mr. Bush is not prepared to make. But, Andrea, I think we can go far beyond this as well, because we have opportunities now step-by-step to bring down the level of strategic weapons, get a test ban treaty, negotiate those conventional force reductions. I would challenge Mr. Gorbachev to join with us in limiting in eliminating regional conflict in the Middle East, in Central America. Let's get him working on Syria, their client state, and see if we can't get them to join Israel and other Arab nations, if at all possible, and Arab leaders, in finally bringing peace to that troubled region. And I think that's one reason why we need fresh leadership in the White House that can make progress now in bringing peace to the Middle East. Let's go to work and end this fiasco in Central America, a failed policy which has actually increased Cuban and Soviet influence. The democratic leaders of Central and Latin America want to work with us. I've met with them, I know them, I've spent time in South America-speak the language, so does Senator Bentsen. We want to work with them and build a new relationship, and they with us. But not a one of those key democratic leaders support our policy in Central America. And we've got to work with them if we are going to create an environment for human rights and democracy for the people of this hemisphere, and go to work on our single most important problem, and that is the avalanche of drugs that is poring into our country and virtually destroying those countries. Those are the kinds of priorities for national security and for foreign policy that I want to pursue Mr. Bush and I have major differences on these issues and I hope very much to be president and pursue them. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, you have one minute. BUSH: In terms of regional tensions, we have now gotten the attention of the Soviet Union. And the reason we've gotten it is because they see us now as unwilling to make the very kinds of unilateral cuts that have been called for and to go for the discredited freeze. My opponent had trouble, criticized us, on our policy in Angola. It now looks, because of steady negotiation, that we may have an agreement that will remove the Cubans from Angola. We see the Russians coming out of Afghanistan. That wouldn't have stopped if we hadn't been willing wouldn't have even started, the Soviets coming out, if we hadn't even been willing to support the freedom fighters there. And the policy in Central America, regrettably, has failed because the Congress has been unwilling to support those who have been fighting for freedom. Those Sandinistas came in and betrayed the trust of the revolution; they said it was about democracy, and they have done nothing other than solidify their Marxist domination over that country. SHAW: Ann Compton for Governor Dukakis. COMPTON: Governor, nuclear weapons need nuclear material replenished on a regular basis, and just this week yet another nuclear manufacturing plant was closed because of safety concerns. Some in the Pentagon fear that too much priority has been put on new weapons programs, not enough on current programs, and worry that the resulting shortage would be amounting to nothing less than unilateral nuclear disarmament. Is that a priority that you feel has been ignored by this administration, or are the Pentagon officials making too much of it? DUKAKIS: Well, it's a great concern of mine and I think of all Americans, and perhaps the vice president can tell us what's been going on. This is another example of misplaced priorities. An administration which wants to billions on weapons systems that we don't need and can't afford, and now confronts us with a very serious problem, and plants that are supposed to be producing tritium and plutonium and providing the necessary materials for existing weapons. Yes, if we don't do something about it, we may find ourselves unilaterally, if I may use that term, dismantling some of these weapons. What's been going on? Who's been in charge? Who's been managing this system? Why have there been these safety violations? Why are these plants being closed down? I don't know what the latest cost estimates are, but it's going to be in the range of 25, 50, 75, $100 billion. Now, somebody has to bear the responsibility for this. Maybe the Vice President has an answer. But I'm somebody who believes very strongly in taking care of the fundamentals first before you start new stuff. And that's something which will be a priority of ours in the new administration because without it, we cannot have the effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent we must have. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, you have one minute. BUSH: That is the closest I have ever heard the Governor of Massachusetts come to support anything having to do with nuclear, that's about as close as I've ever heard him Yes, this Savannah River plant needs to be made more safe. Will he join me in suggesting that we may need another plant? Maybe in Idaho, to take care of the requirements, nuclear material requirements, for our Defense Department? I hope he will. This sounds like real progress here, because we've had a big difference on the safe use of nuclear power for our energy base. I believe that we must use clean, safe nuclear power. I believe that the more dependent we become on foreign oil, the less our national security is enhanced. And therefore, I've made some proposals to strengthen the domestic oil industry by more incentive going in to look for, and find, and produce oil; made some incentives in terms of secondary and tertiary production. But we're going to have to use more gas, more coal and more safe nuclear power for our energy base. So I am one who believes that we can SHAW: Mr. Vice President. BUSH: and must do what he's talking about now. SHAW: Ann Compton has a question for you. COMPTON: Mr. Vice President, as many as 100 officials in this Administration have left the government under an ethical cloud. Some have been indicted, some convicted. Many of the cases have involved undue influence once they're outside of government. If you become president, will you lock that revolving door that has allowed some men and women in the government to come back and lobby the very departments they once managed? BUSH: Yes, and I'll apply it to Congress too. I'll do both. I'll do both. Because I think you see, I am one who I get kidded by being a little old fashioned on these things, but I do believe in public service. I believe that public service is honorable. And I don't think anybody has a call on people in their Administrations going astray. His chief education adviser is in jail He's in jail because he betrayed the public trust. The head of education. And yet this man, the governor, equated the President to a rotting fish. He said that a fish rots from the head down as he was going after Ed Meese. Look, we need the highest possible ethical standards. I will have an ethical office in the White House that will be under the President's personal concern. I will see that these standards apply to the United States Congress. I hope I will do a good job as one who has had a relatively clean record with no conflicts of interest in his own public life, as has the Governor, to exhort young people to get into public service. But there is no corner on this sleaze factor, believe me. And it's a disgrace, and I will do my level best to clean it up, recognizing that you can't legislate morality. But I do believe that with my record in Congress, having led the new Congressmen to a code of ethics through major main emphasis on it in full disclosure, that I've got a good record. And there are more, if you want to talk about percentage appointments, more Members of Congress who have been under investigation percentage-wise that people in the executive branch. And so it isn't one and state governments have had a tough time. His some of his college presidents aren't exactly holier than thou. So let's not be throwing stones about it. Let's say, this isn't Democrat or Republican, and it isn't liberal or conservative. Let's vow to work together to do something about it. SHAW: Governor, you have one minute to respond to it. DUKAKIS: And I would agree that integrity is not a Republican or a Democratic issue; it's an American issue. But here again, I don't know which George Bush I'm listening to. Wasn't this the George Bush that supported Mr. Meese? Called James Watt an excellent Secretary of the Interior? Provided support for some of these people, supported the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court of the United States. We've had dozens we've had dozens and dozens of officials in this Administration who have left under a cloud, who have left with the special prosecutor in their arm, have been indicted, convicted. This isn't the kind of Administration we need. And one of the reasons our selection of a running mate is so important, it is such a test of the kinds of standards we'll set, is because it tells the American people in advance of the election just what kind of people we're looking for. I picked Lloyd Bentsen. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle. I think that says a great deal to the American people about the standards we'll set and the quality of the people that we will pick to serve in our Administration. SHAW: To each of you candidates, regrettably, I have to inform you that we have come to the end of our questions. That's a pity. Before I ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I would like to thank all of you for joining us this evening. Governor Dukakis, yours is the first closing statement, sir. GOU. DUKAKIS: 28 years ago, as a young man just graduated from law school, I came to this city, came clear across the country, to watch John Kennedy be nominated for the presidency of the United States, right here in Los Angeles. I never dreamed that some day I would win that nomination and be my party's nominee for president. That's America. That's why I'm proud and grateful to be a citizen of this country. 26 days from today you and millions of Americans will choose two people to lead us into the future as president and vice president of the United States. Our opponents say, things are okay. Don't rock the boat. Not to worry. They say we should be satisfied. But I don't think we can be satisfied when we're spending $150 billion a year in interest alone on the national debt, much of it going to foreign bankers; or when 25 percent of our high school students are dropping out of school; or when we have 2-1/2 million of our fellow citizens, a third of them veterans, who are homeless and living on streets and in doorways in this country, when Mr. Bush's prescription for our economic future is another tax giveaway to the rich. We can do better than that. Not working with government alone, but all of us working together. Lloyd Bentsen and I are optimists, and so are the American people. And we ask you for our hand for your hands and your hearts, and your votes on the 8th of November so we can move forward in the future. Kitty and I are very grateful to all of you for the warmth and the hospitality that you've given to us in your homes and communities all across this country. We love you, and we're grateful to you for everything that you've given to us. And we hope that we'll be serving you in the White House in January of 1989. Thank you, and God bless you. (Applause) SHAW: Vice President Bush, your closing statement, sir. BUSH: Sometimes it does seem that a campaign generates more heat than light. So let me repeat, I do have respect for my opponent, for his family, for the justifiable pride he takes in his heritage. But we have enormous differences. I want to hold the line on taxes, and keep this the longest expansion in modern history going until everybody in America benefits. I want to invest in our children. Because I mean it when I say I want a kinder and gentler nation. And by that I want to have child care where the families, the parents, have control. I want to keep our neighborhoods much, much better in terms of anti-crime, and that's why I would appoint judges that have a little more sympathy for the victims of crime and a little less for the criminals. That's why I do feel if some police officer is gunned down that the death penalty is required. I want to help those with disabilities fit into the mainstream. There is much to be done. This election is about big things. And perhaps the biggest is world peace. And I ask you to consider the experience I have had in working with a President who has revolutionized the situation around the world. America stands tall again, and as a result, we are credible. And we have now achieved an historic arms control agreement. I want to build on that. I'd love to be able to say to my grandchildren, four years after my first term, I'd like to say, your grandfather, working with the leaders of the Soviet Union, working with the leaders of Europe, was able to ban chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth. Lincoln called this country the last best hope of man on earth. And he was right then, and we still are the last best hope of man on earth. And I ask for your support on November 8th. And I will be a good president. Working together, we can do wonderful things for the United States and the Free World. Thank you very, very much. Presidential Candidate Debates, Presidential Debate at the University of California in Los Angeles Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217157

September 25, 1988 LEHRER: Good evening. On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates I am pleased to welcome you to this first presidential debate of the 1988 campaign. I'm Jim Lehrer of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour. My colleagues on the panel are John Mashek of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Ann Groer of The Orlando Sentinel; and Peter Jennings of ABC News. For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates for president of the United States following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two candidates. The candidates are Vice President George Bush, the Republican nominee; Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. (Applause) LEHRER: Our questions this evening will be about equally divided between foreign and domestic policy matters. The first question by agreement between the two candidates goes to Vice President Bush. It is a domestic question. You have two minutes for an answer, sir. The polls say the number one domestic issue to a majority of voters is drugs. What is there about these times that drives or draws so many Americans to use drugs? BUSH: I think we've seen a deterioration of values. I think for a while as a nation we condoned those things we should have condemned. For a while, as I recall, it even seems to me that there was talk of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs, and I think that's all wrong. So we've seen a deterioration in values, and one of the things that I think we should do about it in terms of cause is to instill values into the young people in our schools. We got away, we got into this feeling that value- free education was the thing. And I don't believe that at all I do believe there are fundamental rights and wrongs as far as use. And, of course, as far as the how we make it better, yes, we can do better on interdiction. But we've got to do a lot better on education, and we have to do, be tougher on those who commit crimes. We've got to get after the users more. We have to change this whole culture. You know, I saw a movie - "Crocodile Dundee." And I saw the cocaine scene treated with humor, as though this was a humorous little incident. And it's bad. Everybody ought to be in this thing. Entertainment industry, people involved in the schools, education. And it isn't a Republican or a Democrat or a liberal problem. But we have got to instill values in these young people. And I have put forward a many-point drug program that includes what I would do as president of the United States; in terms of doing better on interdiction; and in terms of better in the neighborhoods. But I think we're all in this together, and my plea to the American people is values in the schools. LEHRER: Governor, you have one minute to respond. DUKAKIS: I agree with Mr. Bush that values are important. But it's important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that's been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We've been dealing with him; he's been dealing drugs to our kids. Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences. I remember being in a high school in my own state as we were organizing something we call the Governor's Alliance Against Drugs, and a young 16 year old girl coming up to me, desperate, addicted, dependent, saying, Governor, I need help. We're providing that young woman with help. But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989. LEHRER: Governor, a follow-up question. You have two minutes to answer it. Are you suggesting, sir, that President Reagan is one of the causes of the drug problem in this country? DUKAKIS: I'm saying that those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership, Jim, have a special responsibility, not only to come up with programs, and I have outlined in detail the very important, very strong program of enforcement as well as drug education prevention. And Mr. Bush is right - the two go hand in hand. But if our government itself is doing business with people who we know are engaged in drug profiteering and drug trafficking, if we don't understand that that sends out a very, very bad message to our young people, it's a little difficult for me to understand just how we can reach out to that youngster that I talked about and to young people like her all over the country, and say to them we want to help you. Now, I've outlined in great detail a program for being tough on enforcement at home and abroad, doubling the number of drug enforcement agents, having a hemispheric summit soon after the 20th of January when we bring our democratic neighbors and allies together here in this hemisphere and go to work together. But we also have to take demand seriously. You know, we have five percent of the world's population in this country. We're consuming 50 percent of the world's cocaine. And in my state I'm proud to say we've organized a drug education and prevention program which the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration says is a model for the country. We're helping youngsters; we're reaching out to them. And we're beginning with drug education and prevention beginning in the early elementary grades in every elementary school in our state, and that's the kind of effort we need in every elementary school in the United States of America. And we've got to begin early, in the first, second and third grade, before our youngsters begin to experiment with these very, very dangerous substances. I guess the question I would ask of Mr. Bush is how we instill those values, how we create this environment for the drug free schools that we want in this country. If he or representatives of the administration are either with or involving people like Noriega in our foreign policy, or don't pursue that connection in a way that makes it possible for us to cut it off and to be an example to our kids all over the country. LEHRER: A minute to rebut, Mr. Vice President. BUSH: Well, the other day my opponent was given a briefing by the CIA. I asked for and received the same briefing. I am very careful in public life about dealing with classified information. And what I'm about to say is unclassified. Seven administrations were dealing with Mr. Noriega. It was the Reagan-Bush administration that brought this man to justice. And as the governor of Massachusetts knows, there was no evidence that governor - that Mr. Noriega was involved in drugs, no hard evidence until we indicted him. And so I think it's about time we get this Noriega matter in perspective. Panama is a friendly country. I went down there and talked to the president of Panama about cleaning up their money laundering, and Mr. Noriega was there, but there was no evidence at that time, and when the evidence was there, we indicted him. And we want to bring him to justice. And so call off all those pickets out there that are trying to tear down seven different administrations. LEHRER: All right, the next question will be asked by John Mashek. It goes to Governor Dukakis, and you'll have two minutes to answer. MASHEK: Governor Dukakis, another troublesome issue for voters this year is the bulging federal deficit. In a Dukakis administration, you say taxes will be raised only as a last resort. Would you identify for us then please three specific programs that you are willing to cut to bring that deficit down? DUKAKIS: Yes, I've been very specific about those, John. And let me lay out for you my own strategy for bring that deficit down, because as a chief executive that's balanced ten budgets in a row, I've had to make those tough decisions and those tough choices. First, I've suggested that there are certain weapons systems which we don't need and we can't afford. Mr. Bush has been critical of me for that, but I think those are the kinds of tough choices you have to make. I've also suggested that there are weapons systems that we should proceed on, and I've outlined those in detail. Secondly, we've got to invest in economic growth in this country, in every part of this country. Building that kind of growth expands revenues and helps to bring down that deficit. Thirdly, we have to bring interest rates down, and we will as we come up with a good, solid plan with the Congress for bringing that deficit down. And, finally, we've got to go out there and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren't being paid to this country. It's very unfair to the average taxpayer who pays his taxes and pays them on time to permit these monies to go uncollected. I've also suggested that on the domestic side there are areas where we can make some cuts. We ought to be able to come up with an agricultural policy in this country that gives our farm families a fair price and a decent future without spending $20-25 billion a year, which is what we've been doing under this administration. We can help people to live better lives, and at the same time save money by helping hundreds of thousands of families on welfare to get off or welfare, and to become productive citizens again. The thing I don't understand about Mr. Bush's approach to this is how he could possibly be serious about bringing that deficit down given what he says he wants to do. He seems to want to spend a great deal of money on just about every weapon system; he says he's against new taxes, although he's broken that pledge at least times in the last year that I know of; he wants to give the wealthiest taxpayers in this country a five year, $40 billion tax break. He also wants to spend a lot of money on additional programs. If he keeps this up, he's going to be the Joe Isuzu of American politics. (Laughter) DUKAKIS: But I hope you won't take my five seconds away from me. I will say this - LEHRER: Your two minutes is up, Governor. DUKAKIS: If he's serious about what he's saying, then the only place he can go to balance that budget is to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and he tried that in 1985, and I think he's going to try it again. LEHRER: You have a minute to rebut. BUSH: Is this the time to unleash our one-liners? That answer was about as clear as Boston harbor. (Laughter) BUSH: Let me help the governor. There are so many things there, I don't quite know where to begin. When you cut capital gains, you put people to work. John Kennedy proposed cutting capital gains. Paul Tsongas, a liberal senator from Massachusetts said the dumbest thing I did was to oppose the capital gains cut. It's not going to cost the government money. It's going to increase revenues to the federal government, and it's going to create jobs. So that's one of the things that I think makes a big difference between us. Massachusetts doesn't have an enormous defense budget, but nevertheless, the governor raised taxes five different times. That happens to be a fact. And so let's kind of stay on the issue, and I have made a specific proposal for what I call a flexible freeze. And it permits - economists on the East Coast and West think it's good - it permits the president to sort out the priorities, and we continue to grow because I will not raise taxes. LEHRER: Your time is up, too. A follow-up, John. MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, you have vowed not to raise taxes of any kind during your administration and at the same time you've proposed this capital gains cut, you've proposed more incentive breaks for the oil industry. You've suggested new spending programs and even some Republicans say the flexible freeze you just spoke about will hardly make a dent in the deficit. Is the deficit no longer really a concern of yours, the Republican Party or the taxpayers? BUSH: I think it's the Republican Party and my concern to bring it down. And presidential leadership that I want to provide in this area will bring it down, but we've got to get the Democrats - Congress under control. They do all the spending, they appropriate every dime and tell us how to spend every dime. I'd like to ask the Governor to join in getting for the president what 43 governors have, the line-item veto. He has to operate in Massachusetts under a balanced budget proviso. I would like a balanced budget amendment. But the dynamics of the economy - we cut the taxes and revenues are up by 25 percent in three years. So the problem is - it's not that the working is being taxed too little or the person working out - the woman working in some factory being taxed too little. It is that we are continuing to spend too much. So, my formula says grow at the rate of inflation. Permit the president to set the priorities on where we do the spending. And remember the Federal deficit has come down $70 billion in one year, in 1987. And if we - and the - actually this year Congress is doing a little better in controlling the growth of spending. Spending was only up something like 4 percent. So, it isn't that we're taking too little - from taxpayer - we're spending too much still. And the formula I've given you works, we've put it through a good economic model, we've got good economists on the West Coast, Michael Boskin and Marty Feldstein up there who's a very respected economist in the - Massachusetts. And they agree, that if we can do what I've said, we can get it down without going and socking the American taxpayer once again. Capital gains, one more point on that, please let's learn from history. A capital gains differential will increase jobs, increase risk taking, increase revenues to the Federal Government. LEHRER: Governor, you have a minute to rebut. DUKAKIS: Well, I hope all of those Americans out there who are watching us, listening to us and trying to make up their mind about which one of us ought to be president of the United States listen to the Vice President very carefully. What he's proposing after over a trillion in new debt which has been added in the Federal debt in the course of the past eight years, an IOU our children and grandchildren will be paying for years, is a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of the people in this country, an average of about $30,000 that we're going to give to people making $200,000 a year. Why that's more than the average teacher makes. We've had enough of that, ladies and gentlemen. We've run up more debt in the last eight years than under all the presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. It's time for a chief executive who can make tough choices, can work with the Congress, can get that deficit down and begin to build a strong fiscal foundation under this country. LEHRER: All right, the next question will be asked by Anne Groer and it will go the Vice President. You have two minutes to answer, sir. GROER: Mr. Vice President, you've said you want a kinder, gentler presidency, one that helps the less fortunate. Today, 37 million Americans including many working families with aging parents and young children cannot afford any health insurance, but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. What will you do to provide protection for them and how will you pay for it? BUSH: One thing I will not do is sock every business in the country and, thus, throw some people out of work. I want to keep this economic recovery going. More Americans at work today than any time in history, a greater percentage of the work force. What I will do is permit people to buy into Medicaid. I believe that's the answer. I am proud to have been part of an administration that past the first catastrophic health bill. And in that there are some Medicaid provisions that will be very helpful to the very kind of people we're talking about here. But we've got to keep going forward without killing off the engine and throwing people out of work. So, the answer lies, it seems to me, in full enforcement of the catastrophic program. It lies to me in flexibility in Medicaid so people at the lowest end can buy in there and get their needs covered and then it also - I do not want to see us mandate across the board that every company has to do this, because I really think that marginal operators are going to go say, "We can't make it." And I think then you're going to see that people are put out of work. All these programs - and this cost on his - is - was - I saw an estimate, I'd love to know what he thinks, $35 - $40 billion - and it seems to me that somebody pays that. There isn't any such thing as something free out there. It either gets passed along as increased prices or it gets passed along by people being put out of work so the business can continue to compete. So, I think we ought to do it in the Medicaid system. I think we ought to do it by full enforcement of the catastrophic health insurance. I think we ought to do it by everybody doing what they can do out of conscience. It's a terrible problems in terms of flexibility on private insurance. But I just don't want to mandate it and risk putting this - setting the recovery back. LEHRER: A rebuttal, Governor? DUKAKIS: But, George, that's no answer. BUSH: You don't like the answer, but it's an answer. DUKAKIS: Well, no, it's no answer to those 37 million people, most of them members of working families who don't have a dime of health insurance and don't know how to pay the bills if their kids get sick at night. I was in Houston on Tuesday meeting with a group of good citizens, working citizens. All of them with little or no health insurance. One of them was a father who had been laid off a few months ago and lost his health insurance. Has an 11 year old son and can't let that son compete in sports and Little League, because he's afraid he's going to get hurt and he won't be able to provide health insurance to pay those bills. My state just became the only state in the nation to provide for universal health care and we did it with the support of the business community and labor and the health care community and with virtually everybody in the state. The fact of the matter is that employers who today are insuring their employees are paying the freight, because they're paying for those who aren't. And I think it's time that when you got a job in this country it came with health insurance. That's the way we're going to provide basic health security for all of the citizens of this country of ours. LEHRER: Follow-up, Anne? GROER: Yes. Since your Massachusetts health plan has been attacked by the Vice President and you have defended it in this way, I would like to move on to perhaps one of the most costly medical catastrophes facing Americans today and that is AIDS. In - at the end of September, the thousands of AIDS patients will lose their access to AZT, which is the only Federally approved drug for treatment of the disease. Now, I'd like to now, sir, if - what your position is on extending that and what it is you think the government ought to be doing about making AZT and other drugs available to people who are suffering from this disease. DUKAKIS: Well, Anne, let me just say before I answer your question that I didn't know that the Vice President attacked our program in Massachusetts. I hope he hasn't. Because has won the support of a great many people all over the state and I think it's a model for what I hope we can do across the country. But when I proposed my plan this past Tuesday, he or one of his spokesmen called it socialized medicine. The last time the Vice President used that phrase, I suspect he remembers it, don't you? It was in 1964 and that's what he called Medicare. Well, he was wrong then and he's wrong now. (Applause) LEHRER: If I may interrupt at this point and caution the audience as I did before we went on the air, please hold it down. You're only taking time away from your candidate when you do that. Governor, continue, please. DUKAKIS: Let me say this about AIDS. It's the single most important public health crisis, single most important public health emergency we've had in our lifetimes and I think there are a number of things we have to do including supporting legislation which is now moving through the Congress, which will commit this nation to the resources to find a cure which will provide broad education and prevention, which will provide sensitive and caring treatment for the victims of AIDS. I think we have to demonstrate some flexibility and I think the FDA is attempting to do so now in trying to make it possible for new and experimental drugs to be available to people who are at risk at AIDS and I would hope that we could bring that kind of a policy to bear beginning in January. And I would encourage the current administration to proceed with that kind of flexibility where it's appropriate and where it's done carefully and responsibly. But we have not had the kind of leadership we should have had. In this particular area, I think the Vice President and I are in general agreement on what we have to do. The special Federal commission made good solid recommendations. I think we're both supportive of them and I would strongly lead in that area as I have in my state as Governor. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, a minute of rebuttal. BUSH: Well, we're on the right track. The NIH is doing a good job in research. The Surgeon General is doing a good job in encouraging the proper kind of education. I notice that the Governor did not mention any testing. But we got to have a knowledge base. Testing should be confidential, but we have to have a knowledge. We can't simply stick our heads in the sands in terms of testing. I'm Chairman of the President's Task Force on Regulatory Relief and we are working with the FDA and they have sped up bringing drugs to market that can help. And you got to be careful here, because there's a safety factor, but I think these things - and then also I am one who believes we've got to go the extra mile in clean - being sure that that blood supply is pure. We cannot have a lack of confidence in the blood supply when it comes to operations and surgery and things of this nature. So, research, speeding the drugs to market, testing, blood supply are very important elements of this. LEHRER: Next question will be asked by Peter Jennings. It goes to the Governor. JENNINGS: Good evening, Mr. Vice President, Governor. Governor, one theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern - you've both mentioned leadership tonight, so I'd like to stay with that for a second. The theme that keeps coming up about the way you govern is passionless, technocratic - DUKAKIS: Passionless? JENNINGS: Passionless, technocratic, the smartest clerk in the world. Your critics maintain that in the 1960's your public passion was not the war in Vietnam or civil rights, but no fault auto insurance. And they say in the 1970's you played virtually no role in the painful busing crisis in Boston. Given the fact that a president must sometimes lead by sheer inspiration and passion. We need to know if this is a fair portrait of your governing or if it is a stereotype. And if it isn't fair, give us an example of where you have had that passion and leadership that sometimes a president needs? DUKAKIS: Peter, I care deeply about people. All people. Working people, working families. People all over this country who in some cases are living from paycheck to paycheck. In other cases are having a hard time opening up the door of college opportunity to their children. In other cases don't have basic health insurance which, for most of us we accept as a matter of course, and assume we are going to have in order to pay the bills that we incur when we get sick. I'm somebody who believes deeply in genuine opportunity for every single citizen in this country and that's the kind of passion I brought to my state. I was a leader in the Civil Rights movement in my state and in my legislature. I cared very deeply about that war in Vietnam...I thought it was a mistake, I thought it was wrong, and I was one of the few legislators early in that war that took a stand against the war. I think it was the right stand at that time and I think history has proved us to be correct. But I have learned over time. I served one term...I was defeated as you know, and defeat sometimes is an important lesson. I think I am a much better governor today...I think I am a much better person...a much better listener. I think I'll be a much better president for having gone through that experience. But the things that we have done in my state to bring opportunity to people on public assistance -- over 50,000 families on welfare that we've helped to move from welfare to work and to become productive citizens -- the universal healthcare bill that we just talked about which will guarantee health care for all of our citizens. The opening up of opportunity to minorities in my state, affirmative action, minority contracting. The fact that we have a three percent unemployment rate and more jobs than people to fill them which gives us a tremendous opportunity to reach out to everybody and make them a part of this wonderful nation of ours with the opportunity that we create. These are things that I believe in very, very deeply. I may be a little calmer than some about it. I may be a greater consensus builder these days than I used to be, and I think that's a good thing, but I'm running for the presidency of the United States. I've been in public service for 25 years because I believe deeply in American goals and values and the people of this country, and that's the kind of president I want to be. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, a rebuttal. BUSH: Well, I don't question his passion. I question - and I don't question his concern about the war in Vietnam. He introduced or supported legislation back then that suggested that kids of Massachusetts should be exempt from going overseas in that war. Now, that's a certain passion that in my view it's misguided passion. He - we have a big difference on issues. You see, last year in the primary, he expressed his passion. He said, "I am a strong liberal Democrat" - August, '87. Then he said, "I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was what he said. He is out there on out of the mainstream. He is very passionate. My argument with the governor is, do we want this country to go that far left. And I wish we had time to let me explain. But I salute him for his passion. We just have a big difference on where this country should be led, and in what direction it ought to go. (Applause) LEHRER: Peter, a question? Question for the vice president, Peter. JENNINGS: I'd actually like to follow up if I may on this mention you've made of his card carrying membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. You've used the phrase "card carrying" so many times since Governor Dukakis first acknowledged that he was a card carrying member of the ACLU that some people have come to believe that you've used it to brand him in some way, to identify him as people were identified in the 1950's as less than patriotic. I'd like to know why you keep repeating the phrase, and what's the important issue here? What is so wrong with the governor being a member of an organization which has come to the defense of, among other people, Colonel Oliver North? BUSH: Nothings wrong with it. But just take a look at the positions of the ACLU. But, Peter, please understand, the liberals do not like me talking about liberal They don't like it when I say that he says he's a card carrying member. Now, if that quote was wrong, he can repudiate it, right here. I've seen it authoritatively written twice, and if I've done him an injustice, and he didn't say it, I'm very, very sorry. But I don't agree with a lot of - most of the positions of the ACLU. I simply don't want to see the ratings on movies. I don't want my ten year old grandchild to go into an X-rated movie. I like those ratings systems. I don't think they're right to try to take the tax exemption away from the Catholic Church. I don't want to see the kiddie pornographic laws repealed; I don't want to see "under God" come out from our currency. Now, these are all positions of the ACLU. And I don't agree with them. He has every right to exercise his passion, as what he said, a strong, progressive liberal. I don't agree with that. I come from a different point. And I think I'm more in touch with the mainstream of America. They raised the same thing with me on the Pledge of Allegiance. You see, I'd have found a way to sign that bill. Governor Thompson of Illinois did. I'm not questioning his patriotism. He goes out and says the man is questioning my patriotism. And then all the liberal columnists join in. I am not. I am questioning his judgment on these matters, or where he's coming from He has every right to do it. But I believe that's not what the American people want, and when he said, when he said at the convention, ideology doesn't matter, just competence, he was moving away from his own record, from what his passion has been over the years. And that's all I'm trying to do, is put it in focus. And I hope people don't think that I'm questioning his patriotism when I say he used his words to describe his participation in that organization. LEHRER: Governor, a response. DUKAKIS: Well, I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this. Of course, the vice president is questioning my patriotism. I don't think there's any question about that, and I resent it. I resent it. My parents came to this country as immigrants. They taught me that this was the greatest country in the world. I'm in public service because I love this country. I believe in it. And nobody's going to question my patriotism as the vice president has now repeatedly. The fact of the matter is if the Pledge of Allegiance was the acid test of one's patriotism--the vice president's been the presiding officer in the United States Senate for the past seven and a half years. To the best of my knowledge he's never once suggested that a session of the Senate begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. (Applause) DUKAKIS: Mr. Bush, I don't question your patriotism. When you're attacked for your military record, I immediately said it was inappropriate, it had no place in this campaign, and I rejected it. I would hope that from this point on, we get to the issues that affect the vast majority of Americans, jobs, schools, health care, housing, the environment. Those are the concerns of the people that are watching us tonight. Not labels that we attach to each other, questions about each other's patriotism and loyalty. LEHRER: The time is up, governor. Let's go now to John Mashek, again. A question for the vice president. MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, in a debate during the Republican primaries, you said most of the nation's homeless are suffering from mental illness, an assertion immediately challenged by one of your rivals. Estimates of the homeless range from a low of 250,000 by the government, to around three million, including working families and their children. What commitment are you willing to make tonight to this voiceless segment of our society? BUSH: I want to see the McKinney Act fully funded. I believe that that would help in terms of shelter. I want to see - when I talked at our convention about a thousand points of light, I was talking about the enormous numbers of shelters and organizations that help. The governor's wife has been very active in the homeless. My campaign chairman, Secretary Jim Baker's wife. This isn't government. These are people that care, that are trying to give of themselves. The government has a role. It is to fully fund the McKinney Act. There are certain army bases that the act calls for that can be used in certain cases to shelter people when it's rough. And so I think that we're on the right track. I don't see this, incidentally, as a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or conservative idea. I see an involvement by a thousand points of light. I see the funding that is required, and I hope the Congress will fully fund this bill. They gave it a great deal of conscience and a great deal of work. And we're on the track on this one. But - and I, look, mental - that was a little overstated it. I'd say around 30 percent. And I think maybe we could look back over our shoulders and wonder whether it was right to let all those mental patients out. Maybe we need to do a better job in mental clinics to help them. Because there is a major problem there. A lot of them are mentally sick. And we've got to attend to them. But fully, my short range answer is fully fund that McKinney Act. LEHRER: Governor, a response. DUKAKIS: Well, this is another fundamental difference that I have with the vice president, just as I do in the case of health care for 37 million members of working families in this country who don't have health insurance. The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you've cut back by 90 percent on our commitment to affordable housing for families of low and moderate income. And when you do that, you've have homeless families. We didn't have two and a half million, or three million homeless people living on streets and in doorways in this country ten years ago. We've got to begin to get back to the business of building and rehabilitating housing for families of low and moderate income in this country; housing for young families that they can look forward some day to buy. We've got communities in this country increasingly where our own kids can't afford to live in the communities that they grew up in. That's an essential commitment. And I think the housing community is ready. But it's going to take a president who's committed to housing, who's had experience in building and rehabilitating housing who understands that affordable housing for families of low and moderate income, for young families, first time home buyers, is an essential part of the American dream. And while I'm all for the McKinney bill, that, by itself, simply won't do. We've got to have a president that can lead on this issue, that can work with the Congress, and I'm prepared to do so. This is one of the most important priorities that faces this country. LEHRER: John, a question for the governor. MASHEK: Governor, you've mentioned the American dream of home ownership, and it's certainly become an impossible one for many of the young people of our nation who are caught up in this economic squeeze of the middle class, as you've said so frequently during the campaign. And yet in spite of your answer just a few minutes ago, what promise can you realistically hold out to these people that with the costs of housing going up, and with limited help available from Washington, are we destined to become a nation of renters? DUKAKIS: Well, I certainly hope not. And it's all a question of what our priorities are. Mr. Bush talked about values. I agree with him. What are our values? Isn't providing housing for families of low and moderate income, isn't it making possible for young families, first time home buyers to own their own home some day something that's part of the American dream? I think so. You know, back after World War II when we had hundreds of thousands of GIs who came back from the war, we didn't sit around. We went out and built housing. The government was very much involved; so was the housing industry; so was the banking industry; so were housing advocates; so were non-profit agencies; so were governors and mayors and people all over this country who believe deeply in home ownership and affordable housing. Now, that's the kind of leadership that I want to provide as president of the United States. This isn't a question of a little charity for the homeless. This is a question of organizing the housing community. I've talked to bankers and builders and developers, the housing advocates, community development agencies, and they want leadership from Washington. Washington, by itself, can't do it all. We shouldn't expect that. But governors are ready; mayors are ready. Builders and community leaders are ready. It will require some funds, John. And we ought to be prepared to provide those funds. But that, too, will require some choices. Mr. Bush wants to spend billions and trillions on Star Wars. Well, that's a choice we have to make, isn't it? Do we spend money on that weapon system in the billions and trillions, or is providing some decent and affordable housing for families of this country something that is at least as important and probably more so. Because it's so essential to our economic strength and to our future. Now, that's the kind of presidency I believe in. And simply to say, well, the McKinney bill will do it just doesn't do. We need a president who will lead on this issue, who has had experience on this issue. It's the kind of priority that will be at the top of our list beginning in January of 1989. LEHRER: A response, Mr. Vice President. BUSH: I think the governor is blurring housing and the homeless. Let's talk about housing which the question was. When you talk to those bankers, did they discuss where interest rates were when your party controlled the White House? Ten days before I took the oath of office as president they were 21 and a half percent. Now, how does that grab you for increasing housing? Housing is up. We are serving a million more families now. But we're not going to do it in that old Democratic, liberal way of trying to build more bricks and mortars. Go out and take a look at St. Louis at some of that effort. It is wrong. I favor home ownership. I want to see more vouchers. I want to see control of some of these projects, and I want to keep the interest rates down. They're half, now of what they were when we came into office, and with my policy of getting this deficit under control, they'll be a lot less. But if we spend and spend and spend, that is going to wrap up the housing market, and we'll go right back to the days of the misery index and malaise that President Reagan and I have overcome - thank God for the United States on that one. LEHRER: All right, the next question is to the governor. Ann Groer will ask it. GROER: Governor Dukakis, is there a conflict between your opposition to the death penalty and your support for abortion on demand, even though in the minds of many people, that's also killing? DUKAKIS: No, I don't think there is. There are two very different issues here, and they've got to be dealt with separately. I'm opposed to the death penalty. I think everybody knows that. I'm also very tough on violent crime. And that's one of the reasons why my state has cut crime by more than any other industrial state in America. It's one of the reasons why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in the country. It's one of the reasons why we have a drug education and prevention program that is reaching out and helping youngsters all over our state, the kind of thing I want to do as president of the United States. You know, the vice president says he wants to impose the death penalty on drug traffickers, and yet his administration has a federal furlough program which is one of the most permissive in the country, which gave last year 7,000 furloughs to drug traffickers and drug pushers, the same people that he says he now wants to execute. The issue of abortion is a very difficult issue, one that I think that we all have to wrestle with, we have to come to terms with. I don't favor abortion. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think most people do. The question is who makes the decision. And I think it has to be the woman, in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs, that makes that decision. LEHRER: Response, Mr. Vice President. BUSH: Well, the Massachusetts furlough program was unique. It was the only one in the nation that furloughed murderers who had not served enough time to be eligible for parole. The federal program doesn't do that. No other state programs do that. And I favor the death penalty. I know it's tough and honest people can disagree. But when a narcotics wrapped up guy goes in and murders a police officer, I think they ought to pay with their life. And I do believe it would be inhibiting. And so I am not going to furlough men like Willie Horton, and I would meet with their, the victims of his last escapade, the rape and the brutalization of the family down there in Maryland. Maryland would not extradite Willie Horton, the man who was furloughed, the murderer, because they didn't want him to be furloughed again. And so we have a fundamental difference on this one. And I think most people know my position on the sanctity of life. I favor adoption. I do not favor abortion. LEHRER: Question for the vice president, Ann? GROER: Yes. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might. Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it. You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother's life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions. But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail? BUSH: I haven't sorted out the penalties. But I do know, I do know that I oppose abortion. And I favor adoption. And if we can get this law changed, everybody should make the extraordinary effort to take these kids that are unwanted and sometimes aborted, take the - let them come to birth, and then put them in a family where they will be loved. And you see, yes, my position has evolved. And it's continuing to evolve, and it's evolving in favor of life. And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support - rape, incest and the life of the mother. Sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about this, but it's much clearer for me now. As I've seen abortions sometimes used as a birth control device, for heavens sakes. See the millions of these killings accumulate, and this is one where you can have an honest difference of opinion. We certainly do. But no, I'm for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can come to grips with the penalty side, and of course there's got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be. LEHRER: Governor. DUKAKIS: Well, I think what the vice president is saying is that he's prepared to brand a woman a criminal for making this decision. It's as simple as that. I don't think it's enough to come before the American people who are watching us tonight and say, well, I haven't sorted it out. This is a very, very difficult and fundamental decision that all of us have to make. And what he is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that he's prepared to brand a woman a criminal for making this choice. BUSH: I just - DUKAKIS: Let me finish. Let me simply say that I think it has to be the woman in the exercise of her own conscience and religious beliefs that makes that decision, and I think that's the right approach, the right decision, and I would hope by this time that Mr. Bush had sorted out this issue and come to terms with it as I have. I respect his right to disagree with me. But I think it's important that we have a position, that we take it, and we state it to the American people. LEHRER: Peter Jennings, a question for the vice president. JENNINGS: Mr. Vice President, I'm struck by your discussion of women and the sanctity of life. And it leads me to recall your own phrase, that you are haunted by the lives which children in our inner cities live. Certainly the evidence is compelling. There's an explosion of single parent families. And by any measure, these single parent families, many with unwanted children, are the source of poverty, school drop outs, crime, which many people in the inner city simply feel is out of control. If it haunts you so, why over the eight years of the Reagan-Bush administration have so many programs designed to help the inner cities been eliminated or cut? BUSH: One of the reasons, and I first would like to know which programs you're talking about, and then we could talk on the merits of the programs. But, you see, my fundamental philosophy is give local and state government as much control as possible. That might be the explanation, if you tell me the program. I do strongly support the WIC program. I think it is good. I think part of the answer to this haunting of these children that are out there and suffering lies in extension of Medicaid, to challenge the states, and maybe we're going to have to enforce more on the states in terms of Medicaid taking care of these. But, Peter, so much of it is, gets into a whole other phase of things. The neighborhood, the kind of environment people are growing up in, and that leads me to the programs I'm talking about in terms of education. I think that part of it is the crime infested neighborhoods, and that's why I'm a strong believer in trying to control crimes in the neighborhood, why I was so pleased to be endorsed by the policemen on the beat, the Boston Police Department the other day. I think they understand my commitment to helping them in the neighborhoods. And so it's a combination of these things. But do not erode out of the system the thousand points of light. The people that are out there trying to help these kids, the programs like cities and schools, the work that Barbara Bush is doing so people can learn to read in this country and then go on and break this cycle of poverty. I'm for Head Start and moving that up. And I've already made a proposal - and yes, it will cost some money. But I favor that. So these are the combination of things I want, and the fact that I don't think the federal government can endorse a $35 billion program does not mean I have less compassion than the person who endorses such a program. LEHRER: Governor. DUKAKIS: Well, I must have been living through a different eight years then the ones the vice president's been living through, because this administration has cut and slashed and cut and slashed programs for children, for nutrition, for the kinds of things that can help these youngsters to live better lives. It's cut federal aid to education; it's cut Pell grants and loans to close the door to college opportunity on youngsters all over this country. And that, too, is a major difference between the vice president and me. Let me just give you one other example. We have a great many people, hundreds of thousands of people living on public assistance in this country. The 50 governors of this nation have proposed to the Congress that we help those families to get off of welfare, help those youngsters, help their mothers to become independent and self-sufficient. It's taken months and months and months to get Mr. Bush and the administration to support that legislation, and they're still resisting. That's the way you help people. Being haunted, a thousand points of light - I don't know what that means. I know what strong political leadership is. I know what's happened over the course of the past eight years. These programs have been cut and slashed and butchered, and they've hurt kids all over this country. LEHRER: A question for the governor, Peter. JENNINGS: Governor, the crisis is no less a crisis for you if you are elected president. Where would you get the money to devote to the inner cities which is clearly needed. And can you be specific about the programs not only you'd reinstate, but the more imaginative ones that you'd begin. DUKAKIS: Well, I said a few minutes ago, Peter, that you could improve the lives of families and youngsters and save money at the same time. Welfare reform is one way to do it. If we invest in job training, in child care for those youngsters, in some extended health benefits so that that mother and her kids don't lose their health benefits when she goes to work, we can help literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, to get off of welfare, to become independent and self-sufficient, to be taxpaying citizens, and to improve their lives, the quality of lives, their futures, and the futures of those children. That's just one example of how you can save money and improve the quality of life at the same time. In my own state, for example, we now have that universal health care system, which the vice president opposes, I think very unwisely. One of the greatest barriers to opportunity for a family and for those children is the threat that they mat lose their health insurance. Think about that father down there in Houston who has to tell his youngster that he can't play little league ball that he can't go out on the ball field because he's afraid he's going to get hurt. And yet, Mr. Bush says well, I don't think we ought to expect business to provide health insurance for their employees, when responsible employers, a majority of employers in this country do and are paying more for their insurance to reimburse hospitals for free care on account of people that are not insured, that have to go to that hospital. So these are the ways that you help families, you help youngsters to live better lives, and more decent lives. Were ready to go to work at the state and local level, all of us. I know the private sector is. People are all over the country. But it takes presidential leadership. It takes a commitment to being involved and the leading. And that's the kind of presidency I want to lead. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President. BUSH: What troubles me is that when I talk of the voluntary sector and a thousand points of light and a thousand different ways to help on these problems, the man has just said he doesn't understand what I'm talking about. This is the problem I have with the big spending liberals. They think the only way to do it is for the federal government to do it all. The fact happens to be that education spending is up by the federal government; it is up. It is not down. But here's the point he misses. The federal government spends seven percent of the total on education, and the rest of the state governments and local governments and the thousand points of lightened I'm talking about private schools and private church schools and things of this nature--are putting up 93 percent. But the federal spending for education is up, and I want to be the education president, because I want to see us do better. We're putting more money per child into education, and we are not performing as we should. We've gotten away fro values and the fundamentals. And I would like to urge the school superintendents and the others around the country to stand up now and keep us moving forward on a path towards real excellence. And we can do it. But it¹s not going to be dedicated by some federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. LEHRER: All right, let's move now to some questions on foreign and national security policy. John Mashek will ask the first question of the governor. MASHEK: Governor, the vice president continually refers to your lack of experience, weakness, naivete on foreign policy and national security matters. He says you are prepared to eliminate weapons system that will result in the unilateral disarmament of this country. Is that true? DUKAKIS: Of course not. Of course that's a charge that's always made against any governor who runs for the presidency. I think it was one of the things that Mr. Bush said about Mr. Reagan back in 1980. Remember that, George? And yet some of our finest presidents, some of our strongest international leaders were governors—Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt. Its not the amount of time you spend in Washington. It's not the length of your resume. It's your strength, it's your values, it's the quality of the people you pick. It's your understanding of the forces of change that are sweeping the world, and whether or not you're in a position to provide leadership to make those forces of change work for us and not against us. The vice president has a long resume. But it didn't stop him from endorsing the sale of arms to the Ayatollah. And we now know that he was not out of the loop; he was in meeting after meeting listening to Secretary Shultz and Secretary Weinberger opposing that, and yet he supported it. His experience didn't prevent him from participating or involving or in some way being involved in the relationship between this government and Mr. Noriega and drug trafficking in Panama. He went to Philippines in the early 80¹s and commended Ferdinand Marcos for his commitment to democracy. And he continues to support a failed policy in Central America which is getting worse and worse, and which has in fact increased Cuban and Soviet influence in that region. So I don't believe that the fact you've got that long resume or had that experience is the real question. The question is values; the question is strength, the question is your willingness to provide the kind of leadership that must be provided. I'm ready to provide that leadership. I want to be the commander in chief of this country. I think it take fresh leadership now, and an understanding of those forces of change to provide the kind of strength that we need, and perhaps the vice president can explain what he was doing when he supported the trading of arms to terrorist nation, and his involvement in Panama and that endorsement of Mr. Macros. But I don't think it's just experience that makes the difference. It's strength; it's values. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President. BUSH: Well, I thought the question was about defense. The governor was for a nuclear freeze that would have locked in a thousand Soviet intermediate nuclear force weapons and zero for the West. And because we didn't listen to the freeze advocates, and strengthen the defense of this country, we now have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age. Now, we're sitting down and talking to the Soviets about strategic arms, and he wants to do away with the Midgetman and the MX, the modernization or our nuclear capability. That is not the way you deal with the Soviets. I've met Mr. Gorbachev. Met Mr. Shevardnadze and talked substance with him the other day. These people are tough. But now we have a chance. I few have experience and now how to handle it, but please do not go back to the days when the military was as weak as they could be, when the morale was down, and when we were the laughing stock around the world. And now we are back, because we have strengthened the defenses of this country, and believe me, I don't want to see us return to those days. As to Ferdinand Marcos, he isn't there any more. It was under our administration that Mrs. Aquino came in. But I'll tell you what I was thinking of. I flew a combat mission, my last one was over Manila. And he was down there fighting against imperialism. And he had just— LEHRER: Mr. Vice President BUSH: And he just lifted martial law. And he just called for new elections. And all of those things happened because the Philippines do crave democracy. And out he goes. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, your time is up. John, a question for the vice president. MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, the governor has suggested that you've never met a weapons system that you didn't like or want. Are you prepared to tell the voters one system in this time of tight budgetary restraints and problems at the Pentagon that you'd be willing to cut or even eliminate that wouldn't endanger national security? BUSH: I don't think it's a question of eliminating. I can tell him some I'm against. A-6F, for example. DIVAD. And I can go on and on. Minuteman III, penetration systems. I mean, there's plenty of them that I oppose, but what I am not going to do, when we are negotiating with the Soviet Union, sitting down talking to Mr. Gorbachev about how we achieve a 50 percent reduction in our strategic weapons, I'm not going to give away a couple of aces I that very tough card game. I'm simply not going to do that. And under me, when I lead this country, the secretary of defense is going to have to make the choices, between how we keep, how we protect the survivability of our nuclear deployment on the Midgetman missile, or on the Minuteman, whatever it is. We're going to have to—the MX. We're going to have to do that. It's Christmas. (Laughter) BUSH: Wouldn't it be nice to be perfect? DUKAKIS: I hope it isn't Christmas when you make that decision. BUSH: wouldn't it be nice to be the ice man so you never make a mistake? These are the—my answer is do not make these unilateral cuts, and everybody now realizes that peace through strength works, and so this is where I have a big difference. Of course we're going to have to make some determination on this, and we're going to have to make it on the convention forces. But now we've got a very good concept called competitive strategies. We will do what we do best. It's a strategy that we've been working on for a couple of years. It is going to take us to much better advantage in conventional forces. But look, let me sum it up. I want to be the president that gets conventional forces balance. I want to be the one to banish chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth. But you have to have a little bit of experience to know where to start. And I think I've had that. LEHRER: Governor? DUKAKIS: Well, first let me say with respect to the freeze, that back in the spring of 1982 Mr. Bush was a lot more sympathetic to the freeze than he seems to be today. As a matter of fact, he said it was not and should not be subject to partisan demagoguery because it was too important for the United States or for the world. I didn't hear, John, exactly where he was going to cut and what he was going to do. But I know this, we have serious financial problems in this country. We've piled up over a trillion dollars in debt and the next president of the United States is going to have to make some choices. Mr. Bush wants to spend billions on Star Wars. He apparently wants to spend billions on the MX on railroad cars, a weapons system we don't need and can't afford. I thought the administration was opposed to the Midgetman. I thought the administration was at the negotiating table in Geneva suggesting that we ban mobile missile systems entirely. But those are the choices the next president of the United States is going to have to make. I'm for the Stealth, I'm for the D-5, I'm for going ahead with the advance Cruise missile. But I don't think we need these other systems. I don't think we need them to remain strong. We've got to move ahead with the strategic arms negotiation process, with the comprehensive test ban treaty and with negotiations leading to conventional force reduction in Europe with deeper cuts on the Soviet side and Senator Bentsen and I will pursue that policy. LEHRER: Anne Groer, a question for the Vice President. GROER: Well, Mr. Vice President, you said you've met with Secretary General Gorbachev, you've met with Mr. Shevardnadze, but for the last forty years Americans have been taught to regard the Soviet Union as the enemy. Yet, President Reagan has signed two arms control treaties and he's promised to share Star Wars technology with the very country he once called the evil empire. So, perhaps you can tell us this evening, should we be doing a lot to help the economics and the social development of a country that we have so long regarded as an adversary?BUSH: What I think we ought to do is take a look at perestroika and glasnost, welcome them, but keep our eyes open. Be cautious. Because the Soviet change is not fully established yet. Yes, I think it's fine to do business with them. And, so, I'm encouraged with what I see when I talk to Mr. -- what I hear when I talk to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, but can they pull it off. And when they have a --they a --deals that are good for us, as China started to do--the changes in China since Barbara and I lived there is absolutely amazing, in terms of incentive, in partnership and things of this nature. And now the Soviet Union seems to be walking down that same path. We should encourage that. We ought to say this is good. But where I differ with my opponent is I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defend systems or support some freeze when they have superiority. I'm not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment. And the interesting place—one of the things that fascinates me about this perestroika and glasnost is wheats going to happen in Eastern Europe. You see the turmoil in Poland today. And I think we have enormous opportunity for trade. I don't want to go back to the Carter grain embargo on the Soviets. We are once again reliable suppliers and I would never use food as a political tool like our predecessors did. But this is an exciting time. But all I'm suggesting is let's not be naïve in dealing with the Soviets and make a lot of unilateral cuts hoping against hope that they will match our bid. Look at the INF treaty. And if we haven't learned from the negotiating history on that, we'll never learn. The freeze people were wrong. The Reagan-Bush administration was right. LEHRER: Governor Dukakis. DUKAKIS: It was a very different George Bush who was talking much more sympathetically about the freeze in the spring of 1982 than he is today. And you were right then, George, when you said it was no time for partisan demagoguery. Nobody is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm or somehow reduce our strength, of course not. What we're talking about is a combination of a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent. Strong, well-equipped, well-trained, well-maintained conventional forces. And at the same time a willingness to move forward steadily, thoughtfully cautiously. We have serious differences with the Soviet Union. We have very fundamental differences about human rights, democracy and our basic system, our basic view of human beings and of what life is all about. But there are opportunities there now. Senator Bentsen and I have a plan for the 1990¹s and beyond. Mr. Bush and Mr. Quayle do not. And we want to pursue that plan in a way which will bring down the level of nuclear armament, will build a more stable and more peaceful world while making choices here at home. Let's not forget that our national security and our economic security go hand in hand. We cannot be strong militarily when we're teeter-tottering on top of a mountain of debt which has been created in the past eight years. That's why we need a Democratic administration in Washington in 1989. (Applause) LEHRER: Anne Groer, a question for the Governor. GROER: Yes. Governor Dukakis, speaking of seeming changes of position, you have gone from calling the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, a fantasy and a fraud, to saying recently that you would continue SDI research and might even deploy the system if Congress supported such a move. Why the change of heart? DUKAKIS: No, there's been no change of heart. I said from the beginning that we ought to continue research into the strategic system at about the level that was added in 1983, that's about a billion dollars a year. But I don't know of any reputable scientist who believed that this system, at least as originally conceived could possibly work, this notion of some kind of astrodome over ourselves that could protect us from enemy attack. It makes real sense. And as a matter of fact, the system that the administration is now talking about is very different from the one that was originally proposed in 1983. So, I'm for continued research, but I also want strong conventional forces. Now, the other day, Mr. Bush said, ³Well, if we continue with Star War—Star Wars—we have to cut some place.² He hasn't told us where. We know where they're cutting. We know where you're cutting right now. You're cutting into the fiber and muscle of our conventional forces. You're cutting back on maintenance and equipment. An Air Force General not too long ago in Europe who said that pretty soon we'd have airplanes without engines, tank commanders who can't drive their tanks more than three-quarters of a mile, because they don't have enough fuel. Coast Guard cutters tied up at the dock this summer, not patrolling. They're supposed to be our first line of defense against drugs and the war against drugs, because they don't have enough fuel. You have to make choices. We're not making those choices. And to spend billions and billions of dollars as Mr. Bush apparently wants to, although, he, himself has been all over the lot on this issue lately—on Star Wars—in my judgment makes no sense at all. We need a strong, credible, effective nuclear deterrent. We have 13,000 strategic nuclear warheads right now on land, on sea and in the air, enough to blow up the Soviet Union forty times over. They have about 12,000. So, we've got to move forward with those negotiations, get the level of strategic weapons down. But to continue to commit billions to this system makes no sense at all and I think Mr. Bush has been reconsidering his position over the course of the past few weeks. That's—at least that's what I read. Maybe he'll tell us where he stand on it tonight. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President. BUSH: I'm not reconsidering my position. Two questions: How do you deter nuclear attack without modernizing our nuclear forces when the Soviets are modernizing and how come you spend—willing to spend a dime on something that you consider a fantasy and a fraud. Those are two hypo-rhetorical questions. He is the man on conventional forces that wants to eliminate two carrier battle groups. The armed forces, the conventional forces of the United States have never been more ready. Every single one of the Joint Chiefs will testify to the fact that readiness is in an historic high. And secondly, in terms of the cutting of the Coast Guard, the Democratic controlled Congress, so please help us with that, who cut $70 million from the Coast Guard out of the interdiction effort on narcotics. (Applause) BUSH: He's got to get this thing more clear. Why do you spend a billion dollars on something you think is a fantasy and a fraud? I will fully research it, go forward as fast as we can. We've set up the levels of funding and when it is deployable, I will deploy it. That is my position on SDI and it's never wavered a bit. LEHRER: Peter Jennings, a question for Governor Dukakis. JENNINGS: Well, Governor, and Vice President Bush, you've both talked tonight about hard choices. Let me try to give you one. Somewhere in the Middle East tonight, nine Americans are being held hostage. If you are commander-in-chief and Americans are held hostage, what will be more important to you, their individual fate, or the commitment that the United States Government must never negotiate with terrorists. And if any Americans are held hostage and you become president, to what lengths would you go to rescue them? DUKAKIS: Peter, it's one of the most agonizing decisions a president has to make. These are American citizens, we care deeply about them. Their families care deeply about them, want them back and understandably so and we want to do everything we can to bring them back. But if there's one thing we also understand it is that you cannot make concessions to terrorists, ever, ever. Because if you do, it's an open invitation to other terrorists to take hostages and to blackmail us. And that's the tragedy of the Iran/Contra scandal. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bush was the Chairman of a task force on international terrorism which issued a report shortly before that decision was made and said, and rightly so, that we never ever can make concessions to terrorists and hostage takers. And, yet, after sitting through meeting after meeting, he endorsed that decision, endorsed the sale of arms to the Ayatollah in exchange for hostages, one of the most tragic, one of the most mistaken foreign policy decisions we've ever made in this country and I dare say encouraged others to take hostages as we now know. So, there can be no concessions under any circumstances, because if we do it's an open invitation to others to do the same. We've got to be tough on international terrorism. We've got to treat it as international crime. We've got to attack at all points, we've go to use undercover operations. We have to be prepared to use military force against terrorist base camps, we have to work closely with our allies to make sure that they're working with us and we with them and we can give no quarter when it comes to breaking the back of international terrorism. Yes, we should make every effort to try to help those hostages come home, but it can never be because we make concessions. That was a tragic mistake that we made, a mistake that Mr. Bush made and others made and it should never ever be made again. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President? BUSH: I wrote the anti-terrorist report for this government. It is the best anti-terrorist report written. Yes, we shouldn't trade arms for hostages. But we have made vast improvements in our anti-terrorism. Now, it's fine to say that sometimes you have to hit base camps, but when the president saw this state sponsored—fingerprints of Muammar Khadaffi on the loss of American life, he hit Libya. And my opponent was unwilling to support that action. DUKAKIS: That's not true. That's not true. BUSH: And since that action, terrorist action against the United States citizens have gone down. DUKAKIS: That's not true. BUSH: And I have long ago said I supported the president on this other matter. And I've said mistakes were made. Clearly nobody's going to think the president started out thinking he was going to trade arms for hostages. That is a very serious charge against the president. The matter has been thoroughly looked into. But the point is sometimes the action– (Laughter) BUSH: – has to be taken by the Federal Government and when we took action, it had a favorable response. LEHRER: A question for the Vice President. Peter? JENNINGS: It seems perhaps a good subject, Mr. Vice President, on which to make the point that you've campaigned vigorously as part of a leadership team. But so far you won't tell the American people in considerable measure what advice you gave the president, including the sale of arms to Iran and what should have been done about the hostages. To the best of my knowledge there's no Constitutional requirement which prevents you from doing so. Jimmy Carter urged his Vice President, Walter Mondale, to tell the American people. Would you now ask President Reagan for permission to tell the American people what advice you did give him? And if you don't, how do we judge your judgment in the Oval Office in the last eight years? BUSH: You're judged by the whole record. You're judged by the entire record. Are we closer to peace? Are we doing better in anti-terrorism? Should we have listened to my opponent who wanted to send the UN into the Persian Gulf or in spite of the mistakes of the past, are we doing better there? How is our credibility with the GCC countries on the Western side of the Gulf. Is Iran talking to Iraq about peace? You judge on the record. Are the Soviets coming out of Afghanistan? How does it look in a program he called or some one of these marvelous Boston adjective up there and—about Angola—now, we have a chance—several Bostonians don't like it, but the rest of the country will understand. (Applause) BUSH: Now we have a chance. Now we have a chance. And, so, I think that I'd leave it right there and say that you judge on the whole record. And let me say this—all he can talk about—he goes around ranting about Noriega. Now, I've told you what the intelligence briefing he received said about that. He can talk about Iran/Contra and also—I'll make a deal with you, I will take the blame for those two incidents if you give me half the credit for all the good things that have happened in world peace since Ronald Reagan and I took over from the Carter administration. (Applause) BUSH: I still have a couple of minutes left. And there is a difference principle – LEHRER: Sorry, Mr. Vice President. BUSH: It's only on yellow here. Wait a minute. (Laughter) LEHRER: I'm wrong. Go ahead. My apologies. BUSH: Jim – LEHRER: You said nobody's perfect. BUSH: I said I wasn't perfect. Where was I? DUKAKIS: 25th of December, Mr. Vice President. (Laughter) BUSH: I finished. DUKAKIS: He can have another ten seconds if he wants, Jim. LEHRER: Governor, you have a minute to respond. DUKAKIS: Well, the matter of judgment is very important. And I think it's important to understand what happened here. A report on international terrorism chaired by the Vice President was released and made some very specific recommendations about how to deal with terrorism. They were ignored. The Vice President ignored them. He says mistakes were made. Very serious mistakes in judgment were made. He says, ³Well, let's concede that the administration has been doing business with Noriega. Has made him a part of our foreign policy and has been funneling aid to Contras through convicted drug dealers.² I think those are very very serious questions of judgment, which those of you who are watching us here tonight have a right to judge and review. We're not going to make those kinds of mistakes. You cannot make concessions to terrorists. If you do, you invite the taking of more hostages. That's a basic principle. It was ignored in that case and it was a very very serious mistake in judgment. LEHRER: A question from John Mashek. It goes to the Vice President. MASHEK: Mr. Vice President, Democrats and even some Republicans are still expressing reservations about the qualifications and credentials of Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, your chosen running mate, to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What do you see in him that others do not? (Laughter) BUSH: I see a young man that was elected to the Senate twice, to the House of Representatives twice. I see a man who is young and I am putting my confidence in a whole generation of people that are in their 30¹s and 40¹s. I see a man that took the leadership in the Job Training Partnership Act and that retrains people in this highly competitive changing society we're in, so if a person loses his hob he is retrained for a benefit—for a–work that will be productive and he won't have to go on one of these many programs that the liberal—talking about. I see a young man who is a knowledgeable—in defense and there are three people on our ticket that are knowledgeable—in the whole—in the race—knowledgeable in defense and Dan Quayle is one of them and I am one of them. And I believe that he will be outstanding. And he took a tremendous pounding and everybody now knows that he took a very unfair pounding. And I'd like each person to say did I jump to conclusions running down rumors that were so outrageous and so brutal. And he's kept his head up. And he will do very very well. And he has my full confidence and he'll have the confidence of people that are in their 30¹s and 40¹s and more. So, judge the man on his record not on the—lot of rumors and innuendo and trying to fool around with his name. My opponent says J. Danforth Quayle. Do you know who J. Danforth was, he was a man who gave his life in World War II, so ridiculing a person's name is a little beneath this process. And he'll do very well when we get into the debates. (Applause) DUKAKIS: Well, when it comes to ridicule, George, you win a gold medal. I think we can agree on that in the course of this campaign. (Applause) BUSH: Just the facts. DUKAKIS: But did I—did I sense a desire that maybe Lloyd Bentsen ought to be your running mate when you said there are three people on your ticket? BUSH: No, I think the debate ought to be between you and Lloyd. DUKAKIS: I think the American people have a right to judge us on this question, on how we picked a running mate, a person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. I picked Lloyd Bentsen, distinguished, strong, mature, a leader in the Senate, somebody whose qualifications nobody has questioned. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle. I doubt very much that Dan Quayle was the best qualified person for that job. And as a matter of fact, I think for most people the notion of President Quayle is a very very troubling thought. LEHRER: John will ask a question of the Governor. It will be the last question and then the Vice President will have a rebuttal. MASHEK: Well, Governor, you did select Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. DUKAKIS: I did indeed. MASHEK: And you have a lot of disagreement with him on fundamental issues, including the Reagan tax cuts, aid to the rebels in Nicaragua, the death penalty, gun control. Who's right? (Laughter) DUKAKIS: Well, John, I'm a man that's been a chief executive for ten years. I've picked a lot of people. I've picked cabinets. I've named judges. I know that the people you pick make an enormous difference in your ability to govern and I set high standards. I try to meet them and I insist that people who work for me meet them, if they don't, they don't stick around very long. But I didn't pick Lloyd Bentsen because he was a clone of Mike Dukakis. I picked him because he was somebody who would be a strong Vice President, somebody who would be an active Vice President. Somebody who would come to me if somebody came up with a crazy idea that we ought to trade arms to the Ayatollah for hostages and say, ³Mr. President, that's wrong. We shouldn't do that.² That's the kind of Vice President I want. He, himself, has said, and rightly so, that he'll be a strong Vice President. When the Vice President makes a decision, that will be his decision. And I'm very very proud of that choice. And I didn't pick him because he agreed with me on everything. You know, Sam Rayburn once said that if two people agree on everything then only one person is doing the thinking. The fact is I've picked somebody who not only will be a great Vice President, but if, God forbid, something happens to the president, could step into that office and do so with distinction and with strength and with leadership. I doubt very much. I doubt very much that Mr. Bush's selection for the Vice Presidency of the United States meets that test. (Applause) LEHRER: Mr. Vice President? BUSH: Well, I—we obviously have a difference. I believe it does meet the test. We'll have an opportunity to see the two of them in action in a friendly forum, wonderful friendly fashion like this. (Laughter) BUSH: I had hoped this had been a little friendlier evening. I wanted to hitchhike a ride home in his tank with him. But now we've got the lines too carefully drawn here. But you talk about judgment. I mean, what kind of judgment—I mean, jumping all over the president on his decision on one area of farm policy. What kind of judgment sense has your chief education adviser now in jail in Massachusetts? I mean, there's—I don't think this is a fair argument. But nevertheless, I support my nominee for Vice President and he'll do an outstanding job. LEHRER: Gentlemen, I was given some bad word a moment ago. There is time for one more question. Getting it in my ear and Ann Groer will ask it. Ann? To the Governor. GROER: Governor Dukakis, as many U.S. farmers face or undergo foreclosure, the United States is considering the possibility of forgiving a certain percentage of debt owed by Latin American and Third World countries, do you favor giving these countries a break in their loans and, if so, how do you explain that to the American farmers who are losing their land and livelihood? DUKAKIS: Well, I think we have to go to work on the problem of Third World debt and we've got to assist those Third World countries in dealing with this massive debt which they currently—which they have incurred and which is burdening them and which if we don't do something about it and assist them along with other nations around the world, we'll destroy their economies, destroy their future. And at the same time will destroy markets that are important to our farmers. But I also believe we need an agricultural policy which doesn't cost us 15 to 20 to 25 billion dollars a year that it's been costing us over the course of the past three or four years under this administration. I think it's going to require good, solid credit policies. And thanks to the Congress we now have an agricultural credit bill which is helping and improving the situation with at least some of our farmers. I think it's going to require a combination of supply management and reasonable price supports to make sure that our farmers get a decent price and I think it also is going to require an administration that understand that there are tremendous opportunities out there for the development of new uses for agricultural products, new uses which can help us to clean up our environment at the same time. Bio-degradable plastics—plastic—gasohol, which the Vice President has been involved in, road de-icers made from corn products. I mean, there are enormous opportunities out there to expand markets and to build a strong future for our farmers. But I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive or contradictory about building a strong farm economy in this country and assisting our family farms and providing a good strong future for rural communities and for rural America and at the same time working on Third World debt. As a matter of fact, Mexico, itself, is one of our biggest agricultural customers, so in the sense that we can work to help Mexico rebuild and expand and deal with these very serious economic problems we help our farmers at the same time. LEHRER: Mr. Vice President? BUSH: I oppose supply management and production controls. I support the farm bill, the 1985 farm bill and spending is moving in the right direction. I want to expand our markets abroad and that's why I've called for that first economic summit to be on agriculture. I will not go back to the way the Democrats did it and used food as a political weapon and throw a grain embargo on the farmers in this country. I want to see rural redevelopment and I have been out front in favor of alternate sources of energy and one of them is gasohol and comes from using your corn and I think we can do better in terms of biodegradable for a lot of product, so I'm optimistic about the agricultural economy. In terms of the Third World, I support the Baker plan. I want to see market economies spring up all around the world and to the degree they do, we are succeeding. And I don't want to see the banks let off the hook. I would oppose that, but I think were on the right track in agriculture and I am very very encouraged. But let's not go back to that—what they call supply management and production control, that'll simply price us out of the international market. Let's try to expand our markets abroad. LEHRER: All right. That really is the end. Now, let's go to closing statements. They will be two minutes each in duration by agreement. Vice President Bush goes first. Governor Dukakis second. Mr. Vice President. BUSH: I talked in New Orleans about a gentler and kinder nation and I have made specific proposals on education and the environment and on ethics and energy and how we do better in battling crime in our country. But there are two main focal points of this election. Opportunity and peace. I want to keep this expansion going. Yes, we want change but we are the change. I am the change. I don't want to go back to malaise and misery index. And, so, opportunity. Keep America at work. The best poverty program is a job with dignity in the private sector. And in terms of peace, we are on the right track. We've achieved an arms control agreement that our critics thought was never possible and I want to build on it. I want to see us finalize that START agreement and I want it to be the one to finally lead the world to banishing chemical and biological weapons. I want to see asymmetrical reductions in conventional forces. And then it gets down to a question of values. We've had a chance to spell out our differences on the Pledge of Allegiance here tonight and on tough sentencing of drug king pins and this kind of thing. And I do favor the death penalty. And we've got a wide array of differences on those. But in the final analysis—in the final analysis, the person goes into that voting booth, they're going to say, ³Who has the values I believe in? Who has the experience that we trust? Who has the integrity and stability to get the job done?² My fellow Americans, I am that man and I ask for your support. Thank you very much. (Applause) DUKAKIS: This has been an extraordinary 18 months for Kitty and me and for our family. We've had an opportunity to campaign all over this country and to meet with so many of you in communities and states and regions to get to know you. I'm more optimistic today than I was when I began about this nation providing we have the kind of leadership in Washington that can work with you, that can build partnerships, that can build jobs in every part of this country, not certain parts of this country. You know, my friends, my parents came to this country as immigrants like millions and millions of Americans before them and since, seeking opportunities, seeking the American dream. They made sure their sons understood that this was the greatest country in the world, that those of us especially who were the sons and daughters of immigrants had a special responsibility to give something to the country that had opened up its arms to our parents and given so much to them. I believe in the American dream. I'm a product of it and I want to help that dream come true for every single citizen in this land, with a good job and good wages, with good schools in every part of this country and every community in this country. With decent and affordable housing that our people can buy and own and live in, so that we end the shame of hopelessness in America. With decent and affordable healthcare for all working families. Yes, it's a tough problem as Mr. Bush says, but it¹s not an insolvable problem. It's one that we will solve and must solve, with a clean and wholesome environment and with a strong America that's strong militarily and economically as we must be, an America that provides strong international leadership because we're true to our values. We have an opportunity working together to build that future, to build a better America, to build a best America, because the best America doesn't hide. We compete. The best America. We invest. The best America doesn't leave some of its citizens behind. We live—we bring everybody along. And the best America is not behind us. The best America is yet to come. Thank you very much. (Applause) Presidential Candidate Debates, Presidential Debate in Winston-Salem, North Carolina Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217148

October 11, 1984 DOROTHY S. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Civic Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I'm Dorothy Ridings, president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of tonight's vice-presidential debate between Republican George Bush and Democrat Geraldine Ferraro. Our panelists for tonight's debate are John Mashek, correspondent for U.S. News & World Report; Jack White, correspondent for Time magazine; Norma Quarles, correspondent for NBC News; and Robert Boyd, Washington bureau chief for Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Sander Vanocur, senior political correspondent for ABC News, is our moderator tonight. Sandy. VANOCUR: Thank you, Dorothy. A few words about the order of our format tonight. The order of questioning was determined by a toss of the coin. Congresswoman Ferraro won the toss. She elected to speak last. Therefore Vice President Bush will get the first question. The debate will be built upon a series of questions from the four reporters on the panel. A reporter will ask a candidate a question, a follow-up question and then the same to the other candidate; then each candidate will get to rebut the other. The debate will be divided into two parts. There'll be a section, the first: one, on domestic affairs; the second on foreign affairs. Now the manner of address was decided by the candidates. Therefore it will be Vice President Bush, Congresswoman Ferraro. And we begin our questioning with Mr. Mashek. MASHEK: John Adams, our nation's first vice-president, once said: "Today I am nothing. Tomorrow I may be everything." With that in mind, I'd like to ask the following question: Vice President Bush, four years ago, you ran against Mr. Reagan for the Republican nomination. You disagreed with him on such issues as the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, and you labeled his economic policies as voodoo. Now you apparently agree with him on every issue. If you should be called upon to assume the presidency, would you follow Mr. Reagan's policies down the line or would you revert to some of your own ideas. BUSH: Well, I don't think there's a great difference, Mr. Mashek, between my views and President Reagan's. One of the reasons I think we're an effective team is that I believe firmly in his leadership. He's really turned this country around. We agree on the economic program. When we came into office, why, inflation was 21, 12 1/2 percent interest was wiping out every single American were 21 1/2 percent if you can believe it. Productivity was down. Savings was down. There was despair. In fact, the leadership of the country told the people that there was a malaise out there. And this president turned it around and I've been with him every step of the way. And of course I would continue those kinds of programs because it's brought America back. America's better off. People are going back to work. And why Mr. Monad can't understand that there's a new enthusiasm in this country, that America is back, there's new strong leadership, I don't know. He has one answer to the problem. Raise everybody's taxes. He looked right into that lens and he said out there in San Francisco, he said, "I'm gonna raise your taxes." Well he's had a lot of experience in that and he's sure gonna go ahead and do it. But I remember a statement of Lyndon Johnson's when he was looking around, why his party people weren't supporting him, and he said, "Hey, they painted their tails white and they ran with the antelopes." There's a lot of Democratic white tails running with the antelopes. Not one single Democrat has introduced the Mondale tax bill into the Congress. Of course I support the president's economic program and I support him in everything else. And I'm not sure, because of my concept of the vice presidency, that if I didn't, I'd go doing what Mr. Mondale has done with Jimmy Carter; jump away from him. I couldn't do that to Ronald Reagan, now, next year or any other time. I have too much trust in him. I have too much friendship for him. And I'd feel very uncomfortable doing that. MASHEK: Well some Republicans have criticized Mr. Mondale for now claiming he disagreed privately with Jimmy Carter's decision to impose the grain embargo. Have you ever disagreed with any decision of the Reagan Administration and its inner circles? And in following that up, where in your judgment does loyalty end and principle begin? BUSH: I owe my president my judgment and then I owe him loyalty. You can't have the president of the United States out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice president is going to be supporting him. Mrs. Ferraro has quite a few differences with Vice-President Mondale and I understood it when she changed her position on tuition tax credits. They're different on busing; she voted to extend the grain embargo; he now says that he was against it. If they win - and I hope they don't - but if they win, she'll have to accommodate some views. But she'll give him the same kind of loyalty that I'm giving President Reagan. One, we're not far apart on anything. Two, I can walk into that Oval Office anytime and give him my judgment and he might agree or he might not. But he also knows I won't be talking about it to the press or I won't be knifing him in the back by leaking to make me look good and complicate the problems of the president of the United States. MASHEK: Congresswoman Ferraro, your opponent has served in the House Of Representatives, he's been ambassador to the United Nations, ambassador to China, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now he's been vice president for four years. How does your three terms in the House of Representatives stack up against experience like that? FERRARO: Well, let me first say that I wasn't born at the age of forty-three when I entered Congress. I did have a life before that as well. I was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney's office in Queens County and I was a teacher. There's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions. I'm intrigued when I hear Vice-President Bush talk about his support of the president's economic program and how everything is just going so beautifully. I, too, recall when Vice President Bush was running in the primary against President Reagan and he called the program voodoo economics, and it was and it is. We are facing absolutely massive deficits; this administration has chosen to ignore it; the president has failed to put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everything believes that everything is corning up roses, perhaps the vice-president should join me as I travel around the country and speak to people. People in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, are not terribly thrilled with what's happening in the economy because they're standing in the light of a closed plant because they've lost their jobs. The people in Youngstown, Ohio, have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. It's not only the old industries that are failing, it's also the new ones. In San Jose, California, they're complaining because they can't export their high-tech qualities - goods - to Japan and other countries. The people in the Northwest - in the state of Washington and Oregon - are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and to the agriculture industry. So, so things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. My feeling, quite frankly, is that I have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to those problems. MASHEK: Despite the historic aspects of your candidacy, how do you account for the fact that a majority of women - at least according to the polls - favor the Reagan-Bush ticket over the Mondale-Ferraro ticket? FERRARO: I don't. Let me say that I'm not a believer in polls and let me say further that what we are talking about are problems that are facing the entire nation. They're not just problems facing women. The issues in this campaign are the war-peace issues; the problems of deficits; the problems of trade deficits. We are now facing a $120 billion trade deficit in this country. We're facing problems of the environment. I think what we're going to be doing over the next several weeks - and I'm absolutely delighted that the League is sponsoring these debates and that we are, we are able to now speak to the American public and address the issues in a way such as this. I think you're going to see a change in those polls. VANOCUR: Vice President Bush, you have one minute to rebuttal. BUSH: Well, I was glad to get that vote of confidence from Mrs. Ferraro in my economic judgment. So let me make a statement on the economy. The other clay she was in a plant and she said to the workers, Why are you all voting for, why are so many of you voting for the Reagan-Bush ticket. And there was a long, deathly silence and she said come on, we delivered. That's the problem. And I'm not blaming her except for the liberal voting record in the House. They delivered. They delivered 21 ® percent interest rates. They delivered what they called malaise. They delivered interest rates that were right off the charts. They delivered take-home pay, checks that were shrinking, and we've delivered optimism. People are going back to work; 6 million of them. And 300,000 jobs a month being created. That's why there was that deathly silence out there in that plant. They delivered the wrong thing. Ronald Reagan is delivering leadership. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, one-minute rebuttal. FERRARO: I, I think what I'm going to have to do is I'm going to start correcting the vice-president's statistics. There are 6 million more people who have jobs and that's supposed to happen in a growing economy. In fact in the prior administration, with all their problems, they created 10 million jobs. The housing interest rates during this administration, for housing for middle-class Americans, was 14.5 percent. Under the prior administration, with all their problems, the average rate was 10.6 percent. If you take a look at the number of people living in poverty as a result of this administration, 6 million people, 500,000 people knocked off disability rolls. You know, it's, you can walk around saying things are great and that's what we're going to be hearing, we've been hearing that on those commercials for the past couple of months. I expect they expect the American people to believe that. I'll become a one-woman truth squad and we'll start tonight. VANOCUR: Mr. White. WHITE: Congresswoman Ferraro, I would like to ask you about civil rights. You have in the past been a supporter of tuition tax credits for private parochial schools. And also of a constitutional amendment to ban busing. Both these measures are opposed not only by your running mate but by about every educational and civil rights organization in the country. Now that you're Mr. Mondale's running mate have you changed your position on either of those? FERRARO: With reference to the busing vote that I cast in 1979, both Fritz Mondale and I agree on the same goal and that is nondiscrimination. I just don't agree on the same direction he does on how to achieve it. But I don't find any problem with that. I think that's been something that's been handled by the courts, and not being handled by Congress and will not be handled by the White House. But we both support nondiscrimination in housing and integration of neighborhoods. The goals we both set forth. With reference to tuition tax credits, I have represented a district in Queens which is 70 percent Catholic. I represented my district. Let me say as well that I have also been a great supporter of public school education and that is something that Fritz and I feel very, very strongly about for the future of this country. And this administration over the past several years has gutted the educational programs available to our young people. It has attempted to knock out Pell Grants, which are monies to young individuals who are poor and who cannot afford to go to college. It has reduced by 25 percent the amount of monies going into college education and by a third those going into secondary and primary schools. But Fritz Mondale and I feel very strongly that if you educate your children that that's an effort and the way that you build up and make a stronger America. With reference to civil rights I think you've got to go beyond that and if you take a look, also, at my record in the Congress and Fritz Mondale's record, both in the Senate and as vice president, we both have extremely strong civil rights records. This administration does not. It has come in in the Bob Jones on the side of segregated academies. It came in in the Grove City case on the side of discrimination against women, the handicapped, and the elderly. As a matter of fact, in the Congress we just passed overwhelmingly the Civil Rights Bill of 1984 and this administration, the Republican-controlled Senate, just killed it in the last week or two in Congress. So there is a real difference between how the Mondale-Ferraro administration will address the problems of civil rights and the failure of this administration specifically in that particular area. WHITE: In the area of affirmative action, what steps do you think government can take to increase the representation of minorities and women in the work force, and in colleges and universities, and specifically, would you support the use of quotas to achieve those goals? FERRARO: I do not support the use of quotas. Both Mr. Mondale and I feel very strongly about affirmative action to correct inequities, and we believe that steps should be taken both through government - for instance, the Small Business Administration. We have supported set-asides for minority and women's businesses. That's a positive thing. We don't feel that you're in any way hurting anybody else by reaching out with affirmative action to help those who've been disenfranchised. On the contrary, if you have a growing economy, if you create the jobs, if you allow for small business the opportunity with lower interest rates to reach out and grow, there will be more than enough space for everybody. And affirmative action is a very positive way to deal with the problems of discrimination. WHITE: Vice-President Bush, many critics of your administration say that it is the most hostile to minorities in recent memory. Have you inadvertently perhaps encouraged that view by supporting tuition tax credits, the antibusing amendment, and siding with Bob Jones University in a case before the Supreme Court, your original opposition to the Voting Rights Act extension and so forth? BUSH: No, Mr. White, I think our record on civil rights is a good record. You mentioned the Voting Rights extension; it was extended for the longest period of time by President Reagan. But we have some problems in attracting the black vote, and I think our record deserves better. We have done more for black colleges than any previous administration. We favor enterprise zones to give - and it's been blocked by Tip O'Neill and that House of Representatives, those liberals in that House blocked a new idea to bring jobs into the black communities across the country. And because it's not an old handout, special federal spending program, it's blocked there - a good idea. And I'd like to sec that tried. We've brought more civil rights cases in the Justice Department than the previous administration by far. We believe in trying something new to help these black teenage kids; the minimum wage differential that says, "Look," to an employer, "hire these guys. And, yes, they're willing to work for slightly less than the minimum wage. Give 'em a training job in the private sector." We threw out that old CETA that didn't train people for jobs that existed, simply rammed them onto the government payroll, and we put in a thing called the Job Training Partnership Act. Wonderful new legislation that's helping blacks more and more. We think of civil rights as something like crime in your neighborhoods. And, for example, when crime figures are going in the right direction that's good, that's a civil right. Similarly, we think of it in terms of quality of life, and that means interest rates. You know, it's funny, Mr. Mondale talks about real interest rates. The real interest rate is what you pay when you go down and try to buy a TV set or buy a car, or do whatever it is. The interest rates when we left office were 21% percent. Inflation! Is it a civil right to have the going right off the chart so you're busting every American family, those who can afford it the least? No, we've got a good record. We've got it on civil rights legislation, minority set-asides, more help for black colleges, and we've got it in terms of an economy that's offering people opportunity and hope instead of despair. WHITE: Along those lines, sir, many recent studies have indicated that the poor and minorities have not really shared in the new prosperity generated by the current economic recovery. Was it right for your administration to pursue policies, economic policies, that required those at the bottom of the economic ladder to wait for prosperity to trickle clown from people who are much better off than they? BUSH: Mr. White, it's not trickling down. And I'm not suggesting there's no poverty, but I am suggesting the way to work out of poverty is through real opportunity. And in the meantime, the needy are getting more help. Human resource spending is way, way up. Aid for Dependent Children spending is up. Immunization programs are up. Almost every place you can point, contrary to Mr. Mondale's - I gotta be careful - but contrary of how he goes around just saying everything bad. If somebody sees a silver lining, he finds a big black cloud out there. Whine on harvest moon! I mean, there's a lot going on, a lotta opportunity. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal. FERRARO: The vice-president indicates that the President signed the Voting Rights Act. That was after he was - he did not support it while it was in the Congress, in the Senate, it was passed despite his opposition, and he did sign it because he was required to do so. In the civil rights cases that he mentioned, the great number of cases that they have enforced, the reason they enforced them because under the law they're required to do that. And I'm delighted that the administration is following the law. With reference VANOCUR: Excuse me - this will be out of my time, not yours - knowing and cherishing the people of this city and knowing their restraint and diffidence about emotion especially of athletic contexts of which this is not one, I beseech you, try to hold your applause please. I'm sorry. FERRARO: I just have to correct in my thirty seconds that are left the comment that the vice-president made with reference specifically to a program like AFDC. If you take AFDC, if you take food stamps, if you take - oh, go down the line on poor people's programs, those are the programs that suffered considerably under this administration's first budget cuts and those are the ones that in the second part of their part of their term, we were able to restore some of those terribly, terribly unfair cuts to the poor people of this country. VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush. BUSH: Well, maybe we have a factual - maybe we can ask the experts to go to the books. They'll do it anyway. Spending for food stamps is way, way up under the Reagan administration, AFDC is up under the Reagan administration, and I'm not going to be found wrong on that. I am sure of my facts, and we are trying to help and I think we're doing a reasonable job, but we are not going to rest until every single American that wants a job and until this prosperity and this recovery that's benefiting many Americans, benefits all Americans. VANOCUR: Miss Quarles. QUARLES: Vice-President Bush, one of the most emotional issues in this campaign has been the separation of church and state. What are your views on the separation of church and state specifically with regard to abortion, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of Philadelphia to have a letter read in 305 churches urging Catholics to fight abortion with their votes? BUSH: I do believe in pluralism. I do believe in separation of church and state. I don't consider abortion a religious issue. I consider it a moral issue. I believe the archbishop has every right to do everything he wants in that direction, just as I never faulted Jesse Jackson from taking his message to the black pulpits all across this country, just as I never objected when the nuclear arms, the nuclear freeze or the antinuclear people - many of those movements were led by priests. Suddenly, because a Catholic bishop or an evangelist feels strongly on a political issue, people are saying it's merging of church and state. We favor - and I speak confidently for the president - we favor separation of church and state. We favor pluralism. Now somebody says you ought to restore prayer in schools. You don't think it's right to prohibit a kid from praying in schools. For years kids were allowed to pray in schools. We don't think that's a merger of church and stare to have nonmandatory voluntary, nongovernment-ordered prayer. And yet some are accusing us of injecting religion into politics. I have no problem with what the archbishop does, and I have no problem with what the evangelists on the right do and I have no problem what the priests on the left do. And it didn't bother me when during the Vietnam War much of the opposition to the government - Democrat and Republican governments - was led by priests, encouraging people to break the law and the adage of the - you know - the civil disobedience thing. So our position, separation of church and stare, pluralism, so no little kid with a minority religion of some sort is going to feel offended or feel left out or feel uncomfortable. But, yes, prayer in school on a voluntary basis worked for many, many years until the Supreme Court ruled differently And I'm glad we got this question because I think there's been too much said about religion and politics. We don't believe in denominationally moving in. It wasn't our side that raised the question about our president whether he was a good Christian or not and so I, so that's our position - separation of church and state, pluralism, respect for all. QUARLES: Vice-President Bush, four years ago you would have allowed federal financing of abortions in cases of rape and incest ass well as when the mother's life was threatened. Does your position now agree with Reagan who in Sunday's debate came very close to saying abortion is murder? BUSH: You know, there has been - I have to make a confession - an evolution in my position. There's been 15 million abortions since 1973, and I don't take that lightly. There's been a million and a half this year. The president and I do favor a human rights amendment. I favor one that would have an exception for incest and rape, and he doesn't, but we both - only for the life of the mother. And I agree with him on that. So yes, my position's evolved, but I'd like to see the American who faced with 15 million abortions isn't rethinking his or her position and I'll just stand with the answer. I support the president's position - and comfortably - from a moral standpoint. QUARLES: So you believe it's akin to murder? BUSH: No, I support the president's position. QUARLES: Fine. Congresswoman Ferraro, what are your views on the separation of church and state with regard to abortions, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of Philadelphia to have those letters read in the pulpits and urged the voters to fight abortion with their vote? FERRARO: Let me say first of all I believe very, very sincerely in the separation of church and state. I'm taking it from the historical viewpoint, if you go back to the 1600s when people came here, the reason they came to this country was to escape religious persecution, and that's the same reason why people are coming here today in the 1940s to escape Nazism, now in the 1980s and 1984 when they can get our of the country to escape communism so they can come here and practice their religion. Our country is founded on the principle that our government should be neutral as far as religion is concerned. Now what's happened over the past several years, and quite frankly I'm not going to let you lay on me the intrusion of state politics into religion or religion into politics by my comments with reference to the president's policies, because it started in 1980 when this administration was running for office and the Reverend Jerry Falwell became very, very involved in the campaign. What has happened over the past four years has been I think a real fudging of that line with the separation of church and state. The actions of the archbishops let me say to you I feel that they have not only a right but a responsibility to speak up, and even though I've been the person that they're speaking up about, l feel they do have the responsibility to do so, and I have no problem with it, no more than I did a priest who marched at the time of Vietnam and no more than I did at the time when Martin Luther King marched at the time of the civil rights marches. I have absolutely no problem with them speaking up, I think they have an obligation as well as a right. But what I do have a problem with is when the president of the United States gets up in Dallas and addresses a group of individuals and said to them that anybody who doesn't support his constitutional amendment for prayer in the schools is intolerant of religion. Now there are numerous groups who don't support that prayer in the school, numerous religious groups. Are they intolerant of religion? Is that what the president is saying? I also object, when I am told, that the Reverend Falwell has been told that he would pick two of our Supreme Court justices. That's going a little bit far. In that instance, let me say to you it is more than a fudging at the line, it is a total intrusion, and I think that it's in violation of our Constitution. QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, as a devout Catholic, does it trouble you that so many of the leaders of your church disagree with you, and do you think that you're being treated unfairly in any way by the Catholic church? FERRARO: Let me tell you that I did not come to my position on abortion very lightly. I am a devout Catholic. When I was running for Congress 1978 I sat and met with a person I felt very close to, a monsignor currently a bishop. I spoke to him about my personal feelings that I would never have an abortion, but I was not quite sure if I were ever to become pregnant as result of a rape if I would be that self-righteous. I then spoke to him; he said, Gerry, that's not good enough. There you can't support that position. I said okay. That's my religious view; I will accept the teaching of the church, but I cannot impose my religious views on someone else. I truly take an oath as a public official to represent all the people in my district, not only the Catholics. If there comes a time where I cannot practice my religion and do my job properly, I will resign my job. VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush, your rebuttal. BUSH: Well I respect that statement, I really and truly do. We have difference on a moral question here on abortion. I notice that Mr. Mondale keeps talking in the debate and now it's come here about Mr. Falwell. And I don't know where this canard could have come from about Mr. Falwell picking the Supreme Court justices. Ronald Reagan has made one super outstanding, the only one he's made, appointment to the Supreme Court and that was Sandra Day O'Connor, and Mr. Falwell opposed her nomination. We still have respect for him, but he opposed it, and so I hope this lays to rest this slander against the president. We want justices who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate it. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal? FERRARO: Yes, I still find it very difficult to believe because in the platform, which this Republican party passed in Dallas - one of the things they was they said that this position on abortion would be a litmus test, not only for Supreme Court justices but for other federal justices. That, again, seems to me a blurring of the line of the separation between church and state. VANOCUR: The next questioning from Mr. Boyd. BOYD: Like many Americans, each of you has recently had an unhappy experience with the Internal Revenue Service. I'm going to prolong your ordeal. Congresswoman Ferraro, you disagree with the rule that says that a candidate must report the income or assets of his or her spouse if you get any benefit from them. Your husband's tax return showed that yon did benefit because he paid the mortgage and the property taxes on your home. Now the ethics committee is examining this question, but it won't report it's findings until after the election. Would you be willing to ask that committee, which is controlled by Democrats, to hurry up its work and report before the election. FERRARO: Let me say to you that I already did that. I wanted them to move ahead. If you recall, I spent about an hour and 45 minutes speaking to 200 reporters on August 21, which is the day after I was required to file my financial statement, and I sat for as long as they had questions on the issue, and I believe that they were satisfied. I filed more information than any other candidate for a national office in the history of this country. Not only did I agree to file my tax returns, after a little bit of prodding my husband also agreed to file his with the - not only the ethics committee but the FEC. Bur the action that you're speaking about with the ethics committee was started by a right-wing legal organization - foundation - knowing that I would have to - that there would be an automatic inquiry. We have filed the necessary papers, I have asked them to move along. Unfortunately, the House, I believe, went out of session today, so I don't know if they will move. But quite frankly, I would like that to be taken care of anyway, because I just want it cleared up. BOYD: Since that famous August 21 press conference on your family finances, you filed a new report with the ethics committee, and this showed that your previous reports were full of mistakes and omissions. For example, you failed to report about twelve trips that were paid for by special interest groups. In at least eighteen cases your holdings were misstated. Do you think it showed good leadership or attention to duty to blame all this on sloppy work by your accountant? FERRARO: Well, what it showed was that - and it was truly that I hired an accountant who had been with our family for well over forty years. He was filling our those ethics forms. I did not spend the time with him - I just gave him my tax information and he did it. I have to tell you what we have done since I have hired a marvelous accountant. I've spent a lot of money having him go through all those ethics forms and he will be doing my taxes over the next eight years while we're in the White House so that the American public can be sure it's all been taken care of. BOYD: Vice-President Bush, last year you paid less than 13 percent of your income in federal taxes. According to the IRS, someone in your bracket normally pays about 28 percent of his income. Now what you did was perfectly legal, but do you think it was fair, and is there something wrong with our tax laws that allows such large deductions for wealthy taxpayers? BUSH: What that figure - and I kind of like the way Mrs. Ferraro and Mr. Zaccaro reported - because they reported federal taxes, state and local taxes - gives people a clearer picture. That year I happened to pay a lot of state and local taxes, which as you know are deducted from the other, and so I looked it up the other day, and we had paid - I think it's 42 percent - of our gross income in taxes. Now Mr. Mondale the other night took what I - I'll be honest - I think it was a cheap shot - at me, and we did a little looking around to see about his. We can't find his 198I tax return - it may have been released. Maybe my opponent knows whether Mr. Mondale released it. But we did find estimates that his income for those three years is a million, four hundred thousand dollars, and I think he paid about the same percentage as I did in total taxes. He also made a reference that troubled me very much, Mr. Boyd. He started talking about my chauffeur, and you know, I'm driven to work by the Secret Service - so is Mrs. Ferraro - so is Mr. Mondale - they protected his life for four years and now they've done a beautiful job for Barbara and mine. They saved the life of the president of the United States. I think that was a cheap shot - telling the American people to try to divide class - rich and poor. But the big question isn't whether Mrs. Ferraro is doing well. I think they're doing pretty well, and I know Barbara and I are doing well. And it's darn sure that Mr. Mondale is doing well, with a million four in income, but the question really is - after we get through this disclosure - is the tax cut fair? Are people getting a fair break, and the answer is the rich are paying 6 percent more on taxes and the poor are getting a better break. Those lower and middle-income people that have borne the burden for a long time. So yes, I favor disclosure. I've always disclosed. This year I had my taxes and everything I own in a blind trust - so blind - blinder than the president's, so I didn't even sign my tax return. But there seemed to be an interest in it so we went to the government ethics committee - they agreed to change the trust. The trust has been revealed, and I was sure glad to see that I had paid 42 percent of my gross income in taxes. BOYD: Mr. Vice-President, how can you claim that your home is in Maine for tax purposes and at the same time claim that your home is in Texas for voting purposes? Are you really a Texan or a New Englander. BUSH: I'm really a Texan. But I got one house. And under the law, every taxpayer is allowed, when he sells a house, and buys another house, to get the rollover. Everybody, if it turns out, and I may hire, I notice she said she has a new good accountant. I'd like to get his name and phone number because I think I've paid too much in the way of taxes. And residence, Mr. Boyd, legal residence, for voting, is very different. And the domicile, they call that, very different, than the house. That they say you're living in the vice-president's house. Therefore you don't get what every - I've got problems - what every other taxpayer gets. I got problems with the IRS, but so do a lot of people out there. I think I've paid too much. Nothing ethical. I'd like to get some money back. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro, your rebuttal please. FERRARO: Let me just say that I'd be happy to give the vice-president the name of my accountant, but I warn you, he's expensive. I think the question is whether or not the tax cuts and the tax system that's currently in our government, that our government uses, is fair; I think the tax system is unfair. But it's not something that we can address in the short term. The tax cuts that Vice-President Bush and I got last, three years ago, that this president gave out, no, that's not fair. If you earn $200,000 a year, you got a $25,000 tax cut. If you earned between $20,000 and $40,000, you may have gotten about $1,000 between ten and twenty, close to a hundred dollars and if you made less than $10,000 with all the budget cuts that came down the line, you suffered a loss of $400. That's not fair. That's basically unfair and not only is it unfair, but economically it has darn near destroyed this country. There's a $750 billion tax cut over a five-year period of time. That's one of the reasons we're facing these enormous deficits that we have today. VANOCUR: Mr. Vice-President. BUSH: No, I think I've said all I want to say. I do, I didn't fully address myself to Mr. Boyd's question no disclosure, I led the fight, I think, in 1968, in the House - I was in the House of Representatives for a couple of terms - and I led the fight for disclosure. I believe in it. Before I went into this job, I disclosed everything we had. We didn't have any private corporations, but I disclosed absolutely everything. Arthur Andersen made out an assets and liabilities statement that I believe went further than any other one. And then, to protect the public interest, we went into this blind trust. I believe in the blind trust because I believe a public official in this kind of job ought not to know whether he's gonna benefit, directly or indirectly, by some holding he might have or something of that nature. And, no, I support full disclosure. VANOCUR: Thank you. That ends the part of this debate devoted to domestic affairs. We will now turn to foreign affairs and will begin the questioning with Mr. Mashek. MASHEK: Vice-President Bush, since your administration came to power the President has threatened a stern response against terrorism, yet murderous attacks have continued in Lebanon and the Middle East. Who's to blame, and you've been director of the Central Intelligence Agency. What can be clone to stop it? BUSH: Terrorism is very, very difficult to slop. And I think everybody knows that. We had ambassadors killed in Sudan and the Lebanon some time ago, a long time ago. When you see the Israeli building in Lebanon after the death of our marines you see that, hit by terrorism, the Israelis, with all their experience fighting terrorism, you know it's difficult. When you see Khomeini wraith his radical Islam resorting to government-sponsored terrorism, it's very difficult. The intelligence business can do a good job, and I'm always one that defends the Central Intelligence Agency. I believe we ought to strengthen it and I believe we still have the best foreign intelligence business in the world. But it is very difficult to get the source information that you need to go after something as shadowy as international terror. There was a difference between Iran and what happened in Lebanon. In Iran you had a government holding a U.S. embassy; the government sanctioning the takeover of that embassy by those students; the government negotiating with the United States government for their release. In Lebanon, in the terror that happened at the embassy, you have the government there, Mr. Gemayel, that wants to help fight against terrorism. But because of the melee in the Middle East, it's there today and has been there yesterday and the day before, and everyone that's had experience in that area knows, it is a very different thing. So what we've got to do is use absolutely the best security possible. I don't think you can go assigning blame. The president, of course, is the best I've ever seen at accepting that. He's been wonderful about it in absolutely everything that happens. But I think fair-minded people that really understand international terror know that it's very hard to guard against. And the answer then really lies in the Middle East and terrorism happening all over the world, is a solution to the Palestine question, the follow on to Camp David under the umbrella of the Reagan September of 1982 initiative. That will reduce terror, it won't eliminate it. MASHEK: You mention Khomeini. Some Republicans charge the previous administration with being almost helpless against Khomeini and Libya's Quaddafi. Why hasn't your administration done something to take action against Arab states that foment this kind of terrorism? BUSH: What we've done is to support Arab stores that want to stand up against international terror, quite different. We believe in supporting, without jeopardizing the security of Israel in any way, because they are our one strategic ally in the area, they are the one democracy in the area and our relations with them has never been better. But we do believe in reaching out to the, what they call the GCC, those Gulf Cooperative Council State, those moderate Arab states in that world, and helping them with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical Islam perpetuated by Khomeini. And because we've done that and because the Saudis chopped down a couple of those intruding airplanes a while back, I think we have helped keep the peace in the Persian Gulf. MASHEK: Congresswoman Ferraro, you and former Vice-President Mondale have criticized the president over the bombings in Lebanon, but what would you do to prevent such attacks? FERRARO: Let me first say that terrorism is a global problem, and let me say secondly that the - Mr. Bush has referred to the embassy that was held in Iran, Well, I was at the White House in January, I guess it was, in '81, when those hostages, all fifty-two of them, came home alive. It was at that time that President Reagan gave a speech welcoming them home - as America did, we were so excited to see them back. But what he said was: The United States has been embarrassed for the last time. We're going to stand tall and if this ever happens again, there's going to be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong that our country has founded - has suffered. In April of J983 I was in Beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. Two weeks later, that embassy was bombed. At that time - take a look at the crazy activities of terrorists, you can't blame that on anybody. They're going to do crazy things and you just don't know what's going to happen. The following October, there was another bombing and that bombing took place at the marine barracks, where there were 242 young men who were killed. Right after that bombing occurred, there was a commission set up called the Long Commission. That commission did a study of the security arrangements around where the marines were sleeping and found that there was negligence, that they did not have proper gates up, proper precautions to stop those trucks from coming in. And so the Long Commission issued a report, and President Reagan got up and he said: I'm commander in chief. I take responsibility. And we all waited for something to be done when he look responsibility. Well, last month we had our third bombing, The first time, the first embassy, there was no gate up, The second time, with our Marines, the gate was open. The third time, the gate was there but it had not been installed. And what was the president's reaction? Well, the security arrangements were not in, our people were placed in that embassy in an unsecured time, and the marines who were guarding it were left to go away and there were other people guarding the embassy. Again the president said: I assume responsibility. I'd like to know what that means. Are we going to take proper precautions before we put Americans in situations where they're in danger, or are we just going to walk away, throwing our arms in the air now - quite a reversal from the first time, from the first time when he said he was going to do something? Or is this President going to take some action? MASHEK: Some Democrats cringe at the words spying and covert activity. Do you believe both of them have a legitimate role in countering terrorist activity around the world? FERRARO: I think they have a legitimate role in gathering information. And what has happened was the CIA, in the last bombing, had given information to our administration with reference to the actual threats that that embassy was going to be bombed. So it wasn't the CIA that was at fault. There's legitimate reason for the CIA to be in existence, and that's to gather intelligence information for our security. But when I see the CIA doing things like they're doing down in Central America - supporting a covert war - no, I don't support that kind of activity. The CIA is there, it's meant to protect our government; not there to subvert other governments. VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush. BUSH: Well, I'm surprised. I think I just heard Mrs. Ferraro say that she would do away with all covert actions, and if so, that has very serious ramifications, as the intelligence community knows. This is serious business. And sometimes it's quiet support for a friend, and so I'll leave that one there. But let me help you with the difference, Mrs. Ferraro, between Iran and the embassy in Lebanon. Iran - we were held by a foreign government. In Lebanon you had a wanton, terrorist action where the government opposed it. We went to Lebanon to give peace a chance, to stop the bombing of civilians in Beirut, to remove 13,000 terrorists from Lebanon - and we did. We saw the formation of a government of reconciliation and for somebody to suggest, as our two opponents have, that these men died in shame - they better not tell the parents of those young marines. They gave peace a chance. And our allies were with us - the British, the French, and the Italians. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro. FERRARO: Let me just say, first of all, that I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy. I've been a member of Congress for six years; I was there when the embassy was held hostage in Iran, and I have been there and I've seen what has happened in the past several months; seventeen months of your administration. Secondly, please don't categorize my answers, either. Leave the interpretation of my answers to the American people who are watching this debate. And let me say further that no one has ever said that those young men who were killed through the negligence of this administration and others ever died in shame. No one who has a child who is nineteen or twenty years old, a son, would ever say that at the loss of anybody else's child. VANOCUR: Mr. White. WHITE: Congresswoman Ferraro, you've repeatedly said that you would not want your son to die in an undeclared war for an uncertain cause. But recently your running mate, Mr. Mondale, has suggested that it may become necessary to erect a military quarantine or blockade of Nicaragua. Under what circumstances would you advocate the use of military force, American combat forces, in Central America? FERRARO: I would advocate the use of force when it was necessary to protect the security of our country, protect our security interest or protect our people or protect the interests of our friends and neighbors. When president - I'm jumping the gun a bit, aren't I? - when Mr. Mondale, Mr. Mondale referred to the quarantine of Central America, a country in Central America, what he is referring to is a last resort after all other means of attempting to settle the situation down in that region of the world had been exhausted. Quite frankly now what is being done by this administration is an Americanizing of a regional conflict. They're moving in militarily instead of promoting the Contadora process, which, as you know, is the process that is in place with the support of Mexico and Colombia and Panama and Venezuela. Instead of supporting the process, our administration has in Nicaragua been supporting covert activities to keep that revolution going in order to overthrow the Sandinista government; in El Salvador was not pushing the head of the government to move toward correction of the civil rights; human rights problems that existed there, and now this administration seems almost befuddled by the fact that Nicaragua is moving to participate in the Contadora process, and El Salvador is, through its President Duarte, is reaching out to the guerrillas in order to negotiate a peace. What Fritz Mondale and I feel about the situation down there is that what you do is you deal first through negotiation. That force is not a first resort but certainly a last resort in any instance. VANOCUR: A follow-up, please. WHITE: Many times in its history the United States has gone to war in order to defend freedom in other lands. Does your answer mean that you would be willing to forgo the use of military force even if it meant the establishment of a Soviet-back dictatorship so close to our own borders? FERRARO: No, I think what you have to do is work with the government - I assume you're speaking about the government of Nicaragua - work with that government to achieve a pluralistic society. I mean they do have elections that are coming up on November 4. I think we have to work with them to achieve a peaceful solution to bring about a pluralistic country. No, I'm not willing to live with a force that could be a danger to our country. Certainly, I would see that our country would be there putting all kinds of pressure on the neighboring countries of Honduras, of Costa Rica, of El Salvador, to promote the kind of society that we can all live with and security in this country. WHITE: Vice-President Bush, both Cuba and Nicaragua are reported to be making extensive preparations to defend themselves against an American invasion, which they claim could come this fall. And even some of your Democratic opponents in Congress have suggested that the administration may be planning a December surprise invasion. Can you tell us under what circumstances a reelected Reagan administration would consider the use of force in Central American or the Caribbean? Bush: We don't think we're to be required to use force. Let me point out that there are 2,000 Cuban military and 7,500 so-called Cuban advisers in Nicaragua. There are 55 American military in El Salvador. I went down, on the instructions of the president, to speak to the commandants in El Salvador and told them that they had to move with Mr. Magana, then the president of El Salvador, to respect human rights. They have done that. They're moving well. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the difference between El Salvador and Nicaragua is like the difference between night and day. El Salvador went to the polls, Mr. Duarte was elected by 70 percent of the people in 70 percent voting in a certifiably free election. In Nicaragua, you have something very different. You have a Marxist-Leninist group, the Sandinistas, that came into power talking democracy. They have aborted their democracy. They have humiliated the Holy Father. They have cracked down on the only press organ there, La Prensa, censoring the press something that should concern every American. They have not had any human rights at all. They will not permit free elections. Mr. Cruz, who was to be the only viable challenger to Nicaragua, the Sandinistas, to the junta, to Mr. Ortega, went down there and found that the ground rules were so unfair that he couldn't even wage a campaign. One country is devoid of human rights. The other is struggling to perfect their democracy. We don't like it, frankly, when Nicaragua exports its revolution or serves as a conduit for supplies coming over from such "democracies" as North Korea, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union and Cube, to try to destabilize El Salvador. Yes, we're concerned about that. Because we want to see this trend toward democracy continue. There have been something like thirteen countries since we've come in move toward the democratic route, and let me say that Grenada is not unrelated. And I have a big difference with Mrs. Ferraro on that one. We gave those four tiny Caribbean countries a chance. We saved the lives, and most of those thousand students said they were in jeopardy. Grenada was a proud moment because we did stand up for democracy. But in terms of threat of these countries, nuclear, I mean, weapons, no. There's not that kind of a threat. It's Mr. Mondale that proposed the quarantine, not Ronald Reagan. WHITE: Considering this country's long respect for the rule of international law, was it right for the United States to be involved in mining the harbors of Nicaragua, a country we're not at war with, and to subsequently refuse to allow the World Court to adjudicate that dispute and the complaint from Nicaragua? BUSH: I support what we're doing. It was supported to the Congress and under the law. I support it. My only regret is that the aid for the contras, those people that are fighting, we call them freedom fighters. They want to see the democracy perfected in Nicaragua. Am I to understand from this assault on covert action that nowhere in the world would we do something that was considered just off base when Mrs. Ferraro said she's never support it? Would she never support it if the violation of human rights was so great and quiet support was necessary for freedom fighters? Yes, we're for the contras. And let me tell you another fact about the controls. Everyone that's not for this, everyone who wants to let that Sandinista government prevail, just like that Castro did, all of that, the contras are not Somozistas. Less than 5 percent of the contras supported Somoza. These were people that wanted a revolution. These people that felt the revolution was betrayed. These are people that support human rights. Yes, we should support them. VANOCUR: Congresswoman Ferraro. FERRARO: I spent time in Central America in January and had an opportunity to speak to the contras after the incident in Nicaragua and in El Salvador. Let me just say that the situation as it exists now, because of this administration's policies, are not getting better. We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn't get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country. VANOCUR: Vice President Bush. BUSH: Well, I would simply like to make the distinction again between those countries that are searching for democracy and the handful of countries that have totally violated human rights and are going the Marxist route. Ortega, the commandante who is head of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, is an avowed Marxist. They don't believe in the church. They don't believe in free elections. They don't believe in all of the values that we believe in. So it is our policy to support the democracy there, and when you have freedom fighters that want to protect that revolution, and go the democratic route, we believe in giving them support. We are for democracy in the hemisphere. We are for negotiations. $3 out of every $4 that we sent down there has been for economic aid to support the people's chance to eat and live and be happy and enjoy life. And one-fourth only was rnilitary. You wouldn't get that from listening to Mr. Mondale. VANOCUR: Miss Quarles. QUARLES: Vice President Bush, the last three Republican administrations, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, none of them soft on communism, met with the Soviets and got agreements on arms control. The Soviets haven't changed that much. Can you tell us why President Reagan has not met with the Soviet ministers at all and only met with Prime Minister Gromyko less than a month ago? BUSH: Yes, I can. The, you mentioned the Gromyko meeting, those were broken off under the Carter-Mondale days. There had been three separate Soviet leaders. Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Andropov, and now Chernenko. During their, that, in three and a half years, three separate leaders. The Soviets have not been willing to talk. We are the ones that went to the table in INF. We had a good proposal, a moral proposal. Ban an entire generation of intermediate nuclear force weapons and if you won't do that, don't leave your allies in Europe in a monopoly position. The Soviets with 1,200 of these things, and the alliance with none. We didn't think that's the way to deter aggression and keep the peace. The president went, the first thing he did when he came into office was make a proposal on the most destabilizing weapons of all, START. And when the the strategic weapon and when the Soviets said, well, we don't like that proposal, we said all right, we'll be more flexible. I at the urging of the president went to Geneva and laid on the table a treaty to ban all chemical weapons. We don't want them to have a monopoly. We said look, let's come together. You come over here and see what we're doing; we'll go over there and see what you're doing. But let's save the kids of this world from chemical weapons. A brilliant proposal to get rid of all of them. And the Soviets nyet, nyet nyet. In the mutual balance force reduction to reduce conventional forces, they're not even willing to tell us the base. Mrs. Ferraro knows that, and how many troops they have. There's four sessions. We have had an agreement with them on the hot line. But Carter-Monad made an agreement, the Salt II agreement, but the Democratic Senate, they were a Democratic administration, the Democratic Senate wouldn't even ratify that agreement. It was flawed, it was unverifiable and it was not good. Our president wants to reduce, not just to stop, he wants to reduce dramatically nuclear weapons. And when the Soviets know they're going to have this strong president to deal with, and when this new administration, Mr. Chernenko, given more than a few months in office can solidify its position, then they'll talk. But if they think the opposition, before they sit down, are going to give up the MX, give up the B-l, go for a freeze that locks in inferiority in Europe, all of these things, unilaterally, before they're willing to talk, they may just sweat it out for four more weeks. Who knows. QUARLES: You were once quoted as saying that a nuclear war is winnable. Is that still your belief, and if not, under what circumstances would you use nuclear weapons if you were president? BUSH: No, I don't think it's winnable. I was quoted wrong, obviously, 'cause I never thought that. The Soviet planning, I did learn that when I was director of Central Intelligence, and I don't think there'd be any disagreement, is based on that ugly concept. But I agree with the president: It should never be fought. Nuclear weapons should never be fought with, and that's our approach. So, therefore, let's encourage the Soviets to come to the table as we did at the Gromyko meeting. I wish everybody could have seen that one - the President, giving the facts to Gromyko in all of these nuclear meetings - excellent, right on top of that subject matter. And I'll bet you that Gromyko went back to the Soviet Union saying, "Hey, listen, this president is calling the shots; we'd better move." But do you know why I think we'll get an agreement? Because I think it is in the interest of the Soviet Union to make it, just as it is in the United States. They're not deterred by rhetoric. I listened to the rhetoric for two years at the United Nations. I've lived in a Communist country. It's not rhetoric that decides agreements, it's self-interest of those countries. QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, you and Mr. Mondale are for a verifiable nuclear freeze. Some Democrats have said that verification may not be possible. How would you verify such an agreement and make sure that the Soviets are not cheating? FERRARO: Let me say first of all that I don't think there is any issue that is more important in this campaign, in this election, than the issue of war and peace. And since today is Eleanor Roosevelt's 100th birthday, let me quote her. She said, "It is not enough to want peace, you must believe in it. And it is not enough to believe in it, you must work for it." This administration's policies have indicated quite the opposite. The last time I heard Vice President Bush blame the fact that they didn't meet with the Soviet leader, and this is the first president in forty years not to meet with a Soviet counterpart. He said the reason was because there are three Soviet leaders in the past three and a half years. I went and got a computer printout. It's five pages of the leaders, world leaders, that the Soviet leaders have met with, and they're not little people. They're people like Mitterrand of France and Kohl of Germany and President Kiprianou of Cyprus - you go down the list, five pages of people that the Soviet leaders have managed to meet with and somehow they couldn't meet with the president of the United States. In addition to not meeting with his Soviet counterpart, this is the first president - and you're right - since the start of negotiating arms control agreements who have not negotiated an arms control agreement, But not only has he not negotiated one, he's been opposed to every single one that every other president has negotiated, including Eisenhower, including Ford, and including Nixon. Now, let me just say that with reference to the vice-president's comments about the intent and the desire of the United Sites and this administration, the Soviet Union did walk out of the talks. I agree. But it seems to me in 1982, when the administration presented its Start proposal, that it wasn't a realistic proposal. And that is the comment that was made by Secretary Haig after he left office, because what it dealt with was that it dealt just with land-based nuclear missiles, which is where the Soviets had the bulk of their missiles. But that aside, in 1982, I believe it was, their own negotiator, Nitze, came out with a proposal called the "walk-in-the-woods proposal" which would have limited the number of nuclear arms in Europe. That proposal was turned down by the administration - a proposal presented by its own administrator. Now I'm delighted that they met with Mr. Gromyko, but they could have had that opportunity to meet with him in 1981 when he came to the UN, which he had done with every other president before, and in 1982 as well. I guess my - VANOCUR: Congresswoman, I'm sorry. Speaking of limits, I have to impose a limit on you, Vice President Bush? BUSH: Well, I think there's quite a difference between Mr. Kyprianou in Cyprus and the leader of the free world, Ronald Reagan, in terms of meeting. And the Soviet Union - the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union will meet with a lot of different people. We've been in very close touch with Mr. Mitterrand, Mr. Kohl, and others that have met with the leaders of the Soviet Union. But that's quite different than meeting with the president of the United States. The Soviets say we'll have a meeting when we think there can be progress and yet they left those talks. I'd like to correct my opponent on the walk in the woods. It was the Soviet Union that was unwilling to discuss the walk in the woods. They were the ones that gunned it down first and the record is very, very clear on that. Miss Ferraro mentioned the inflexibility of our position on strategic arms. Yes, we offered first to get rid of all those - we tried to reduce the SS-18's and those weapons. But then we said if that's not good enough, there is flexibility, let's talk about the bombers and planes. So that's a very important point in terms of negotiation. VANOCUR: Congresswoman, he that taketh away has to give back. I robbed you of your rebuttal. Therefore, you will have two minutes to rebut. Forgive me. FERRARO: I - You robbed me of my follow-up, that's what you robbed me, so why don't I let her give me the follow-up. VANOCUR: All right, and then give your rebuttal. QUARLES: Congresswoman Ferraro, most polls show that the American - Americans feel that the Republicans, more than the Democrats are better able to keep the United States out of war. We've had four years of relative peace under President Reagan. How can you convince the American public that the world would be a safer place under Carter-Mondale? [sic] FERRARO: I think first of all, you have to take a look at the current situation. We now have 50,000 nuclear warheads; we are building at the rate of five or six a day between us and we have been doing that since this administration came into office. I think what you can do is look at what they've done and recognize that they're not going to do very much in the future. And so, since they've done nothing, do we continue to build because an arms race doesn't lead to anything, it leads to another arms race and that's that. Vice President Monad has indicated that what he would do, first of all, as soon as he. gets into office, is contact his Soviet counterpart and set up an annual summit meeting. That's number one. I don't think you can start negotiating until you start talking. Secondly, he would issue a challenge, and the challenge would be in the nature of temporary, mutual, verifiable, moratoria to halt testing in the air, in the atmosphere, that would respond with a challenge from the Soviet Union, we hope, to sit down and negotiate a treaty. That was done in 1960. I don't know what your lights are doing, Sander. VANOCUR: You have another minute. FERRARO: Okay. I'm watching them blinking. So I have another minute. What that would do is it would give us the opportunity to sit down and negotiate a treaty. That was done in 1960 by President Kennedy - in 1963. What he did was he issued a challenge to the Soviet Union. He said we will not test in space - in the atmosphere, if you will not. They did not. In two months they sat down and they negotiated a treaty. We do not now have to worry about that type of testing. It can be done; it will be done, if only you have the will to do it. Again, remember it is mutual; it is verifiable and it is a challenge that once that challenge is not met, if testing were to resume, then we would continue testing as well. VANOCUR: Our last series of questions on foreign affairs from Mr. Boyd. BOYD: Congresswoman Ferraro, you have had little or no experience with military matters and yet you might someday find yourself commander-in-chief of the armed forces. How can you convince the American people and the potential enemy that you would know what to do to protect this nation's security, and do you think in any way that the Soviets might be tempted to try to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman? FERRARO: Are you saying that I would have to have fought in the war in order to love peace? BOYD: I'm not saying that, I'm asking you - you know what I asked. FERRARO: All right. I think what happens is when you try to equate whether or not I have had military experience, that's the natural conclusion. It's about as valid as saying that you would have to be black in order to despise racism, that you'd have to be female in order to be terribly offended by sexism. And that's just not so. I think if you take a look at where I've been, both in the Congress and where I intend to go, the type of person I am - I think that the people of this country can rely upon the fact that I will be a lender. I don't think the Soviet Union for one minute can sit down and make determination on what I will do if I'm ever in a position to have to do something with reference to the Soviet Union. Quite frankly I'm prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to secure this country and make sure that security is maintained. Secondly, if the Soviet Union were to ever believe that they could challenge the United States with any sort of nuclear forces or otherwise, if I were in a position of leadership in this country, they would be assured that they would be met with swift, concise and certain retaliation. Let me just say one other thing now. The most important thing, though I think as a leader that what one has to do is get to the point where you're not put into that position. And the way you to that position of rnoving away from having to make a decision - armed force or anything else - is by moving toward arms control. And that's not what's been done over the past four years. I think that if you were to take a look at the failures of this administration that would have to be number one. I will not put myself in that position as a leader in this country. I will move immediately toward arms control negotiations. BOYD: For my follow, I'm going to borrow a leaf from the Sunday night debate between your principals and ask you what is the single question you would most like to ask your opponent here on foreign policy? FERRARO: Oh, I don't have a single-most question. I guess the concern that I have is a concern not only as a vice-presidential candidate but as a citizen in this country. My concern is that we are not doing anything to stop the arms race, and if seems to me that if we keep talking about military inferiority - which we do not have, we are at a comparable level with the Soviet Union; our Joint Chiefs of Staff have said they'd never exchange our military power for theirs. I guess the thing that I'd want is a commitment that pretty soon they're going to do something about making this a safer world for all of us. BOYD: Vice-President Bush, four years ago President Reagan insisted that a military buildup would bring the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Since then, we have spent almost a trillion dollars on defense but the Soviets are still building their military forces as rapidly as we are, and there are no negotiations. Was the president's original premise, his whole strategy, wrong? BUSH: No, I think his strategy not only was correct but is correct. You've got to go back where we were. Clearly, when we came into office, the American people recognized that we had slipped into positions of inferiority on various things. Some of our planes, as the president points out, were older than the pilots; ships that couldn't go out to sea. And you had a major problem with the military. Actually, the morale wasn't very good either. So we have had to strengthen the military and we're well on the way to getting that job done. America is back in terms of military strength, in terms of our ability to deter aggression and keep the peace. At the same time, however, we have made proposals and proposals and proposals - sound proposals - on reducing nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks were good proposals, and it's the Soviets who left the table. The Intermediate Nuclear Force Talks were sound talks, and I wish the Soviet Union had continued them. The chemical weapon treaty to ban all chemical weapons, it was our initiative, not the Soviets. And we wish they would think anew and move forward to verification so everybody would know whether the other side was keeping its word. But, much more important, you'd reduce the level of terror. Similarly, we're reducing - trying to talk to them, and are talking to them, in Vienna, about conventional force reduction. We've talked to them about human rights. I've met with Mr. Andropov and Mr. Chernenko, and we mention and we try to do something about the human rights question. The suppression of Soviet Jews is absolutely intolerable and so we have to keep pushing forward on the moral grounds as well as on the arms reduction ground. But it is my view that because this president has been strong, and because we've addressed the imbalances - and I think we're very close to getting that job done - the Soviets are more likely to make a deal. The Soviets made an ABM treaty when they felt we were going to deploy an ABM system. So I am optimistic for the future, once they realize that they will have this strong, principled president to negotiate with, strong leadership, and yet with demonstrable flexibility on arms control. BOYD: And now, I'll give you a chance, Mr. Vice-President, to ask the question you'd most like to ask your opponent. BUSH: I have none I'd like to ask of her, but I'd sure like to use the time to talk about the World Series or something of that nature. Let me put it this way - I don't have any questions, but we are so different from - the Reagan-Bush administration is so different from the Carter-Mondale [sic] administration that the American people are going to have the clearest choice. It's a question of going back to the failed ideas of the past, where we came in - 21% percent on those interest rates, inflation, despair, malaise, no leadership, blaming the American people for failed leadership. Or another option - keep this recovery going until it benefits absolutely everybody. Peace at home - peace abroad - prosperity - opportunity. I'd like to hear her talk on those things, but I think the yellow light is flashing and so we'll leave it there. BOYD: Nothing on the World Series? Congresswoman Ferraro? FERRARO: I think the vice-president's comment about the Carter-Mondale administration really typifies this administration. It's an administration that looks backwards, not forwards and into the future. I must say that I'm also tickled by their comments on human rights. The Soviet Union in 1979 allowed 51,000 people to emigrate, because, in large measure, this administration's policies over the past four years, 1,313 people got out of the Soviet Union in 1983 and 1984. That's not a great record on human rights and certainly not a record on human rights achievements. This administration spent a trillion dollars on defense, but it hasn't gotten a trillion dollars on national security. VANOCUR: Vice-President Bush, your rebuttal? BUSH: No rebuttal. VANOCUR: Well, we then can go to the closing statements. Each statement will be four minutes in length and we'll begin with the vice-president. BUSH: Well, in a couple of weeks, you, the American people, will be faced, three weeks, with a choice. It's the clearest choice in some fifty years. And the choice is, do we move forward with strength and with prosperity or do we go back to weakness, despair, disrespect. Ronald Reagan and I have put our trust in the American people. We've moved some of the power away from Washington, D.C., and put it back with the people. We're pulling together. The neighborhoods are safer 'cause crime is going down. Your sons and daughters are doing better in school. Test scores are going up. There's a new opportunity lying out there in the future. Science, technology and space offering opportunity that, to everybody, all the young ones coming up. And abroad there's new leadership and respect. And Ronald Reagan is clearly the strong leader of the free world. And I'll be honest with you. It's a joy to serve with a president who does not apologize for the United States of America. Mr. Mondale, on the other hand, has one idea. Go out and tax the American people. And then he wants to repeal indexing, to wipe out the one protection that those at the lowest end of the economic scale have protecting them against being rammed into higher and higher tax brackets. We just owe our country too much to go back to that kind of an approach. I'd like to say something to the young people. I started a business. I know what it is to have a dream and have a job and work hard to employ others and really to participate in the American dream. Some of you out there are finishing high school or college and some of you are starting out in the working place. And we want for you America's greatest gift. And that is opportunity. And then, peace. Yes, I did serve in combat. I was shot down when I was a young kid, scared to death. And all that did, saw friends die, but that heightened my convictions about peace. It is absolutely essential that we guarantee the young people that they will not know the agony of war. America's gift, opportunity and peace. Now we do have some unfinished business. We must continue to go ahead. The world is too complex to go back to vacillation and weakness. We've too much going on to go back to the failed policies of the past. The future is too bright not to give it our best shot. Together we can go forward and lift America up to meet her greatest dreams. Thank you very much. VANOCUR: Thank you very much. I must say now in matters of equity you will be allowed applause at the end of your closing statement, so if you begin now, please. FERRARO: I hope somebody wants to applaud. Being the candidate for vice-president of my party is the greatest honor I have ever had. But it's not only a personal achievement for Geraldine Ferraro - and certainly not only the bond that I feel as I go across this country with women throughout the country. I wouldn't be standing here if Fritz Mondale didn't have the courage and my party didn't stand for the values that it does - the values of fairness and equal opportunity. Those values make our country strong and the future of this country and how strong it will be is what this election is all about. Over the last two months I've been traveling all over the country talking to the people about the future. I was in Kentucky and I spoke to the Dyhouse family. He works for a car dealer and he's worried about the deficits and how high interest rates are going to affect his job. Every place I go I see young parents with their children and they say to me what are we going to do to stop this nuclear arms race. I was in Dayton, Ohio, a week and a half ago and I sat with the Allen family who live next door to a toxic dump and they're very, very concerned about the fact that those toxics are seeping into the water that they and their neighbors drink. Now those people love this country and they're patriotic. But it's not the patriotism that you're seeing in the commercials as you watch television these days. Their patriotism is not only a pride in the country as it is, but a pride in this country that is strong enough to meet the challenges of the future. Do you know when we find jobs for the eight and a half million people who are unemployed in this country, you know we'll make our economy stronger and that will be a patriotic act. When we reduce the deficits and we cut interest rates, and I know the president doesn't believe that, but it's so - we cut those interest rates young people can buy houses, that's pro-family and that will be a patriotic act. When we educate our children - good Lord, they're going to be able to compete in a world economy and that makes us stronger and that's a patriotic act. When we stop the arms race, we make this a safer, saner world, and that's a patriotic act, and when we keep the peace young men don't die, and that's a patriotic act. Those are the keys to the future and who can be the leader for the future? When Walter Mondale was attorney general of Minnesota, he led the fight for a man who could not afford to get justice because he couldn't afford a lawyer; when he was in the Senate he fought for child nutrition programs, he wrote the Fair Housing Act, he even investigated the concerns and the abuses of migrant workers. And why did he do that? Those weren't popular causes. You know, no one had ever heard of Clarence Gideon, the man without a lawyer. Children don't vote and migrant workers exactly a powerful lobby in this country, but he did it because it was right. Fritz Mondale has said that he would rather lose a battle for decency than win one over self-interest. Now I agree with him. This campaign is not over. For our country, for our future, for the principles we believe in Walter Mondale and I have just begun to fight. VANOCUR: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Vice-President Bush, Congresswoman Ferraro, the members of our panel for joining us in this League of Women Voters debate. I'd like to join you in thanking them, the city of Philadelphia and the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters' next debate, the presidential debate, will take place in Kansas City on October 21. The subject will be foreign affairs award it will begin at 8 P.M., Eastern time. Again our thanks. We hope you'll join us on the twenty-first. Presidential Candidate Debates, Vice Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217203

October 21, 1984 Ms. Ridings. Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of this final Presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale. Our panelists for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate; Marvin Kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for NBC News; Morton Kondracke, executive editor of the New Republic magazine; and Henry Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Edwin Newman, formerly of NBC News and now a syndicated columnist for King Features, is our moderator. Ed. Mr. Newman. Dorothy Ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to Mr. Mondale. He'll have 2 1/2 minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to 1 minute. After that, the same question will be put to President Reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have 1 minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to President Reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be 4-minute summations, with President Reagan going last. We have asked the questioners to be brief. Let's begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Central America Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the economic development and negotiations, with perhaps a quarantine of Marxist Nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all? Are not the solutions to Central America's gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late? Mr. Mondale. I believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop Communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that we need a three-pronged attack: one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured; secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us; and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. That's one of the big disagreements that we have with the President—that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within El Salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve a peace This brings up the whole question of what Presidential leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in Nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals, and the rest—all of this has strengthened our opponents. A President must not only assure that we're tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in Lebanon, where we spent a good deal of America's assets. But because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger. The bottom line of national strength is that the President must be in command, he must lead. And when a President doesn't know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 percent of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers 3 years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn't know that most Soviet missiles were on land—these are things a President must know to command. A President is called the Commander in Chief. And he's called that because he's supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, if I could broaden the question just a little bit: Since World War II, every conflict that we as Americans have been involved with has been in nonconventional or irregular terms. And yet, we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms. The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as China, as Lebanon, as Iran, as Cuba, in their early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time, or react to it in those terms? Mr. Mondale. We absolutely must, which is why I responded to your first question the way I did. It's much more complex. You must understand the region; you must understand the politics in the area; you must provide a strong alternative; and you must show strength—and all at the same time. That's why I object to the covert action in Nicaragua. That's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. We've seen in the Nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism? The President. No, but I'm glad you asked that question, because I know it's on many peoples' minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know that the CIA is already going forward with one. We have a gentleman down in Nicaragua who is on contract to the CIA, advising—supposedly on military tactics—the contras. And he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the CIA in Nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to CIA, where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some way or other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the CIA. Now, those are the details as we have them. And as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. We'll take the proper action at the proper time. I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and I thought for a moment that instead of a debate I was going to find Mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what we're doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one we've been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America and working closely with the Contadora group. So, I can only tell you about the manual-that we're not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. But if guilt is established, whoever is guilty we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed. Ms. Geyer. Well, Mr. President, you are implying then that the CIA in Nicaragua is directing the contras there. I'd also like to ask whether having the CIA investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time? The President. I'm afraid I misspoke when I said a CIA head in Nicaragua. There's not someone there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, CIA men stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to, and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own Executive order, in December of 1981, that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. What is a President charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land. A President can't know everything, but a President has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. This manual—several thousands of which were produced—was distributed, ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals, and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen? How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a President of the United States in a situation like this say he didn't know? A President must know these things. I don't know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. And what about the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua which violated international law? This has hurt this country, and a President's supposed to command. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Yes. I have so many things there to respond to, I'm going to pick out something you said earlier. You've been all over the country repeating something that, I will admit, the press has also been repeating-that I believed that nuclear missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing. In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, I said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional-type weapons, not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles, and that they were also weapons that—or carriers-that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles. But I hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, I think is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So, thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. I'm sure that you appreciate that. [Laughter] Mr. Newman. Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. Soviet Union Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, you have often described the Soviet Union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination. But this year you have said, and I quote. "If they want to keep their Mickey Mouse system, that's okay with me." Which is it, Mr. President? Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente—or what goes for detente—or do you really want to roll back their empire? The President. I have said on a number of occasions exactly what I believe about the Soviet Union. I retract nothing that I have said. I believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But I also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And I told Mr. Gromyko we don't like their system. They don't like ours. And we're not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And I suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. And I think that perhaps we established a little better understanding. I think that in dealing with the Soviet Union one has to be realistic. I know that Mr. Mondale, in the past, has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmament. We canceled the B-1 under the previous administration. What did we get for it? Nothing. The Soviet Union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own. And I've made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they're not. And I made it plain to them, we're not. There's been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when I came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the Soviet Union. And we did get their attention. Regions Vital to U.S. Interests Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since World War II, the vital interests of the United States have always been defined by treaty commitments and by Presidential proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as NATO, for example, which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send American troops to fight there if they were in danger? The President. Ah, well, now you've added a hypothetical there at the end, Mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the Middle East, and that is of interest to the whole Western World and the industrialized nations, because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in America are vital to us. We're working right now in trying to be of help in southern Africa with regard to the independence of Namibia and the removal of the Cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from Angola. So, I can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the Pacific Basin. That is where I think the future of the world lies. But I am not going to pick out one and, in advance, hypothetically say, "Oh, yes, we would send troops there." I don't want to send troops any place. Mr. Newman. I'm sorry, Mr. President. Sir, your time was up. The President. All right. Soviet Union Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, you have described the Soviet leaders as, and I'm quoting, ". . . cynical, ruthless, and dangerous," suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. In that case, what makes you think that the annual summit meetings with them that you have proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country? Mr. Mondale. Because the only type of agreements to reach with the Soviet Union are the types that are specifically defined, so we know exactly what they must do; subject to full verification, which means we know every day whether they're living up to it; and follow-ups, wherever we find suggestions that they're violating it; and the strongest possible terms. I have no illusions about the Soviet Union leadership or the nature of that state. They are a tough and a ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and I would. Where I part with the President is that despite all of those differences we must, as past Presidents before this one have done, meet on the common ground of survival. And that's where the President has opposed practically every arms control agreement, by every President, of both political parties, since the bomb went off. And he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us. We must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways of reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of Soviet power. There will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the Soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of national strength. To do that, a President must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength. And that's where the President's failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. He's 3 years into this administration. He said he just discovered that most Soviet missiles are on land, and that's why his proposal didn't work. I invite the American people tomorrow-because I will issue the statement quoting President Reagan—he said exactly what I said he said. He said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them, and you could recall them if you decided there'd been a miscalculation. Mr. Newman. I'm sorry, sir— Mr. Mondale. A President must know those things. Eastern Europe Mr. Kalb. A related question, Mr. Mondale, on Eastern Europe. Do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that Eastern Europe is a Soviet sphere of influence? And if you do, what could a Mondale administration realistically do to help the people of Eastern Europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the Helsinki accords? Mr. Mondale. I think the essential strategy of the United States ought not accept any Soviet control over Eastern Europe. We ought to deal with each of these countries separately. We ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away from their dependence upon the Soviet Union. Where the Soviet Union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially, recently, in Poland, I believe we ought to insist that Western credits extended to the Soviet Union bear the market rate. Make the Soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective—to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Yes. I'm not going to continue trying to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have already been stated here. But with regard to whether Mr. Mondale would be strong, as he said he would be, I know that he has a commercial out where he's appearing on the deck of the Nimitz and watching the F-14's take off. And that's an image of strength—except that if he had had his way when the Nimitz was being planned, he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldn't have been any Nimitz to stand on—he was against it. [Laughter] He was against the F-14 fighter, he was against the M-1 tank, he was against the BI bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of all of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the American forces in Europe. And he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none. Audience member. Hear, hear! The President. Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the Senate. And he opposed even President Carter, when toward the end of his term President Carter wanted to increase the defense budget. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Mr. President, I accept your commitment to peace, but I want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. [Applause] I propose a budget—I have proposed a budget which would increase our nation's strength, in real terms, by double that of the Soviet Union. I'll tell you where we disagree. It is true over 10 years ago I voted to delay production of the F-14, and I'll tell you why. The plane wasn't flying the way it was supposed to be; it was a waste of money. Your definition of national strength is to throw money at the Defense Department. My definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar's worth of defense. There's a big difference between the two of us. A President must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but you'll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. You pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you're not buying strength. Mr. Newman. I would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate. Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Use of Military Force Mr. Kondracke. Mr. Mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before this country resorts to military force, and I'm quoting, "American interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history." Now, aren't you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as President you would never use force to protect American interests? Mr. Mondale. No. As a matter of fact, I believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. And we can see that in both Lebanon and in Central America. In Lebanon, this President exercised American power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the Soviet Union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened. And it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American public with them on a plan that worked, that we ended up the way we did. Similarly, in Central America: What we're doing in Nicaragua with this covert war-which the Congress, including many Republicans, have tried to stop—is finally end up with a public definition of American power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. We have to decline, for the first time in modern history, jurisdiction in the World Court because they'll find us guilty of illegal actions. And our enemies are strengthened from all of this. We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy. We are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere. Nicaragua Mr. Kondracke. You've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I'd like to know what that means. Would you stop Soviet ships, as President Kennedy did in 1962? And wouldn't that be more dangerous than President Reagan's covert war? Mr. Mondale. What I'm referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the Inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps—diplomatic and otherwise—to prevent Nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it. The Nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region—unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the President said, they have not supported negotiations in that region—we will be much stronger, because we'll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. Lebanon Mr. Kondracke. President Reagan, you introduced U.S. forces into Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the Lebanese Government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now Syria, a Soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesn't Lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as Commander in Chief?. The President. No, Morton, I don't agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies—the Italians, the French, and the United Kingdom—went into Lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the Lebanese Government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government. But the first—pardon me—the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in Beirut between Israel and the PLO terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and Israel chased them all the way to there. Then we went in with the multinational force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from Lebanon. We departed. And then the Government of Lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of Lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action; we defended ourselves there. But we were succeeding to the point that the Lebanese Government had been organized-if you will remember, there were the meetings in Geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there—and that includes Syria, in my mind—who don't want us to succeed, who don't want that kind of a peace with a dominant Lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so, the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason: We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep Israel and Syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And I have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, 4 years ago you criticized President Carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in Iran might be taken hostage. Haven't you done exactly the same thing in Lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 Americans, not hostages, but dead? And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn't our lack of response suggest that you're just bluffing? The President. Morton, no. I think there's a great difference between the Government of Iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in Brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of Beirut where these terrorists are operating. I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And it's going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago. Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. Groucho Marx said, "Who do you believe?—me, or your own eyes?" And what we have in Lebanon is something that the American people have seen. The Joint Chiefs urged the President not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him 5 days before they were killed and said, "Please, take them out of there." The Secretary of State admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time. Then the Embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned 5 days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren't taken. The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn't. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal? The President. Yes. First of all, Mr. Mondale should know that the President of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one. On the other things that you've just said about the terrorists, I'm tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we're not going to simply kill some people to say, "Oh, look, we got even." We want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States Capitol in Washington has been bombed twice. Mr. Newman. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan? The President's Age Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? The President. Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said, "If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state." Strategic Missiles Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I'd like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but I'll go on to another question. You and Mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine-launched missiles. There's another, a similar issue out there that relates to your—it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the Soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. First, is that correct? Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime? And third, is it even necessary for the President to be so intimately involved in strategic details? The President. Yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks. And the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the land-based. You put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. So, we thought that it would be simpler to negotiate first with those. And then we made it plain, a second phase, take up the submarine-launched or the airborne missiles. The Soviet Union, to our surprise—and not just mine—made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the landbased missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three. And we agreed. We said, "All right, if that's what you want to do." But it was a surprise to us, because they outnumbered us 64 to 36 in submarines and 20 percent more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. So, why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on landbased? But even after we gave in and said, "All right, let's discuss it all," they walked away from the table. We didn't. The President's Age Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, I'm going to hang in there. Should the President's age and stamina be an issue in the political campaign? Mr. Mondale. No. And I have not made it an issue, nor should it be. What's at issue here is the President's application of his authority to understand what a President must know to lead this nation, secure our defense, and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. A minute ago the President quoted Cicero, I believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, Harry Truman. He said, "The buck stops here." We just heard the President's answer for the problems at the barracks in Lebanon, where 241 marines were killed. What happened? First, the Joint Chiefs of Staff went to the President, said, "Don't put those troops there." They did it. And then 5 days before the troops were killed, they went back to the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and said, "Please, Mr. President, take those troops out of there because we can't defend them." They didn't do it. And we know what happened. After that, once again, our Embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened—an identical attack, in the same region, despite warnings—even public warnings—from the terrorists. Who's in charge? Who's handling this matter? That's my main point. Now, on arms control, we're completing 4 years. This is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead. A President has to lead his government or it won't be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For 3 1/2 years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on medium-range weapons. And we have this arms race underway. And a recent book that just came out by perhaps the Nation's most respected author in this field, Strobe Talbott, called "Deadly Gambits," concludes that this President has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us, both in terms of security and terms of arms control. That's why they call the President the Commander in Chief. Good intentions, I grant. But it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart. The President's Leadership Mr. Trewhitt. This question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the President, Mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases-weak, I believe. It is a question of leadership. And he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the Reverend Jackson, particularly in Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity? And are you prepared to repudiate him now? Mr. Mondale. I read his statement the other day. I don't admire Fidel Castro at all. And I've said that Che Guevara was a contemptible figure in civilization's history. I know the Cuban state as a police state, and all my life I've worked in a way that demonstrates that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I don't control him. And let's talk about people we do control. In the last debate,1 the Vice President of the United States said that I said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in Lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President Bush because I had, instead, honored these young men, grieved for their families, and think they were wonderful Americans that honored us all. What does the President have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who won't apologize for something like that? 1 Mr. Mondale was referring to an earlier debate between George Bush and Geraldine Ferarro, the Vice-Presidential candidates. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal? The President. Yes. I know it'll come as a surprise to Mr. Mondale, but I am in charge. And, as a matter of fact, we haven't avoided arms control talks with the Soviet Union. Very early in my administration I proposed—and I think something that had never been proposed by any previous administration—I proposed a total elimination of intermediate-range missiles, where the Soviets had better than a 10—and still have—better than a 10-to-1 advantage over the allies in Europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, I went along with that. The so-called negotiation that you said I walked out on was the so-called walk in the woods between one of our representatives and one of the Soviet Union, and it wasn't me that turned it down, the Soviet Union disavowed it. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. There are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country-there are many others, but two that I want to cite tonight. One is Strobe Talbott in his classic book, "Deadly Gambits." The other is John Neuhaus, who's one of the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country. Both said that this administration turned down the "walk in the woods" agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States in Europe and our security. When Mr. Nitze, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked, and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that we've had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. Now we have a runaway arms race. All they've got to show for 4 years in U.S.-Soviet relations is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration, and nothing before. They're tough negotiators, but all previous Presidents have made progress. This one has not. Mr. Newman. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Illegal Immigration Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized: massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the American nation-state. You, yourself, said in the 1970's that we had a "hemorrhage on our borders." Yet today you have backed off any immigration reform, such as the balanced and highly crafted Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Why? What would you do instead today, if anything? Mr. Mondale. This is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which I think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. I'm convinced that the result of this would be that people who are Hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent, would find it difficult to be employed. I think that's wrong. We've never had citizenship tests in our country before, and I don't think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive. I do support the other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the Constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an American answer that is consistent with justice and due process. Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure—and I will support a measure-that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that I think is very serious. The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And that's why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and a good-faith way with Mexico, with Costa Rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well. Ms. Geyer. Sir, people as well-balanced and just as Father Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame, who headed the select commission on immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions, because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the Hispanic groups—or Hispanic leadership groups—who actually do not represent what the Hispanic-Americans want, because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this? And how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the American nation? Mr. Mondale. I think you're right that the polls show that the majority of Hispanics want that bill, so I'm not doing it for political reasons. I'm doing it because all my life I've fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every American has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an American or not. And just inevitably, they're going to be reluctant to hire Hispanics or people with a different accent. If I were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American people want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, but all my life I've fought for a fair nation. And despite the politics of it, I stand where I stand, and I think I'm right, and before this fight is over we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, you, too, have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall you allowed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill—which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship—because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the States for legalized aliens. Given that, may I ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? How sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation-state that is the United States? The President. Georgie Anne, we, believe me, supported the Simpson-Mazzoli bill strongly—and the bill that came out of the Senate. However, there were things added in in the House side that we felt made it less of a good bill; as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference—we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even Senator Simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. I can't go into detail about them here. But it is true our borders are out of control. It is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. And I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free. And this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions, and so forth—and I'm going to do everything I can, and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when Congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us, once again, control of our borders. And with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that I know has established the relationship that we have with our Latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively—qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, Mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens, but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that Armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an Armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world? The President. No. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated—over exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. It's almost like going back to the Malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one, here, with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here, in Mexico, where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what we're trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. One of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north, come north despite all the risks. And if we're going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity, so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And that's why this enormous national debt, engineered by this administration, is harming these countries in fueling this immigration. These high interest rates—real rates that have doubled under this administration—have had the same effect on Mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship, and heartache. And that drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we need to end those deficits as well. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Well, my rebuttal is I've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border— [laughter] —and it has nothing to do with it. But with regard to these high interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, Mr. Mondale, they were 21 1/2—the prime rate. It's now 12 1/4, and I predict it'll be coming down a little more shortly. So, we're trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. [Applause] Mr. Newman. No applause, please. Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. Armageddon Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, I'd like to pick up this Armageddon theme. You've been quoted as saying that you do believe, deep down, that we are heading for some kind of biblical Armageddon. Your Pentagon and your Secretary of Defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps, for some kind of nuclear Armageddon? And do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity? The President. Mr. Kalb, I think what has been hailed as something I'm supposedly, as President, discussing as principle is the recall of just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things; and that is the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of Armageddon, and so forth, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies mean that Armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. So, I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon. Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world, in Europe and in Asia, I have made a statement to each one of them, and I'll repeat it here: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. But the deterrent—and that's what it is for—is also what led me to propose what is now being called the Star Wars concept, but propose that we research to see if there isn't a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. And if such a defense could be found, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people? Strategic Defense Initiative Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, when you made that proposal, the so-called Star Wars proposal, you said, if I'm not mistaken, that you would share this very super-sophisticated technology with the Soviet Union. After all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the Soviet Union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of America's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary? The President. Why not? What if we did-and I hope we can; we're still researching-what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive, a counter-weapon. But suppose we came up with that? Now, some people have said, "Ah, that would make war imminent, because they would think that we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy." But why not do what I have offered to do and asked the Soviet Union to do? Say, "Look, here's what we can do. We'll even give it to you. Now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat?" I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon. Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, you've been very sharply critical of the President's Strategic Defense Initiative. And yet, what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible? Mr. Mondale. First of all, let me sharply disagree with the President on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in America with the Soviet Union. We have had 'for many years, understandably, a system of restraints on high technology because the Soviets are behind us. And any research or development along the Star Wars schemes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, our most advanced engineering. And the thought that we would share this with the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, a total non-starter. I would not let the Soviet Union get their hands on it at all. Now, what's wrong with Star Wars? There's nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, I suppose it's a good idea. But the fact of it is we're so far away from research that even comes close to that, that the Director of Engineering Research at the Defense Department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project. It would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy weapons. The second thing is this all assumes that the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind. And they always do. We don't get behind. They won't get behind. And that's been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop, right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons-and-the President's proposals go clear beyond research; if it was just research we wouldn't have any argument, because maybe someday, somebody will think of something—but to commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite and space weapons at this time, in their crude state, would bring about an arms race that's very dangerous indeed. One final point. The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is, for the first time, we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. That's dead wrong. There wouldn't be time for a President to decide; it would be decided by these remote computers. It might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it's a missile—and off we go. Why don't we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [Applause] Nuclear Freeze Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "A nuclear freeze is a hoax." Yet the basis of your arms proposals, as I understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not? Mr. Mondale. Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the Soviet Union that we couldn't verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which the United States security interest was not fully recognized and supported. That's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes. Now, why do I support the freeze? Because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. It's more difficult to defend this nation. It's putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. This administration, by going into the Star Wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. We have to be tough on the Soviet Union, but I think the American people— Mr. Newman. Your time is up, Mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale. —and the people of the Soviet Union want it to stop. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your rebuttal? The President. Yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how I would go about rolling over for the Soviet Union—no, Mr. Mondale, my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, "Now, are you willing to join us? Here's what we"—give them a demonstration and then say—"Here's what we can do. Now, if you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we'll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat; that we're both got something that if anyone tries to cheat .... " But when you keep star-warring it—I never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind; I'm not a scientist. I said, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. And suddenly somebody says, "Oh, it's got to be up there, and it's Star Wars," and so forth. I don't know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, I think the world will be better off. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Well, that's what a President's supposed to know—where those weapons are going to be. If they're space weapons, I assume they'll be in space. [Laughter] If they're antisatellite weapons, I assume they're going to be aimed against satellites. Now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. The Soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. And to give them technology of this kind, I disagree with. You haven't just accepted research, Mr. President. You've set up a Strategic Defense Initiative, an agency, you're beginning to test, you're talking about deploying, you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. This is an arms escalation. And we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. If someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that's something else. But that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. Why do we start things that we know the Soviets will match and make us all less secure? That's what a President's for. Mr. Newman. Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Strategic Weapons Mr. Kondracke. Mr. Mondale, you say that with respect to the Soviet Union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the MX missile and the B-1 bomber before the talks have even begun. And you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the Soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. Now, aren't you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk? Mr. Mondale. No. As a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. And I support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the Pershing missile, the Trident submarine, the D-5 submarine, Stealth technology, the Midgetman—we have a whole range of technology. Why I disagree with the MX is that it's a sitting duck. It'll draw an attack. It puts a hair-trigger, and it is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. And the B-1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B-1. The Secretary' of Defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built. Instead, I want to build the Midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. That's why I'm for Stealth technology, to build a Stealth bomber—which I've supported for years-that can penetrate the Soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. In other words, a President has to make choices. This makes us stronger. The final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in Europe is under strength. We need to strengthen that in order to assure our Western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. It's in this way, by making wise choices, that we're stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. Every President until this one has been able to do it, and this nation—or the world is more dangerous as a result. Nuclear Freeze Mr. Kondracke. I want to follow up on Mr. Kalb's question. It seems to me on the question of verifiability, that you do have some problems with the extent of the freeze. It seems to me, for example, that testing would be very difficult to verify because the Soviets encode their telemetry. Research would be impossible to verify. Numbers of warheads would be impossible to verify by satellite, except for with on-site inspection, and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. Now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen? Mr. Mondale. I will not agree to any arms control agreement, including a freeze, that's not verifiable. Let's take your warhead principle. The warhead principle-there have been counting rules for years. Whenever a weapon is tested we count the number of warheads on it, and whenever that warhead is used we count that number of warheads, whether they have that number or less on it, or not. These are standard rules. I will not agree to any production restrictions—or agreements, unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. I don't trust the Russians. I believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable, and I will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. In other words, we've got to be tough. But in order to stop this arms madness, we've got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the Soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement. Support for U.S. Allies Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, I want to ask you a question about negotiating with friends. You severely criticized President Carter for helping to undermine two friendly dictators who got into trouble with their own people—the Shah of Iran and President Somoza of Nicaragua. Now there are other such leaders heading for trouble, including President Pinochet of Chile and President Marcos of the Philippines. What should you do, and what can you do to prevent the Philippines from becoming another Nicaragua? The President. Morton, I did criticize the President because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally—the Shah of Iran. And I am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. The Shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the Middle East for quite some time, and I did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. Have things gotten better? The Shah, whatever he might have done, was building low-cost housing, had taken land away from the Mullahs and was distributing it to the peasants so they could be landowners—things of that kind. But we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions. The matter of Somoza—no, I never defended Somoza. And, as a matter of fact, the previous administration stood by and so did I—not that I could have done anything in my position at that time—but for this revolution to take place. And the promise of the revolution was democracy, human rights, free labor unions, free press. And then, just as Castro had done in Cuba, the Sandinistas ousted the other parties to the revolution. Many of them are now the contras. They exiled some, they jailed some, they murdered some. And they installed a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian government. And what I have to say about this is, many times—and this has to do with the Philippines, also, I know there are things there in the Philippines that do not look good to us from the standpoint right now of democratic rights, but what is the alternative? It is a large Communist movement to take over the Philippines. They have been our friend since their inception as a nation. And I think that we've had enough of a record of letting—under the guise of revolution-someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go, and then winding up with totalitarianism, pure and simple, as the alternative. And I think that we're better off, for example with the Philippines, of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing a Communist power in the Pacific. Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, since the United States has two strategically important bases in the Philippines, would the overthrow of President Marcos constitute a threat to vital American interests and, if so, what would you do about it? The President. Well, as I say, we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government would be that would follow. And there is every evidence, every indication that that government would be hostile to the United States. And that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the Pacific. Mr. Kondracke. And what would you do about it? Mr. Newman. Sorry. I'm sorry, you've asked the followup question. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. Perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administration's policies on human rights. I went to the Philippines as Vice President, pressed for human rights, called for the release of Aquino, and made progress that had been stalled on both the Subic and the Clark airfield bases. What explains this administration cozying up to the Argentine dictators after they took over? Fortunately, a democracy took over, but this nation was embarrassed by this current administration's adoption of their policies. What happens in South Africa, where, for example, the Nobel Prize winner, 2 days ago, said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of South Africa. That hurts this nation. We need to stand for human rights. We need to make it clear we're for human liberty. National security and human rights must go together. But this administration time and time again has lost its way in this field. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your rebuttal. The President. Well, the invasion of Afghanistan didn't take place on our watch. I have described what has happened in Iran, and we weren't here then either. I don't think that our record of human rights can be assailed. I think that we have observed, ourselves, and have done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world. Mr. Mondale has recently announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and to work with the whole world to turn to democracy. And I was glad to hear him say that, because that's what we've been doing ever since I announced to the British Parliament that I thought we should do this. Human rights are not advanced when, at the same time, you then stand back and say, "Whoops, we didn't know the gun was loaded," and you have another totalitarian power on your hands. Mr. Newman. In this segment, because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan. Mr. Trewhitt. One question to each candidate? Mr. Newman. One question to each candidate. Nuclear Weapons Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, could I take you back to something you said earlier, and if I'm misquoting you, please correct me. But I understood you to say that if the development of space military technology was successful, you might give the Soviets a demonstration and say, "Here it is," which sounds to me as if you might be trying to gain the sort of advantage that would enable you to dictate terms, and which I will then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of nuclear strategy called mutual deterrence in which we, in effect, hold each other hostage. Is that your intention? The President, Well, I can't say that I have roundtabled that and sat down with the Chiefs of Staff, but I have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal, my ultimate dream, and that is the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. And it seems to me that this could be an adjunct, or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. I am not going to roll over, as Mr. Mondale suggests, and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. But I think it's a very interesting proposal, to see if we can find, first of all, something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission. But Mr. Mondale seems to approve MAD—MAD is mutual assured destruction-meaning, if you use nuclear weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is that we'll kill as many people of yours as you'll kill of ours. I think that to do everything we can to find, as I say, something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, could I ask you to address the question of nuclear strategy then? The formal doctrine is very arcane, but I'm going to ask you to deal with it anyway. Do you believe in MAD, mutual assured destruction, mutual deterrence as it has been practiced for the last generation? Mr. Mondale. I believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. I would like to see their elimination. And in the meantime, we have to be strong enough to make certain that the Soviet Union never tempts US. Now, here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. The President says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons. But, in fact, these last 4 years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. He says he wants a system that will make nuclear wars safe, so nobody's going to get hurt. Well, maybe someday, somebody can dream of that. But why start an arms race now? Why destabilize our relationship? Why threaten our space satellites upon which we depend? Why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war? A President, to defend this country and to get arms control, must master what's going on. I accept his objective and his dream; we all do. But the hard reality is that we must know what we're doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. He's opposed every effort of every President to do so, and in the 4 years of his administration he's failed to do so. And if you want a tough President who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for Walter Mondale. [Applause] Mr. Newman. Please, I must again ask the audience not to applaud, not to cheer, not to demonstrate its feelings in any way. We've arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. You have the full 4 minutes, each of you. Mr. Mondale, will you go first? Closing Statements Mr. Mondale. I want to thank the League of Women Voters, the good citizens of Kansas City, and President Reagan for agreeing to debate this evening. This evening we talked about national strength. I believe we need to be strong, and I will keep us strong. But I think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. That's key to the strength of our nation. A President must know the essential facts essential to command. But a President must also have a vision of where this nation should go. Tonight, as Americans, you have a choice. And you're entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. As President, I would press for long-term, vigorous economic growth. That's why I want to get these debts down and these interest rates down, restore America's exports, help rural America, which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. I want this next generation to be the best educated in American history, to invest in the human mind and science again, so we're out front. I want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land, and its public health. America is not temporary; we're forever. And as Americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. I want a nation of fairness, where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against, and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. And, above all, I want a nation that's strong. Since we debated 2 weeks ago, the United States and the Soviet Union have built a hundred more warheads, enough to kill millions of Americans and millions of Soviet citizens. This doesn't strengthen us. This weakens the chances of civilization to survive. I remember the night before I became Vice President. I was given the briefing and told that any time, night or day, I might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on Earth—whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. That lesson tells us two things: One, pick a President that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know, because there'll be no time for staffing committees or advisers. A President must know right then. But above all, pick a President who will fight to avoid the day when that God-awful decision ever needs to be made. And that's why this election is so terribly important. America and Americans decide not just what's happening in this country. We are the strongest and most powerful free society on Earth. When you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation; in a very profound respect, you're deciding the future of the world. We need to move on. It's time for America to find new leadership. Please, join me in this cause to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your summation, please. The President. Yes. My thanks to the League of Women Voters, to the panelists, the moderator, and to the people of Kansas City for their warm hospitality and greeting. I think the American people tonight have much to be grateful for—an economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom and, most of all, we are at peace. I am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and, one day, to eliminate them entirely. The question before you comes down to this: Do you want to see America return to the policies of weakness of the last 4 years? Or do we want to go forward, marching together, as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong? We shouldn't be dwelling on the past, or even the present. The meaning of this election is the future and whether we're going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all Americans and that they need. Several years ago, I was given an assignment to write a letter. It was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. I remember driving down the California coast one day. My mind was full of what I was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. But I couldn't completely neglect the beauty around me—the Pacific out there on one side of the highway, shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. And I found myself wondering what it would be like for someone-wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway, and if they would see the same thing. And with that thought, I realized what a job I had with that letter. I would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solved them, and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. They would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power, aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. And then I thought to myself, what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think? They will know whether we used those weapons or not. Well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day, down in history 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say, "Thank God for those people back in the 1980's for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called Earth, with all its grandeur and its beauty." You know, I am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these 4 years, and I seek reelection because I want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted 4 years ago. George Bush, who I think is one of the finest Vice Presidents this country has ever had—George Bush and I have crisscrossed the country, and we've had, in these last few months, a wonderful experience. We have met young America. We have met your sons and daughters. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, I'm obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. I'm sorry. The President. All right. I was just going to— Mr. Newman. Perhaps I should point out that the rules under which I did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns— The President. I know. Mr. Newman. — with the league, as you know, sir. The President. I know, yes. Mr. Newman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. Our thanks also to the panel, finally, to our audience. We thank you, and the League of Women Voters asks me to say to you, don't forget to vote on November 6th. Note: The debate began at 7:01 p.m. in the Music Hall at the Kansas City Convention Center. Following the debate, the President attended a reception hosted by the League of Women Voters in the Little Theater. He then returned to the Westin Crown Center Hotel, where he remained overnight. Ronald Reagan, Debate Between the President and Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in Kansas City, Missouri Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217277

October 07, 1984 Ms. Ridings. Good evening from the Kentucky Center for the Arts in Louisville, Kentucky. I'm Dorothy Ridings, president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of tonight's first Presidential debate between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale. Tonight's debate marks the third consecutive Presidential election in which the League is presenting the candidates for the Nation's highest office in face-to-face debate. Our panelists are James Wieghart, national political correspondent for Scripps-Howard News Service; Diane Sawyer, correspondent for the CBS program "60 Minutes;" and Fred Barnes, national political correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Barbara Walters of ABC News, who is appearing in her fourth Presidential debate, is our moderator. Barbara.Ms. Walters. Thank you, Dorothy. A few words as we begin tonight's debate about the format. The position of the candidates-that is, who answers questions first and who gives the last statement--was determined by a toss of a coin between the two candidates. Mr. Mondale won, and that means that he chose to give the final closing statement. It means, too, that the President will answer the first question first. I hope that's clear. If it isn't, it will become clear as the debate goes on. Further, the candidates will be addressed as they each wanted and will, therefore, be called "Mr. President" and "Mr. Mondale." Since there will also be a second debate between the two Presidential candidates, tonight will focus primarily on the economy and other domestic issues. The debate, itself, is built around questions from the panel. In each of its segments, a reporter will ask the candidates the same general question. Then--and this is important-each candidate will have the chance to rebut what the other has said. And the final segment of the debate will be the closing segment, and the candidates will each have 4 minutes for their closing statements. And as I have said, Mr. Mondale will be the last person on the program to speak. And now I would like to add a personal note if I may. As Dorothy Ridings pointed out, I have been involved now in four Presidential debates, either as a moderator or as a panelist. In the past, there was no problem in selecting panelists. Tonight, however, there were to have been four panelists participating in this debate. The candidates were given a list of almost 100 qualified journalists from all the media and could agree on only these three fine journalists. As moderator, and on behalf of my fellow journalists, I very much regret, as does the League of Women Voters, that this situation has occurred. And now let us begin the debate with the first question from James Wieghart. Mr. Wieghart. The Nation's Economy Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, in 1980 you promised the American people--in your campaign--a balanced budget by 1983. We've now had more and bigger deficits in the 4 years you've been in office. Mr. President, do you have a secret plan to balance the budget sometime in a second term, and if so, would you lay out that plan for us tonight? The President. I have a plan--not a secret plan. As a matter of fact, it is the economic recovery program that we presented when I took office in 1981. It is true that earlier, working with some very prominent economists, I had come up, during the campaign, with an economic program that I thought could rectify the great problems confronting us--the double-digit inflation, the high tax rates that I think were hurting the economy, the stagflation that we were undergoing. Before even the election day, something that none of those economists had even predicted had happened, that the economy was so worsened that I was openly saying that what we had thought on the basis of our plan could have brought a balanced budget--no, that was no longer possible. So, the plan that we have had and that we are following is a plan that is based on growth in the economy, recovery without inflation, and reducing the share that the Government is taking from the gross national product, which has become a drag on the economy. Already, we have a recovery that has been going on for about 21 months to the point that we can now call it an expansion. Under that, this year, we have seen a $21 billion reduction in the deficit from last year, based mainly on the increased revenues the Government is getting without raising tax rates. Our tax cut, we think, was very instrumental in bringing about this economic recovery. We have reduced inflation to about a third of what it was. The interest rates have come down about 9 or 10 points and, we think, must come down further. In the last 21 months, more than 6 million people have gotten jobs--there have been created new jobs for those people to where there are now 105 million civilians working, where there were only 99 million before; 107, if you count the military. So, we believe that as we continue to reduce the level of government spending--the increase, rate of increase in government spending, which has come down from 17 to 6 percent, and, at the same time, as the growth in the economy increases the revenues the Government gets, without raising taxes, those two lines will meet. And when they meet, that is a balanced budget. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has some bad news. The lines aren't about to meet, according to their projections. They project that the budget deficit will continue to climb. In the year 1989 they project a budget deficit of $273 billion. In view of that, and in view of the economic recovery we are now enjoying, would it make sense to propose a tax increase or take some other fiscal measures to reduce that deficit now, when times are relatively good? The President. The deficit is the result of excessive government spending. I do not, very frankly, take seriously the Congressional Budget Office projections, because they have been wrong on virtually all of them, including the fact that our recovery wasn't going to take place to begin with. But it has taken place. But, as I said, we have the rate of increase in government spending down to 6 percent. If the rate of increase in government spending can be held at 5 percent-we're not far from there--by 1989 that would have reduced the budget deficits down to a $30 or $40 billion level. At the same time, if we can have a 4-percent recovery continue through that same period of time, that will mean--without an increase in tax rates--that will mean $400 billion more in government revenues. And so, I think that the lines can meet. Actually, in constant dollars, in the domestic side of the budget, there has been no spending increase in the 4 years that we have been here. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. Mondale, the Carter-Mondale administration didn't come close to balancing the budget in its 4 years in office either, despite the fact that President Carter did promise a balanced budget during his term. You have proposed a plan combining tax increases and budgetary cuts and other changes in the administration of the Government that would reduce the projected budget deficit by two-thirds, to approximately $87 billion in 1989. That still is an enormous deficit that will be running for these 4 years. What other steps do you think should be taken to reduce this deficit and position the country for economic growth? Mr. Mondale. One of the key tests of leadership is whether one sees clearly the nature of the problems confronted by our nation. And perhaps the dominant domestic issue of our times is what do we do about these enormous deficits. I respect the President; I respect the Presidency, and I think he knows that. But the fact of it is, every estimate by this administration about the size of the deficit has been off by billions and billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, over 4 years, they've missed the mark by nearly $600 billion. We were told we would have a balanced budget in 1983. It was $200 billion deficit instead. And now we have a major question facing the American people as to whether we'll deal with this deficit and get it down for the sake of a healthy recovery. Virtually every economic analysis that I've heard of, including the distinguished Congressional Budget Office, which is respected by, I think, almost everyone, says that even with historically high levels of economic growth, we will suffer a $263 billion deficit. In other words, it doesn't converge as the President suggests. It gets larger even with growth. What that means is that we will continue to have devastating problems with foreign trade. This is the worst trade year in American history by far. Our rural and farm friends will have continued devastation. Real interest rates--the real cost of interest-will remain very, very high, and many economists are predicting that we're moving into a period of very slow growth because the economy is tapering off and may be a recession. I get it down to a level below 2 percent of gross national product with a policy that's fair. I've stood up and told the American people that I think it's a real problem, that it can destroy long-term economic growth, and I've told you what I think should be done. I think this is a test of leadership, and I think the American people know the difference. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. Mondale, one other way to attack the deficit is further reductions in spending. The President has submitted a number of proposals to Congress to do just that, and in many instances the House, controlled by the Democrats, has opposed them. Isn't it one aspect of leadership for prominent Democrats such as yourself to encourage responsible reductions in spending, and thereby reduce the deficit? Mr. Mondale. Absolutely, and I proposed over a hundred billion dollars in cuts in Federal spending over 4 years, but I am not going to cut it out of Social Security and Medicare and student assistance and things-- [applause] --that people need. These people depend upon all of us for the little security that they have, and I'm not going to do it that way. The rate of defense spending increase can be slowed. Certainly we can find a coffeepot that costs something less than $7,000. And there are other ways of squeezing this budget without constantly picking on our senior citizens and the most vulnerable in American life. And that's why the Congress, including the Republicans, have not gone along with the President's recommendations. Ms. Walters. I would like to ask the audience please to refrain from applauding either side; it just takes away from the time for your candidates. And now it is time for the rebuttal. Mr. President, 1 minute for rebuttal. The President. Yes. I don't believe that Mr. Mondale has a plan for balancing the budget; he has a plan for raising taxes. And, as a matter of fact, the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history took place 1977. And for the 5 years previous to our taking office, taxes doubled in the United States, and the budgets increased $318 billion. So, there is no ratio between taxing and balancing a budget. Whether you borrow the money or whether you simply tax it away from the people, you're taking the same amount of money out of the private sector, unless and until you bring down government's share of what it is taking. With regard to Social Security, I hope there'll be more time than just this minute to mention that, but I will say this: A President should never say "never." But I'm going to violate that rule and say "never." I will never stand for a reduction of the Social Security benefits to the people that are now getting them. Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale? Mr. Mondale. Well, that's exactly the commitment that was made to the American people in 1980: He would never reduce benefits. And of course, what happened right after the election is they proposed to cut Social Security benefits by 25 percent-reducing the adjustment for inflation, cutting out minimum benefits for the poorest on Social Security, removing educational benefits for dependents whose widows were trying--with widows trying to get them through college. Everybody remembers that; people know what happened. There's a difference. I have fought for Social Security and Medicare and for things to help people who are vulnerable all my life, and I will do it as President of the United States. Ms. Walters. Thank you very much. We'll now begin with segment number two with my colleague, Diane Sawyer. Ms. Sawyer? Leadership Qualities Ms. Sawyer. Mr. President, Mr. Mondale, the public opinion polls do suggest that the American people are most concerned about the personal leadership characteristics of the two candidates, and each of you has questioned the other's leadership ability. Mr. President, you have said that Mr. Mondale's leadership would take the country down the path of defeatism and despair, and Vice President Bush has called him whining and hoping for bad news. And, Mr. Mondale, you have said that President Reagan offers showmanship, not leadership, that he has not mastered what he must know to command his government. I'd like to ask each of you to substantiate your claims--Mr. Mondale first. Give us specifics to support your claim that President Reagan is a showman, not a leader; has not mastered what he must know to be President after 4 years, and then, second, tell us what personal leadership characteristics you have that he does not. Mr. Mondale. Well, first of all, I think the first answer this evening suggests exactly what I'm saying. There is no question that we face this massive deficit, and almost everybody agrees unless we get it down, the chances for long-term, healthy growth are nil. And it's also unfair to dump these tremendous bills on our children. The President says it will disappear overnight because of some reason. No one else believes that's the case. I do, and I'm standing up to the issue with an answer that's fair. I think that's what leadership is all about. There's a difference between being a quarterback and a cheerleader, and when there's a real problem, a President must confront it. What I was referring to, of course, in the comment that you referred to was the situation in Lebanon. Now, for three occasions, one after another, our Embassies were assaulted in the same way by a truck with demolitions. The first time--and I did not criticize the President, because these things can happen--once, and sometimes twice-the second time the barracks in Lebanon were assaulted, as we all remember. There was two or three commission reports, recommendations by the CIA, the State Department, and the others, and the third time there was even a warning from the terrorists themselves. Now, I believe that a President must command that White House and those who work for him. It's the toughest job on Earth, and you must master the facts and insist that things that must be done are done. I believe that the way in which I will approach the Presidency is what's needed, because all my life that has been the way in which I have sought to lead. And that's why in this campaign I'm telling you exactly what I want to do. I am answering your questions. I am trying to provide leadership now, before the election, so that the American people can participate in that decision. Ms. Sawyer. You have said, Mr. Mondale, that the polls have given you lower ratings on leadership than President Reagan because your message has failed to get through. Given that you have been in public office for so many years, what accounts for the failure of your message to get through? Mr, Mondale. Well, I think we're getting better all the time. And I think tonight, as we contrast for the first time our differing approach to government, to values, to the leadership in this country, I think as this debate goes forward, the American people will have for the first time a chance to weigh the two of us against each other. And I think, as a part of that process, what I am trying to say will come across, and that is that we must lead, we must command, we must direct, and a President must see it like it is. He must stand for the values of decency that the American people stand for, and he must use the power of the White House to try to control these nuclear weapons and lead this world toward a safer world. Ms. Sawyer. Mr. President, the issue is leadership in personal terms. First, do you think, as Vice President Bush said, that Mr. Mondale's campaign is one of whining and hoping for bad news? And second, what leadership characteristics do you possess that Mr. Mondale does not? The President. Well, whether he does or not, let me suggest my own idea about the leadership factor, since you've asked it. And, incidentally, I might say that with regard to the 25-percent cut in Social Security-before I get to the answer to your question--the only 25-percent cut that I know of was accompanying that huge 1977 tax increase, was a cut of 25 percent in the benefits for every American who was born after 1916. Now, leadership. First of all, I think you must have some principles you believe in. In mine, I happen to believe in the people and believe that the people are supposed to be dominant in our society--that they, not government, are to have control of their own affairs to the greatest extent possible, with an orderly society. Now, having that, I think also that in leadership--well, I believe that you find people, positions such as I'm in who have the talent and ability to do the things that are needed in the various departments of government. I don't believe that a leader should be spending his time in the Oval Office deciding who's going to play tennis on the White House court. And you let those people go with the guidelines of overall policy, not looking over their shoulder and nitpicking the manner in which they go at the job. You are ultimately responsible, however, for that job. But I also believe something else about that. I believe that--and when I became Governor of California, I started this, and I continue it in this office--that any issue that comes before me, I have instructed Cabinet members and staff they are not to bring up any of the political ramifications that might surround the issue. I don't want to hear them. I want to hear only arguments as to whether it is good or bad for the people--is it morally right? And on that basis and that basis alone, we make a decision on every issue. Now, with regard to my feeling about why I thought that his record bespoke his possible taking us back to the same things that we knew under the previous administration, his record is that he spoke in praise of deficits several times, said they weren't to be abhorred--that, as a matter of fact, he at one time said he wished the deficit could be doubled, because they stimulate the economy and helped reduce unemployment. Ms. Sawyer. As a followup, let me draw in another specific, if I could--a specific that the Democrats have claimed about your campaign--that it is essentially based on imagery. And one specific that they allege is that, for instance, recently you showed up at the opening ceremony of a Buffalo old-age housing project, when in fact, your policy was to cut Federal housing subsidies for the elderly. Yet you were there to have your picture taken with them. The President. Our policy was not to cut subsidies. We have believed in partnership, and that was an example of a partnership between, not only local government and the Federal Government but also between the private sector that built that particular structure. And this is what we've been trying to do, is involve the Federal Government in such partnerships. We are today subsidizing housing for more than 10 million people, and we're going to continue along that line. We have no thought of throwing people out into the snow, whether because of age or need. We have preserved the safety net for the people with true need in this country, and it has been pure demagoguery that we have in some way shut off all the charitable programs or many of them for the people who have real need. The safety net is there, and we're taking care of more people than has ever been taken care of before by any administration in this country. Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale, an opportunity for you to rebut. Mr. Mondale. Well, I guess I'm reminded a little bit of what Will Rogers once said about Hoover. He said, "It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so." [Laughter] The fact of it is: The President's budget sought to cut Social Security by 25 percent. It's not an opinion; it's a fact. And when the President was asked the other day, "What do you want to cut in the budget?", he said, "Cut those things I asked for but didn't get." That's Social Security and Medicare. The second fact is that the housing unit for senior citizens that the President dedicated in Buffalo was only made possible through a Federal assistance program for senior citizens that the President's budget sought to terminate. So, if he'd had his way, there wouldn't have been any housing project there at all. This administration has taken a meat cleaver out, in terms of Federal-assisted housing, and the record is there. We have to see the facts before we can draw conclusions. Ms. Walters. Mr. President? The President. Well, let me just respond with regard to Social Security. When we took office, we discovered that the program that the Carter-Mondale administration had said would solve the fiscal problems of Social Security for the next 50 years wouldn't solve them for 5. Social Security was due to go bankrupt before 1983. Any proposals that I made at that time were at the request of the chairman, a Democrat, of one of the leading committees, who said we have to do something before the program goes broke and the checks bounce. And so, we made a proposal. And then in 1982, they used that proposal in a demagogic fashion for the 1982 campaign. And 3 days after the election in 1982, they came to us and said, Social Security, we know, is broke. Indeed, we had to borrow $17 billion to pay the checks. And then I asked for a bipartisan commission, which I'd asked for from the beginning, to sit down and work out a solution. And so, the whole matter of what to do with Social Security has been resolved by bipartisan legislation, and it is on a sound basis now for as far as you can see into the next century. Ms. Walters. Mr. President, we begin segment number three with Fred Barnes. Religion Mr. Barnes. Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian, and explain how these beliefs affect your Presidential decisions? The President. Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church, we did not use that term, "born again," so I don't know whether I would fit that--that particular term. But I have--thanks to my mother, God rest her soul--the firmest possible belief and faith in God. And I don't believe--I believe, I should say, as Lincoln once said, that I could not--I would be the most stupid man in the world if I thought I could confront the duties of the office I hold if I could not turn to someone who was stronger and greater than all others. And I do resort to prayer. At the same time, however, I have not believed that prayer should be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign--or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact, I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr. Mondale's running mate said I wasn't a good Christian. So, it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so. And, as I say, I don't believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered. Mr. Barnes. Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don't you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do? The President. The answer to your question is very simple about why I don't go to church. I have gone to church regularly all my life, and I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where Embassies do get blown up in Beirut--we're supposed to talk about that on the debate the 21st, I understand--but I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church. I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to be built around the White House. And, therefore, I don't feel--and my minister knows this and supports me in this position--I don't feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places, in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church, but I think the Lord understands. [Applause] Ms. Walters. May I ask you, please-- [applause] --may I ask the audience please to refrain from applause.Fred, your second question. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Mondale, would you describe your religious beliefs and mention whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian, and explain how those beliefs would affect your decisions as President? Mr. Mondale. First of all, I accept President Reagan's affirmation of faith. I'm sure that we all accept and admire his commitment to his faith, and we are strengthened, all of us, by that fact. I am a son of a Methodist minister. My wife is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. And I don't know if I've been born again, but I know I was born into a Christian family. And I believe I have sung at more weddings and more funerals than anybody ever to seek the Presidency. Whether that helps or not, I don't know. I have a deep religious faith. Our family does. It is fundamental. It's probably the reason that I'm in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us, about the moral life that we should lead. And I think we're all together on that. What bothers me is this growing tendency to try to use one's own personal interpretation of faith politically, to question others' faith, and to try to use the instrumentalities of government to impose those views on others. All history tells us that that's a mistake. When the Republican platform says that from here on out, we're going to have a religious test for judges before they're selected for the Federal court, and then Jerry Falwell announces that that means they get at least two Justices of the Supreme Court, I think that's an abuse of faith in our country. This nation is the most religious nation on Earth--more people go to church and synagogues than any other nation on Earth-and it's because we kept the politicians and the state out of the personal exercise of our faith. That's why faith in the United States is pure and unpolluted by the intervention of politicians. And I think if we want to continue--as I do--to have a religious nation, lets keep that line and never cross it. Ms. Walters. Thank you. Mr. Barnes, next question. We have time for rebuttal now.Mr. Barnes. I think I have a followup. Ms. Walters. Yes, I asked you if you did. I'm sorry.--Mr. Barnes. Yes, I do.Ms. Walters. --I thought you waived it. Mr. Barnes. Yes, Mr. Mondale, you've complained, just now, about Jerry Falwell, and you've complained other times about other fundamentalists in politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall your ever complaining about ministers who are involved in the civil rights movement or in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations or about black preachers who've been so involved in American politics. Is it only conservative ministers that you object to? Mr. Mondale, No. What I object to-- [applause] --what I object to--what I object to is someone seeking to use his faith to question the faith of another or to use that faith and seek to use the power of government to impose it on others. A minister who is in civil rights or in the conservative movement, because he believes his faith instructs him to do that, I admire. The fact that the faith speaks to us and that we are moral people, hopefully, I accept and rejoice in. It's when you try to use that to undermine the integrity of private political--or private religious faith and the use of the state is where--for the most personal decisions in American life--that's where I draw the line. Ms. Walters. Thank you. Now, Mr. President, rebuttal. The President. Yes, it's very difficult to rebut, because I find myself in so much agreement with Mr. Mondale. I, too, want that wall that is in the Constitution of separation of church and state to remain there. The only attacks I have made are on people who apparently would break away at that wall from the government side, using the government, using the power of the courts and so forth to hinder that part of the Constitution that says the government shall not only not establish a religion, it shall not inhibit the practice of religion. And they have been using these things to have government, through court orders, inhibit the practice of religion. A child wants to say grace in a school cafeteria and a court rules that they can't do it because it's school property. These are they types of things that I think have been happening in a kind of a secular way that have been eroding that separation, and I am opposed to that. With regard to a platform on the Supreme Court, I can only say one thing about that. I have appointed one member to the Supreme Court: Sandra Day O'Connor. I'll stand on my record on that. And if I have the opportunity to appoint any more, I'll do it in the same manner that I did in selecting her. Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal, please. Mr. Mondale. The platform to which the President refers, in fact, calls for a religious test in the selection of judges. And Jerry Falwell says that means we get two or three judges. And it would involve a religious test for the first time in American life. Let's take the example that the President cites. I believe in prayer. My family prays. We've never had any difficulty finding time to pray. But do we want a constitutional amendment adopted of the kind proposed by the President that gets the local politicians into the business of selecting prayers that our children must either recite in school or be embarrassed and asked to excuse themselves? Who would write the prayer? What would it say? How would it be resolved when those disputes occur? It seems to me that a moment's reflection tells you why the United States Senate turned that amendment down, because it will undermine the practice of honest faith in our country by politicizing it. We don't want that. Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. Our time is up for this round. We go into the second round of our questioning, begin again with Jim Wieghart.Jim? Political Issues Mr. Wieghart. After that discussion, this may be like going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but here goes. I have a political question for you, Mr. Mondale. [Laughter] Polls indicate a massive change in the electorate, away from the coalition that has long made the Democratic Party a majority. Blue-collar workers, young professionals, their children, and much of the middle class now regard themselves as Independents or Republican instead of Democrats, and the gap--the edge the Democrats had in party registration seems to be narrowing. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Mondale, what is causing this? Is the Democratic Party out of sync with the majority of Americans? And will it soon be replaced as the majority party by the Republicans? What do you think needs to be done about it, as a Democrat? Mr. Mondale. My answer is that this campaign isn't over yet. And when people vote, I think you're going to see a very strong verdict by the American people that they favor the approach that I'm talking about. The American people want arms control. They don't want this arms race. And they don't want this deadly new effort to bring weapons into the heavens. And they want an American foreign policy that leads toward a safer world. The American people see this debt, and they know it's got to come down. And if it won't come down, the economy's going to slow down, maybe go into a recession. They see this tremendous influx and swamping of cheap foreign imports in this country that has cost over 3 million jobs, given farmers the worst year in American history. And they know this debt must come down as well, because it's unfair to our children. The American people want this environment protected. They know that these toxic waste dumps should have been cleaned up a long time ago, and they know that people's lives and health are being risked, because we've had an administration that has been totally insensitive to the law and the demand for the protection of the environment. The American people want their children educated. They want to get our edge back in science, and they want a policy headed by the President that helps close this gap that's widening between the United States and Europe and Japan. The American people want to keep opening doors. They want those civil rights laws enforced. They want the equal rights amendment ratified. They want equal pay for comparable effort for women. And they want it because they've understood from the beginning that when we open doors, we're all stronger, just as we were at the Olympics. I think as you make the case, the American people will increasingly come to our cause. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. Mondale, isn't it possible that the American people have heard your message--and they are listening--but they are rejecting it? Mr. Mondale. Well, tonight we had the first debate over the deficit. The President says it'll disappear automatically. I've said it's going to take some work. I think the American people will draw their own conclusions. Secondly, I've said that I will not support the cuts in Social Security and Medicare and the rest that the President has proposed. The President answers that it didn't happen or, if it did, it was resolved later in a commission. As the record develops, I think it's going to become increasingly clear that what I am saying and where I want to take this country is exactly where the country wants to go, and the comparison of approaches is such that I think will lead to further strength. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, you and your party are benefiting from what appears to be an erosion of the old Democratic coalition, but you have not laid out a specific agenda to take this shift beyond November 6th. What is your program for America for the next decade, with some specificity? The President. Well, again, I'm running on the record. I think sometimes Mr. Mondale's running away from his. But I'm running on the record of what we have asked for. We'll continue to try to get things that we didn't get in a program that has already brought the rate of spending of government down from 17 percent to 6.1 percent, a program of returning authority and autonomy to the local and State governments that has been unjustly seized by the Federal Government. And you might find those words in a Democratic platform of some years ago--I know, because I was a Democrat at that time. And I left the party eventually, because I could no longer follow the turn in the Democratic leadership that took us down an entirely different path, a path of centralizing authority in the Federal Government, lacking trust in the American people. I promised, when we took office, that we would reduce inflation. We have, to onethird of what it was. I promised that we would reduce taxes. We did, 25 percent across the board. That barely held even with--if it did that much--with the gigantic tax increase imposed in 1977. But at least it took that burden away from them. I said that we would create jobs for our people, and we did--6 million in the last 20 or 21 months. I said that we would become respected in the world once again and that we would refurbish our national defense to the place that we could deal on the world scene and then seek disarmament, reduction of arms, and, hopefully, an elimination of nuclear weapons. We have done that. All of the things that I said we would do, from inflation being down, interest rates being down, unemployment falling, all of those things we have done. And I think this is something the American people see. I think they also know that we had a commission that came in a year ago with a recommendation on education--on excellence in education. And today, without the Federal Government being involved other than passing on to them, the school districts, the words from that commission, we find 35 States with task forces now dealing with their educational problems. We find that schools are extending the curriculum to now have forced teaching of mathematics and science and so forth. All of these things have brought an improvement in the college entrance exams for the first time in some 20 years. So, I think that many Democrats are seeing the same thing this Democrat saw: The leadership isn't taking us where we want to go. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, much of what you said affects the quality of life of many Americans--their income, the way they live, and so forth--but there's an aspect to quality of life that lies beyond the private sector which has to do with our neighborhoods, our cities, our streets, our parks, our environment. In those areas, I have difficulty seeing what your program is and what you feel the Federal responsibility is in these areas of the quality of life in the public sector that affects everybody, and even enormous wealth by one individual can't create the kind of environment that he might like. The President. There are tasks that government legitimately should enforce and tasks that government performs well, and you've named some of them. Crime has come down the last 2 years, for the first time in many, many decades that it has come down--or since we've kept records--2 consecutive years, and last year it came down the biggest drop in crime that we've had. I think that we've had something to do with that, just as we have with the drug problem nationwide. The environment? Yes, I feel as strongly as anyone about the preservation of the environment. When we took office, we found that the national parks were so dirty and contained so many hazards, lack of safety features, that we stopped buying additional park land until we had rectified this with what was to be a 5-year program--but it's just about finished already--a billion dollars. And now we're going back to budgeting for additional lands for our parks. We have added millions of acres to the wilderness lands, to the game refuges. I think that we're out in front of most--and I see that the red light is blinking, so I can't continue. But I've got more. Ms. Walters. Well, you'll have a chance when your rebuttal time comes up, perhaps,Mr. President. Mr. Mondale, now it's your turn for rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. The President says that when the Democratic Party made its turn, he left it. The year that he decided we had lost our way was the year that John F. Kennedy was running against Richard Nixon. I was chairman of "Minnesotans for Kennedy;" President Reagan was chairman of a thing called "Democrats for Nixon." Now, maybe we made a wrong turn with Kennedy, but I'll be proud of supporting him all of my life. And I'm very happy that John Kennedy was elected, because John Kennedy looked at the future with courage, saw what needed to be done, and understood his own government. The President just said that his government is shrinking. It's not. It's now the largest peacetime government ever in terms of the take from the total economy. And instead of retreating.--instead of being strong where we should be strong, he wants to make it strong and intervene in the most private and personal questions in American life. That's where government should not be.Ms. Walters. Mr. President? The President. Before I campaigned as a Democrat for a Republican candidate for President, I had already voted for Dwight Eisenhower to be President of the United States. And so, my change had come earlier than that. I hadn't gotten around to reregistering as yet. I found that was rather difficult to do. But I finally did it. There are some other things that have been said here--back, and you said that I might be able to dredge them up. Mr. Mondale referred to the farmers' worst year. The farmers are not the victims of anything this administration has done. The farmers were the victims of the double-digit inflation and the 21 1/2-percent interest rates of the Carter-Mondale administration and the grain embargo, which destroyed our reliability nationwide as a supplier. All of these things are presently being rectified, and I think that we are going to salvage the farmers. As a matter of fact, there has been less than one-quarter of i percent of foreclosures of the 270,000 loans from government that the farmers have. Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. President. We'll now turn to Diane Sawyer for her round of questions.Diane? Abortion Ms. Sawyer. I'd like to turn to an area that I think few people enjoy discussing, but that we probably should tonight because the positions of the two candidates are so clearly different and lead to very different policy consequences--and that is abortion and right to life. I'm exploring for your personal views of abortion and specifically how you would want them applied as public policy. First, Mr. President. Do you consider abortion murder or a sin? And second, how hard would you work--what kind of priority would you give in your second term legislation to make abortion illegal? And specifically, would you make certain, as your party platform urges, that Federal justices that you appoint be pro-life? The President. I have believed that in the appointment of judges that all that was specified in the party platform was that they respect the sanctity of human life. Now, that I would want to see in any judge and with regard to any issue having to do with human life. But with regard to abortion, and I have a feeling that this is-there's been some reference without naming it here in the remarks of Mr. Mondale tied to injecting religion into government. With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us. And I think that this is what we should concentrate on, is trying--I know there were weeks and weeks of testimony before a Senate committee, there were medical authorities, there were religious--there were clerics there-everyone talking about this matter of pro-life. And at the end of all of that, not one shred of evidence was introduced that the unborn child was not alive. We have seen premature births that are now grown-up, happy people going around. Also, there is a strange dichotomy in this whole position about our courts ruling that abortion is not the taking of a human life. In California, sometime ago, a man beat a woman so savagely that her unborn child was born dead with a fractured skull, and the California State Legislature unanimously passed a law that was signed by the then-Democratic Governor--signed a law that said that any man who so abuses a pregnant woman that he causes the death of her unborn child shall be charged with murder. Now, isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child, and it was abortion and not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder? And it used the term "death of the unborn child." So, this has been my feeling about abortion, that we have a problem now to determine--and all the evidence so far comes down on the side of the unborn child being a living human being. Ms. Sawyer. A two-part followup. Do I take it from what you've said about the platform, then, that you don't regard the language and don't regard in your own appointments, abortion position a test of any kind for justices--that it should be? And also, if abortion is made illegal, how would you want it enforced? Who would be the policing units that would investigate? And would you want the women who have abortions to be prosecuted? The President. The laws regarding that always were State laws. It was only when the Supreme Court handed down a decision that the Federal Government intervened in what had always been a State policy. Our laws against murder are State laws. So, I would think that this would be the point of enforcement on this. As I say, I feel that we have a problem here to resolve. And no one has approached it from that matter. It does not happen that the church that I belong to had that as part of its dogma. I know that some churches do. Now, it is a sin if you're taking a human life. At the same time, in our Judeo-Christian tradition, we recognize the right of taking a human life in self-defense. And therefore, I've always believed that a mother, if medically it is determined that her life is at risk if she goes through with the pregnancy, she has a right then to take the life of even her own unborn child in defense of her own. Ms. Sawyer. Mr. Mondale, to turn to you, do you consider abortion a murder or a sin? And bridging from what President Reagan said, he has written that if society doesn't know whether life does--human life, in fact, does begin at conception, as long as there is a doubt, that the unborn child should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and that there should be protection for that unborn child. Mr. Mondale. This is one of the most emotional and difficult issues that could possibly be debated. I think your questions, however, underscore the fact there is probably no way that government should or could answer this question in every individual case and in the private lives of the American people. The constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan would make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion if she had been raped or suffered from incest. Is it really the view of the American people, however you feel on the question of abortion, that government ought to be reaching into your living rooms and making choices like this? I think it cannot work, won't work, and will lead to all kinds of cynical evasions of the law. Those who can afford to have them will continue to have them. The disadvantaged will go out in the back alley as they used to do. I think these questions are inherently personal and moral, and every individual instance is different. Every American should be aware of the seriousness of the step. But there are some things that government can do and some things they cannot do. Now, the example that the President cites has nothing to do with abortion. Somebody went to a woman and nearly killed her. That's always been a serious crime and always should be a serious crime. But how does that compare with the problem of a woman who is raped? Do we really want those decisions made by judges who've been picked because they will agree to find the person guilty? I don't think so, and I think it's going in exactly the wrong direction. In America, on basic moral questions we have always let the people decide in their own personal lives. We haven't felt so insecure that we've reached for the club of state to have our point of view. It's been a good instinct. And we're the most religious people on Earth. One final point: President Reagan, as Governor of California, signed a bill which is perhaps the most liberal pro-abortion bill of any State in the Union. Ms. Sawyer. But if I can get you back for a moment on my point, which was the question of when human life begins--a two-part followup. First of all, at what point do you believe that human life begins in the growth of a fetus? And second of all, you said that government shouldn't be involved in the decisions. Yet there are those who would say that government is involved, and the consequence of the involvement was 1.5 million abortions in 1980. And how do you feel about that? Mr. Mondale. The basic decision of the Supreme Court is that each person has to make this judgment in her own life, and that's the way it's been done. And it's a personal and private, moral judgment. I don't know the answer to when life begins. And it's not that simple, either. You've got another life involved. And if it's rape, how do you draw moral judgments on that? If it's incest, how do you draw moral judgments on that? Does every woman in America have to present herself before some judge picked by Jerry Falwell to clear her personal judgment? It won't work. [Applause] Ms. Walters. I'm sorry to do this, but I really must talk to the audience. You're all invited guests. I know I'm wasting time in talking to you, but it really is very unfair of you to applaud--sometimes louder, less loud--and I ask you, as people who were invited here, and polite people, to refrain. We have our time now for rebuttal. Mr. President. The President. Yes. Well, with regard to this being a personal choice, isn't that what a murderer is insisting on, his or her right to kill someone because of whatever fault they think justifies that? Now, I'm not capable, and I don't think you are, any of us, to make this determination that must be made with regard to human life. I am simply saying that I believe that that's where the effort should be directed--to make that determination. I don't think that any of us should be called upon here to stand and make a decision as to what other things might come under the self-defense tradition. That, too, would have to be worked out then, when you once recognize that we're talking about a life. But in this great society of ours, wouldn't it make a lot more sense, in this gentle and kind society, if we had a program that made it possible for when incidents come along in which someone feels they must do away with that unborn child, that instead we make it available for the adoption? There are a million and a half people out there standing in line waiting to adopt children who can't have them any other way. Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale. I agree with that, and that's why I was a principal sponsor of a liberal adoption law, so that more of these children could come to term, so that the young mothers were educated, so we found an option, an alternative. I'm all for that. But the question is whether this other option proposed by the President should be pursued. And I don't agree with it. Since I've got about 20 seconds, let me just say one thing. The question of agriculture came up a minute ago. Net farm income is off 50 percent in the last 3 years, and every farmer knows it. And the effect of these economic policies is like a massive grain embargo, which has caused farm exports to drop 20 percent. It's been a big failure. I opposed the grain embargo in my administration. I'm opposed to these policies as well. Ms. Walters. I'm sitting here like the great schoolteacher, letting you both get away with things--because one did it, the other one did it. May I ask in the future that the rebuttal stick to what the rebuttal is. And also, foreign policy will be the next debate. Stop dragging it in by its ear into this one. [Laughter] Now, having admonished you, I would like to say to the panel, you are allowed one question and one followup. Would you try, as best you could, not to ask two and three--I know it's something we all want to do--two and three questions as part one and two and three as part two.Having said that, Fred, it's yours. Federal Taxation Mr. Barnes. Thank you. Mr. Mondale, let me ask you about middle-class Americans and the taxes they pay. Now, I'm talking not about the rich or the poor--I know your views on their taxes--but about families earning 25,000 to 45,000 a year. Do you think that those families are overtaxed or undertaxed by the Federal Government? Mr. Mondale. In my opinion, as we deal with this deficit, people from about $70,000 a year on down have to be dealt with very, very carefully, because they are the ones who didn't get any relief the first time around. Under the 1981 tax bill, people making $200,000 a year got $60,000 in tax relief over 3 years, while people making $30,000 a year, all taxes considered, got no relief at all or their taxes actually went up. That's why my proposal protects everybody from $25,000 a year or less against any tax increases, and treats those $70,000 and under in a way that is more beneficial than the way the President proposes with a sales tax or a fiat tax. What does this mean in real life? Well, the other day, Vice President Bush disclosed his tax returns to the American people. He's one of the wealthiest Americans, and he's our Vice President. In 1981 I think he paid about 40 percent in taxes. In 1983, as a result of these tax preferences, he paid a little over 12 percent, 12.8 percent in taxes. That meant that he paid a lower percent in taxes than the janitor who cleaned up his office or the chauffeur who drives him to work. I believe we need some fairness. And that's why I've proposed what I think is a fair and a responsible proposal that helps protect these people who've already got no relief or actually got a tax increase. Mr. Barnes. It sounds as if you are saying you think this group of taxpayers making 25,000 to 45,000 a year is already overtaxed, yet your tax proposal would increase their taxes. I think your aides have said those earning about 25,000 to 35,000, their tax rate would go up--their tax bill would go up a hundred dollars, and from 35,000 to 45,000, more than that, several hundred dollars. Wouldn't that stifle their incentive to work and invest and so on, and also hurt the recovery? Mr. Mondale. The first thing is, everybody 25,000 and under would have no tax increase. Mr. Reagan, after the election, is going to have to propose a tax increase, and you will have to compare what he proposes. And his Secretary of the Treasury said he's studying a sales tax or a value-added tax. They're the same thing. They hit middle- and moderate-income Americans and leave wealthy Americans largely untouched. Up until about $70,000, as you go up the ladder, my proposals will be far more beneficial. As soon as we get the economy on a sound ground as well, I'd like to see the total repeal of indexing. I don't think we can do that for a few years. But at some point, we want to do that as well. Mr. Barnes. Mr. President, let me try this on you. Do you think middle-income Americans are overtaxed or undertaxed? The President. You know, I wasn't going to say this at all, but I can't help it. There you go again. [Laughter] I don't have a plan to tax--or increase taxes. I'm not going to increase taxes. I can understand why you are, Mr. Mondale, because as a Senator you voted 16 times to increase taxes. Now, I believe that our problem has not been that anybody in our country is undertaxed; it's that government is overfed. And I think that most of our people--this is why we had a 25-percent tax cut across the board which maintained the same progressivity of our tax structure in the brackets on up. And, as a matter of fact, it just so happens that in the quirks of administering these taxes, those above $50,000 actually did not get quite as big a tax cut percentage-wise as did those from 50,000 down. From 50,000 down, those people paid two-thirds of the taxes, and those people got two-thirds of the tax cut. Now, the Social Security tax of '77--this indeed was a tax that hit people in the lower brackets the hardest. It had two features. It had several tax increases phased in over a period of time--there are two more yet to come between now and 1989. At the same time every year, it increased the amount of money--virtually every year, there may have been one or two that were skipped in there--that was subject to that tax. Today it is up to about $38,000 of earnings that is subject to the payroll tax for Social Security. And that tax, there are no deductions, so a person making anywhere from 10, 15, 20--they're paying that tax on the full gross earnings that they have after they have already paid an income tax on that same amount of money. Now, I don't think that to try and say that we were taxing the rich, and not the other way around, it just doesn't work out that way. The system is still where it was with regard to the progressivity, as I've said, and that has not been changed. But if you take it in numbers of dollars instead of percentage, yes, you could say, well, that person got 10 times as much as this other person. Yes, but he paid 10 times as much, also. But if you take it in percentages, then you find out that it is fair and equitable across the board. Mr. Barnes. I thought I caught, Mr. President, a glimmer of a stronger statement there in your answer than you've made before. I think the operative position you had before was that you would only raise taxes in a second term as a last resort, and I thought you said flatly that "I'm not going to raise taxes." Is that what you meant to say, that you will not--that you will flatly not raise taxes in your second term as President'? The President. Yes, I had used--"last resort" would always be with me. If you got the Government down to the lowest level, that you yourself could say it could not go any lower and still perform the services for the people, and if the recovery was so complete that you knew you were getting the ultimate amount of revenues that you could get through that growth, and there was still some slight difference there between those two lines, then I had said once that, yes, you would have to then look to see if taxes should not be adjusted. I don't foresee those things happening, so I say with great confidence I'm not going to go for a tax. With regard to assailing Mr. Bush about his tax problems and the difference from the tax he once paid and then the later tax he paid, I think if you looked at the deductions, there were great legal expenses in there--had to do, possibly, with the sale of his home, and they had to do with his setting up of a blind trust. All of those are legally deductions, deductible in computing your tax, and it was a 1-year thing with him. Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale, here we go again. It's time for rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Well, first of all, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the house deal. I'm just talking about the 12.8 percent that he paid, and that's what's happening all over this country with wealthy Americans. They've got so many loopholes they don't have to pay much in taxes. Now, Mr. President, you said, "There you go again," right?The President. Yes. Mr. Mondale. You remember the last time you said that?The President. Mm-hmm. Mr. Mondale. You said it when President Carter said that you were going to cut Medicare, and you said, "Oh, no, there you go again, Mr. President." And what did you do right after the election? You went out and tried to cut $20 billion out of Medicare. And so, when you say, "There you go again"--people remember this, you know. [Laughter] And people will remember that you signed the biggest tax increase in the history of California and the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States, and what are you going to do? You've got a $260 billion deficit. You can't wish it away. You won't slow defense spending; you refuse to do that-- Ms. Walters. Mr. Mondale, I'm afraid your time is up. Mr. Mondale. Sorry. Ms. Walters. Mr. President? The President. Yes. With regard to Medicare, no, but it's time for us to say that Medicare is in pretty much the same condition that Social Security was, and something is going to have to be done in the next several years to make it fiscally sound. And, no, I never proposed any $20 billion should come out of Medicare; I have proposed that the program we must treat with that particular problem. And maybe part of that problem is because during the 4 years of the Carter-Mondale administration medical costs in this country went up 87 percent. Ms. Walters. All right. Fine. The President. I gave you back some of that time. [Laughter] Ms. Walters. We can't keep going back for other rebuttals; there'll be time later. We now go to our final round. The way things stand now, we have time for only two sets of questions, and by lot, it will be Jim and Diane. And we'll start with Jim Wieghart. Social Welfare Programs Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, the economic recovery is real, but uneven. The Census Bureau, just a month ago, reported that there are more people living under poverty now, a million more people living under it, than when you took office. There have been a number of studies, including studies by the Urban Institute and other nonpolitical organizations, that say that the impact of the tax and budget cuts and your economic policies have impacted severely on certain classes of Americans-working mothers, head of households, minority groups, elderly poor. In fact, they're saying the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under your policies. What relief can you offer to the working poor, to the minorities, and to the women head of households who have borne the brunt of these economic programs? What can you offer them in the future, in your next term? The President. Well, some of those facts and figures just don't stand up. Yes, there has been an increase in poverty, but it is a lower rate of increase than it was in the preceding years before we got here. It has begun to decline, but it is still going up. On the other hand, women heads of household--single women heads of household have--for the first time there's been a turndown in the rate of poverty for them. We have found also in our studies that in this increase in poverty, it all had to do with their private earnings. It had nothing to do with the transfer of payments from government by way of many programs. We are spending now 37 percent more on food for the hungry in all the various types of programs than was spent in 1980. We're spending a third more on all of the-well, all of the programs of human service. We have more people receiving food stamps than were ever receiving them before--2,300,000 more are receiving them--even though we took 850,000 off the food stamp rolls because they were making an income that was above anything that warranted their fellow citizens having to support them. We found people making 185 percent of the poverty level were getting government benefits. We have set a line at 130 percent so that we can direct that aid down to the truly needy. Some time ago, Mr. Mondale said something about education and college students and help of that kind. Half--one out of two of the full-time college students in the United States are receiving some form of Federal aid. But there, again, we found people that there under the previous administration, families that had no limit to income were still eligible for low-interest college loans. We didn't think that was right. And so, we have set a standard that those loans and those grants are directed to the people who otherwise could not go to college, their family incomes were so low. So, there are a host of other figures that reveal that the grant programs are greater than they have ever been, taking care of more people than they ever have. 7.7 million elderly citizens who were living in the lowest 20 percent of earnings--7.7 million have moved up into another bracket since our administration took over, leaving only 5 million of the elderly in that bracket when there had been more than 13 million. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. President, in a visit to Texas--in Brownsville, I believe it was, in the Rio Grande Valley--you did observe that the economic recovery was uneven. The President. Yes. Mr. Wieghart. In that particular area of Texas, unemployment was over 14 percent, whereas statewide, it was the lowest in the country, I believe--5.6 percent. And you made the comment, however, that man does not live by bread alone. What did you mean by that comment? And if I interpret it correctly, it would be a comment more addressed to the affluent who obviously can look beyond just the bread they need to sustain them, with their wherewithal. The President. That had nothing to do with the other thing of talking about their needs or anything. I remember distinctly, I was segueing into another subject. I was talking about the things that have been accomplished, and that was referring to the revival of patriotism and optimism, the new spirit that we're finding all over America. And it is a wonderful thing to see when you get out there among the people. So, that was the only place that that was used. I did avoid, I'm afraid, in my previous answer, also, the idea of uneven, yes. There is no way that the recovery is even across the country, just as in the depths of the recession, there were some parts of the country that were worse off, but some that didn't even feel the pain of the recession. We're not going to rest and not going to be happy until every person in this country who wants a job can have one, until the recovery is complete across the country. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. Mondale, as you can gather from the question to the President, the celebrated War on Poverty obviously didn't end the problem of poverty, although it may have dented it. The poor and the homeless and the disadvantaged are still with us. What should the Federal Government's role be to turn back the growth in the number of people living below the poverty level, which is now 35 million in the United States, and to help deal with the structural unemployment problems that the President was referring to in an uneven recovery? Mr. Mondale. Number one, we've got to get the debt down to get the interest rates down so the economy will grow and people will be employed. Number two, we have to work with cities and others to help generate economic growth in those communities--through the Urban Development Action Grant Program. I don't mind those enterprise zones; let's try them, but not as a substitute for the others. Certainly education and training is crucial. If these young Americans don't have the skills that make them attractive to employees, they're not going to get jobs. The next thing is to try to get more entrepreneurship in business within the reach of minorities so that these businesses are located in the communities in which they're found. The other thing is, we need the business community as well as government heavily involved in these communities to try to get economic growth. There is no question that the poor are worse off. I think the President genuinely believes that they're better off. But the figures show that about 8 million more people are below the poverty line than 4 years ago. How you can cut school lunches, how you can cut student assistance, how you can cut housing, how you can cut disability benefits, how you can do all of these things and then the people receiving them for example, the disabled, who have no alternative--how they're going to do better, I don't know. Now, we need a tight budget, but there's no question that this administration has singled out things that affect the most vulnerable in American life, and they're hurting. One final point if I might. There's another part of the lopsided economy that we're in today, and that is that these heavy deficits have killed exports and are swamping the Nation with cheap imports. We are now $120 billion of imports, 3 million jobs lost, and farmers are having their worst year. That's another reason to get the deficit down. Mr. Wieghart. Mr. Mondale, is it possible that the vast majority of Americans who appear to be prosperous have lost interest in the kinds of programs you're discussing to help those less privileged than they are? Mr. Mondale. I think the American people want to make certain that that dollar is wisely spent. I think they stand for civil rights. I know they're all for education in science and training, which I strongly support. They want these young people to have a chance to get jobs and the rest. I think the business community wants to get involved. I think they're asking for new and creative ways to try to reach it with everyone involved. I think that's part of it. I think also that the American people want a balanced program that gives us long-term growth so that they're not having to take money that's desperate to themselves and their families and give it to someone else. I'm opposed to that, too. Ms. Walters. And now it is time for our rebuttal for this period. Mr. President? The President. Yes. The connection that's been made again between the deficit and the interest rates--there is no connection between them. There is a connection between interest rates and inflation, but I would call to your attention that in 1981 while we were operating still on the Carter-Mondale budget that we inherited--that the interest rates came down from 21 1/2, down toward the 12 or 13 figure. And while they were coming down, the deficits had started their great increase. They were going up. Now, if there was a connection I think that there would be a different parallel between deficits getting larger and interest rates going down. The interest rates are based on inflation. And right now I have to tell you I don't think there is any excuse for the interest rates being as high as they are because we have brought inflation down so low. I think it can only be that they're anticipating or hope--expecting, not hoping, that maybe we don't have a control of inflation and it's going to go back up again. Well, it isn't going to go back up. We're going to see that it doesn't. And I haven't got time to answer with regard to the disabled. Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale. Mr. President, if I heard you correctly, you said that these deficits don't have anything to do with interest rates. I will grant you that interest rates were too high in 1980, and we can have another debate as to why--energy prices and so on. There's no way of glossing around that. But when these huge deficits went in place in 1981, what's called the real interest rates--the spread between inflation and what a loan costs you doubled--and that's still the case today. And the result is interest costs that have never been seen before in terms of real charges, and it's attributable to the deficit. Everybody--every economist, every businessman-believes that. Your own Council of Economic Advisers--Mr. Feldstein in his report told you that. Every chairman of the Finance and Ways and Means Committee, Republican leaders in the Senate and the House are telling you that. That deficit is ruining the long-term hopes for this economy. It's causing high interest rates. It's ruining us in trade. It's given us the highest small business failure in 50 years. The economy is starting downhill with housing failure.-Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. You're both very obedient. I have to give you credit for that. We now start our final round of questions. We do want to have time for your rebuttal.We start with Diane--Diane Sawyer. Presidential Campaign Ms. Sawyer. Since we are reaching the end of the question period, and since in every Presidential campaign, the candidates tend to complain that the opposition candidate is not held accountable for what he or she says, let me give you the chance to do that. Mr. Mondale, beginning with you. What do you think the most outrageous thing is your opponent said in this debate tonight? [Laughter] Mr. Mondale. Do you want to give me some suggestions? [Laughter] I'm going to use my time a little differently. I'm going to give the President some credit. I think the President has done some things to raise the sense of spirit, morale, good feeling in this country, and he's entitled to credit for that. What I think we need, however, is not just that but to move forward, not just congratulating ourselves but challenging ourselves to get on with the business of dealing with America's problems. I think in education, when he lectured the country about the importance of discipline, I didn't like it at first, but I think it helped a little bit. But now we need both that kind of discipline and the resources and the consistent leadership that allows this country to catch up in education and science and training. I like President Reagan. And this is not personal--there are deep differences about our future, and that's the basis of my campaign. Ms. Sawyer. Follow up in a similar vein, then. What remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer? Mr. Mondale. Without any doubt, I have stood up and told the American people that that $263 billion deficit must come down. And I've done what no candidate for President has ever done, I told you before the election what I'd do. Mr. Reagan, as you saw tonight--President Reagan takes the position it will disappear by magic. It was once called voodoo economics. I wish the President would say: Yes, the CBO is right. Yes, we have a $263 billion deficit. This is how I'm going to get it done. Don't talk about growth, because even though we need growth, that's not helping. It's going to go in the other direction, as they've estimated. And give us a plan. What will you cut? Whose taxes will you raise? Will you finally touch that defense budget? Are you going to go after Social Security and Medicare and student assistance and the handicapped again as you did last time? If you'd just tell us what you're going to do, then the American people could compare my plan for the future with your plan. And that's the way it should be. The American people would be in charge. Ms. Sawyer. Mr. President, the most outrageous thing your opponent has said in the debate tonight? The President. Well, now, I have to start with a smile, since his kind words to me. I'll tell you what I think has been the most outrageous thing in political dialog, both in this campaign and the one in '82. And that is the continued discussion and claim that somehow I am the villain who is going to pull the Social Security checks out from those people who are dependent on them. And why I think it is outrageous--first of all, it isn't true. But why it is outrageous is because, for political advantage, every time they do that, they scare millions of senior citizens who are totally dependent on Social Security, have no place else to turn. And they have to live and go to bed at night thinking, "Is this true? Is someone going to take our check away from us and leave us destitute?" And I don't think that that should be a part of political dialog. Now, to--I still--I just have a minute here?Ms. Walters. You have more time.The President. Oh, I--Ms. Walters. You can keep going.The President. Okay. All right. Now, Social Security, let's lay it to rest once and for all. I told you never would I do such a thing. But I tell you also now, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the out-go of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce a deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So, Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. Now, again, to get to whether I am depending on magic, I think I have talked in straight economic terms about a program of recovery that I was told wouldn't work. And then, after it worked, I was told that lowering taxes would increase inflation. And none of these things happened. It is working, and we're going to continue on that same line. As to what we might do, and find in further savings cuts, no, we're not going to starve the hungry. But we have 2,478 specific recommendations from a commission of more than 2,000 business people in this country, through the Grace commission, that we're studying right now--and we've already implemented 17 percent of them-that are recommendations as to how to make government more efficient, more economic. Ms. Sawyer. And to keep it even, what remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer? The President. Why the deficits are so much of a problem for him now, but that in 1976, when the deficit was $52 billion and everyone was panicking about that, he said, no, that he thought it ought to be bigger, because a bigger deficit would stimulate the economy and would help do away with unemployment. In 1979 he made similar statements, the same effect, that the deficits-there was nothing wrong with having deficits. Remember, there was a trillion dollars in debt before we got here. That's got to be paid by our children and grandchildren, too, if we don't do it. And I'm hoping we can start some payments on it before we get through here. That's why I want another 4 years. Ms. Walters. Well, we have time now, if you'd like to answer the President's question, or whatever rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Well, we've just finished almost the whole debate. And the American people don't have the slightest clue about what President Reagan will do about these deficits. [Laughter] And yet, that's the most important single issue of our time. I did support the '76 measure that he told about, because we were in a deep recession and we needed some stimulation. But I will say as a Democrat, I was a real piker, Mr. President. In 1979 we ran a $29 billion deficit all year. This administration seems to run that every morning. And the result is exactly what we see. This economy is starting to run downhill. Housing is off. Last report on new purchases, it's the lowest since 1982. Growth is a little over 3 percent now. Many people are predicting a recession. And the flow of imports into this country is swamping the American people. We've got to deal with this problem, and those of us who want to be your President should tell you now what we're going to do, so you can make a judgment. Ms. Walters. Thank you very much. We must stop now. I want to give you time for your closing statements. It's indeed time for that from each of you. We will begin with President Reagan. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Reagan, you had your rebuttal, and I just cut you off because our time is going. You have a chance now for rebuttal before your closing statement. Is that correct? The President. No, I might as well just go with- Ms. Walters. Do you want to go with your-- The President. I don't think so. I'm all confused now. Ms. Walters. Technically, you did. I have little voices that come in my ear. [Laughter] You don't get those same voices. I'm not hearing it from here--I'm hearing it from here.The President. All right. Ms. Walters. You have waived your rebuttal. You can go with your closing statement. Closing Statements The President. Well, we'll include it in that. Ms. Walters. Okay. The President. Four years ago, in similar circumstances to this, I asked you, the American people, a question. I asked: "Are you better off than you were 4 years before?" The answer to that obviously was no, and as the result, I was elected to this office and promised a new beginning. Now, maybe I'm expected to ask that same question again. I'm not going to, because I think that all of you--or not everyone, those people that are in those pockets of poverty and haven't caught up, they couldn't answer the way I would want them to--but I think that most of the people in this country would say, yes, they are better off than they were 4 years ago. The question, I think, should be enlarged. Is America better off than it was 4 years ago? And I believe the answer to that has to also be "yes." I promised a new beginning. So far, it is only a beginning. If the job were finished, I might have thought twice about seeking reelection for this job. But we now have an economy that, for the first time--well, let's put it this way: In the first half of 1980, gross national product was down a minus 3.7 percent. The first half of '84 it's up 8 1/2 percent. Productivity in the first half of 1980 was down a minus 2 percent. Today it is up a plus 4 percent. Personal earnings after taxes per capita have gone up almost $3,000 in these 4 years. In 1980--or 1979, a person with a fixed income of $8,000 was $500 above the poverty line, and this maybe explains why there are the numbers still in poverty. By 1980 that same person was $500 below the poverty line. We have restored much of our economy. With regard to business investment, it is higher than it has been since 1949. So, there seems to be no shortage of investment capital. We have, as I said, cut the taxes, but we have reduced inflation, and for 2 years now it has stayed down there, not at double digit, but in the range of 4 or below. We believe that we had also promised that we would make our country more secure. Yes, we have an increase in the defense budget. But back then we had planes that couldn't fly for lack of spare parts or pilots. We had navy vessels that couldn't leave harbor because of lack of crew or, again, lack of spare parts. Today we're well on our way to a 600-ship navy. We have 543 at present. We have--our military, the morale is high. I think the people should understand that two-thirds of the defense budget pays for pay and salary, or pay and pension. And then you add to that food and wardrobe, and all the other things, and you only have a small portion going for weapons. But I am determined that if ever our men are called on, they should have the best that we can provide in the manner of tools and weapons. There has been reference to expensive spare parts, hammers costing $500. Well, we are the ones who found those. I think we've given the American people back their spirit. I think there's an optimism in the land and a patriotism, and I think that we're in a position once again to heed the words of Thomas Paine, who said: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Reagan. Mr. Mondale, the closing words are now yours. Mr. Mondale. I want to thank the League of Women Voters and the city of Louisville for hosting this evening's debate. I want to thank President Reagan for agreeing to debate. He didn't have to, and he did, and we all appreciate it. The President's favorite question is: Are you better off?. Well, if you're wealthy, you're better off. If you're middle income, you're about where you were. And if you're modest income, you're worse off. That's what the economists tell us. But is that really the question that should be asked? Isn't the real question is will we be better off?. Will our children be better off?. Are we building the future that this nation needs? I believe that if we ask those questions that bear on our future, not just congratulate ourselves but challenge us to solve those problems, you'll see that we need new leadership. Are we better of with this arms race? Will we be better off if we start this star wars escalation into the heavens? Are we better off when we de-emphasize our values in human rights? Are we better off when we load our children with this fantastic debt? Would fathers and mothers feel proud of themselves if they loaded their children with debts like this nation is now--over a trillion dollars on the shoulders of our children? Can we say, really say that we will be better off when we pull away from sort of that basic American instinct of decency and fairness? I would rather lose a campaign about decency than win a campaign about self-interest. I don't think this nation is composed of people who care only for themselves. And when we sought to assault Social Security and Medicare, as the record shows we did, I think that was mean-spirited. When we terminated 400,000 desperate, hopeless, defenseless Americans who were on disability-confused and unable to defend themselves, and just laid them out on the street, as we did for 4 years, I don't think that's what America is all about. America is a fair society, and it is not right that Vice President Bush pays less in taxes than the janitor who helps him. I believe there's fundamental fairness crying out that needs to be achieved in our tax system. I believe that we will be better off if we protect this environment. And contrary to what the President says, I think their record on the environment is inexcusable and often shameful. These laws are not being enforced, have not been enforced, and the public health and the air and the water are paying the price. That's not fair for our future. I think our future requires a President to lead us in an all-out search to advance our education, our learning, and our science and training, because this world is more complex and we're being pressed harder all the time. I believe in opening doors. We won the Olympics, in part, because we've had civil rights laws and the laws that prohibit discrimination against women. I have been for those efforts all my life. The President's record is quite different. The question is our future. President Kennedy once said in response to similar arguments, "We are great, but we can be greater." We can be better if we face our future, rejoice in our strengths, face our problems, and by solving them, build a better society for our children. Thank you. Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. [Applause] Please, we have not finished quite yet. Thank you, Mr. Mondale, and thank you, Mr. President. And our thanks to our panel members, as well. And so we bring to a close this first of the League of Women Voters Presidential debates of 1984. You two can go at each again in the final League debate on October 21st, in Kansas City, Missouri. And this Thursday night, October 11th, at 9 p.m. eastern daylight time, the Vice President, George Bush, will debate Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro in Philadelphia. And I hope that you will all watch once again. No matter what the format is, these debates are very important. We all have an extremely vital decision to make. Once more, gentlemen, our thanks. Once more, to you, our thanks. Now, this is Barbara Walters wishing you a good evening. Note: The debate began at 9 p.m. in the Robert S. Whitney Hall at the Kentucky Center for the Arts. Ronald Reagan, Debate Between the President and Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in Louisville, Kentucky Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217267

October 28, 1980 MRS. HINERFELD. Good evening. I'm Ruth Hinerfeld of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Next Tuesday is election day. Before going to the polls, voters want to understand the issues and know the candidates' positions. Tonight, voters will have an opportunity to see and hear the major party candidates for the Presidency state their views on issues that affect us all. The League of Women Voters is proud to present this Presidential debate. Our moderator is Howard K. Smith. MR. SMITH. Thank you, Mrs. Hinerfeld. The League of Women Voters is pleased to welcome to the Cleveland, Ohio, Convention Center Music Hall President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party's candidate for reelection to the Presidency, and Governor Ronald Reagan of California, the Republican Party's candidate for the Presidency. The candidates will debate questions on domestic, economic, foreign policy, and national security issues. The questions are going to be posed by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me. They are: Marvin Stone, the editor of U.S. News and World Report; Harry Ellis, national correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor; William Hilliard, assistant managing editor of the Portland Oregonian; Barbara Walters, correspondent, ABC News. The ground rules for this, as agreed by you gentlemen, are these: Each panelist down here will ask a question, the same question, to each of the two candidates. After the two candidates have answered, a panelist will ask followup questions to try to sharpen the answers. The candidates will then have an opportunity each to make a rebuttal. That will constitute the first half of the debate, and I will state the rules for the second half later on. Some other rules: The candidates are not permitted to bring prepared notes to the podium, but are permitted to make notes during the debate. If the candidates exceed the allotted time agreed on, I will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. We ask the Convention Center audience here to abide by one ground rule: Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. Now, based on a toss of the coin, Governor Reagan will respond to the first question from Marvin Stone. QUESTIONS U.S. ARMED FORCES MR. STONE. Governor, as you're well aware, the question of war and peace has emerged as a central issue in this campaign in the give-and-take of recent weeks. President Carter's been criticized for responding late to aggressive Soviet impulses, for insufficient buildup of our Armed Forces, and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran. You have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action, to deal with foreign crises. Specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power? GOVERNOR REAGAN. I don't know what the differences might be, because I don't know what Mr. Carter's policies are. I do know what he has said about mine. And I'm only here to tell you that I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also that this meeting, this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the Free World, because we're the only one that can do it. And therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong. We can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last 3¼ years under the foreign policies of this administration of Mr. Carter's, until we're faced each time with a crisis. And good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. But I have seen four wars in my lifetime. I'm a father of sons; I have a grandson. I don't ever want to see another generation of young Americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the Pacific, or rice paddies and jungles in Asia, or the muddy, bloody battlefields of Europe. MR. SMITH. Mr. Stone, do you have a followup question for the Governor? MR. STONE. Yes. Governor, we've been hearing that the defense buildup that you would associate yourself with would cost tens of billions of dollars more than is now contemplated. In assuming that the American people are ready to bear this cost, they nevertheless keep asking the following question: How do you reconcile huge increases in military outlays with your promise of substantial tax cuts and of balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year, the one that just ended, ran more than $60 billion in the red? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Mr. Stone, I have submitted an economic plan that I've worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it, and believe that over a 5-year projection, this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbishing of our defensive posture, that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983, if not earlier, and that we can afford-along with the cuts that I have proposed in Government spending — we can afford the tax cuts I have proposed — and probably, mainly because Mr. Carter's economic policy has built into the next 5 years, and on beyond that, a tax increase that will be taking $86 billion more next year out of the people's pockets than was taken this year. And my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. I'm only reducing the amount of the increase. In other words, what I'm talking about is not putting Government back to getting less money than Government's been getting, but simply cutting the increase in spending. MR. SMITH. The same question now goes to President Garter. President Carter, would you like to have the question repeated? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. MR. STONE. Yes, President Carter, the question of war and peace, a central issue in this campaign. You've been criticized in the give-and-take for responding late to aggressive Soviet impulses, for an insufficient buildup of our Armed Forces, and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran. Governor Reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action, to deal with foreign crises such as I mentioned. Specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power? THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Stone, I've had to make thousands of decisions since I've been President, serving in the Oval Office. And with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country, I have learned in the process. I think I'm a much wiser and more experienced man than I was when I debated 4 years ago against President Ford. I've also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. H. L. Mencken said that for every problem there's a simple answer. It would be neat and plausible — and wrong. The fact is that this Nation, in the 8 years before I became President, had its own military strength decreased. Seven out of eight years, the budget commitments for defense went down, 37 percent, in all. Since I've been in office, we've had a steady, carefully planned, methodical but very effective increase in our commitment for defense. But what we've done is to use that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the United States to preserve the peace. We've not only kept peace for our own country, but we've been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. In the Middle East, we've worked for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, successfully, and have tied ourselves together with Israel and Egypt in a common defense capability. This is a very good step forward for our Nation's security, and we'll continue to do as we've done in the past. I might also add that there are decisions that are made in the Oval Office by every President which are profound in nature. There are always troublespots in the world, and how those troubled areas are addressed by a President, alone in that Oval Office, affects our Nation directly, the involvement of the United States and also our American interests. That is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently by every President who serves. That's what I've tried to do, successfully, by keeping our country at peace. MR. SMITH. Mr. Stone, do you have a followup on — MR. STONE. Yes. I would like to be a little more specific on the use of military power, and let's talk about one area for a moment. Under what circumstances would you use military forces to deal with, for example, a shutoff of Persian Oil Gulf, if that should occur, or to counter Russian expansion beyond Afghanistan into either Iran or Pakistan? I ask this question in view of charges that we are woefully unprepared to project sustained — and I emphasize the word "sustained" — power in that part of the world. THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Stone, in my State of the Union address earlier this year, I pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the Persian Gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. In the past, we've not had an adequate military presence in that region. Now we have two major carrier task forces. We have access to facilities in five different areas of that region. And we've made it clear that working with our allies and others, that we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality which might interrupt commerce with that crucial area of the world. But in doing this, we have made sure that we address this question peacefully, not injecting American military forces into combat, but letting the strength of our Nation be felt in a beneficial way. This, I believe, has assured that our interests will be protected in the Persian Gulf region, as we've done in the Middle East and throughout the world. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, you have a minute to comment or rebut. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, yes, I question the figure about the decline in defense spending under the two previous administrations, in the preceding 8 years to this administration. I would call to your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those 8 years, which of course made a change in military spending because of turning from war to peace. I also would like to point out that Republican Presidents in those years, faced with a Democratic majority in both Houses of the Congress, found that their requests for defense budgets were very often cut. Now, Gerald Ford left a 5-year projected plan for a military buildup to restore our defenses, and President Garter's administration reduced that by 38 percent, cut 60 ships out of the Navy building program that had been proposed, and stopped the B-1, delayed the cruise missile, stopped the production line for the Minuteman missiles, delayed the Trident submarine, and now is planning a mobile military force that can be delivered to various spots in the world — which does make me question his assaults on whether I am the one that is quick to look for use of force. MR. SMITH. President Carter, you have the last word on this question. THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are various elements of defense. One is to control nuclear weapons, which I hope we'll get to later on, because that's the most important single issue in this campaign. Another one is how to address troubled areas of the world. I think, habitually, Governor Reagan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas, when I and my predecessors both Democrats and Republicans — have advocated resolving those troubles and those difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiation. In addition to that, the buildup of military forces is good for our country, because we've got to have military strength in order to preserve the peace. But I'll always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat, and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. Strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand in hand. MR. SMITH. Thank you, gentlemen. The next question is from Harry Ellis to President Carter. THE NATION'S ECONOMY MR. ELLIS. Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8 percent. It now stands at more than 12 percent. Perhaps more significantly, the Nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7 to 9 percent. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term? THE PRESIDENT. Again it's important to put the situation into perspective. In 1974 we had a so-called oil shock, wherein the price of OPEC oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. We had an even worse oil shock in 1979. In 1974 we had the worst recession, the deepest and most penetrating recession since the Second World War. The recession that resulted this time was the briefest we've had since the Second World War. In addition, we've brought down inflation. Earlier this year, the first quarter, we did have a very severe inflation pressure, brought about by the OPEC price increase. It averaged about 18 percent the first quarter of this year. The second quarter, we had dropped it down to about 13 percent. The most recent figures, the last 3 months, or the third quarter of this year, the inflation rate is 7 percent — still too high, but it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs — 9 million new jobs in the last 3 1/2 years — that the inflationary threat is still urgent on us. I noticed that Governor Reagan recently mentioned the Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal, which his own running mate, George Bush, described as voodoo economics, and said that it would result in a 30-percent inflation rate. And Business Week, which is not a Democratic publication, said that this Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal — and I quote them, I think-was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures which would destroy this Nation. So, our proposals are very sound and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for American workers, and at the same time would be anti-inflationary in nature. So, to add 9 million new jobs, to control inflation, and to plan for the future with the energy policy now intact as a foundation is our plan for the years ahead. MR. SMITH. Mr. Ellis, do you have a followup question for Mr. Carter? MR. ELLIS. Yes, Mr. President. You have mentioned the creation of 9 million new jobs. THE PRESIDENT. Yes. MR. ELLIS. At the same time, the unemployment rate still hangs high, as does the inflation rate. Now, I wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to try to bring down that inflation rate? And would it be an act of leadership to tell the American people they're going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner lifestyle for some time to come? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have demanded that the American people sacrifice, and they've done very well. As a matter of fact, we're importing today about one-third less oil from overseas than we did just a year ago. We've had a 25-percent reduction since the first year I was in office. At the same time, as I said earlier, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that period of time — a record never before achieved. Also, the new energy policy has been predicated on two factors: One, conservation, which requires sacrifice, and the other one, increase in production of American energy, which is going along very well — more coal this year than ever before in history, more oil and gas wells drilled this year than ever before in history. The new economic revitalization program that we have in mind, which will be implemented next year, would result in tax credits which would let business invest in new tools and new factories to create even more new jobs — about a million in the next 2 years. And we also have planned a youth employment program which would encompass 600,000 jobs for young people. This has already passed the House; now has an excellent prospect to pass the Senate. MR. SMITH. Now, the same question goes to Governor Reagan. Governor Reagan, would you like to have the question repeated? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes, please. MR. ELLIS. Governor Reagan, during the past 4 years, the Consumer Price Index has risen from 4.8 percent to currently over 12 percent. And perhaps more significantly, the Nation's broader, underlying rate of inflation has gone up from 7 to 9 percent. Now, a part of that has been due to external factors beyond U.S. control, and notably, the more than doubling of OPEC oil prices last year, which leads me to ask you whether, since the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, specifically what measures would you pursue? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Mr. Ellis, I think this idea that has been spawned here in our country, that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore it's uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it, is entirely spurious, and it's dangerous to say this to the people. When Mr. Carter became President, inflation was 4.8 percent, as you said. It had been cut in two by President Gerald Ford. It is now running at 12.7 percent. President Carter also has spoken of the new jobs created. Well, we always, with the normal growth in our country and increase in population, increase the number of jobs. But that can't hide the fact that there are 8 million men and women out of work in America today, and 2 million of those lost their jobs in just the last few months. Mr. Carter had also promised that he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation. And yet, his 1980 economic message stated that we would reduce productivity and gross national product and increase unemployment in order to get a handle on inflation, because in January, at the beginning of the year, it was more than 18 percent. Since then, he has blamed to the people for inflation, OPEC, he's blamed the Federal Reserve System, he has blamed the lack of productivity of the American people, he has then accused the people of living too well and that we must share in scarcity, we must sacrifice and get used to doing with less. We don't have inflation because the people are living too well. We have inflation because the Government is living too well. And the last statement, just a few days ago, was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because Government revenues have not kept pace with Government spending. I see my time is running out here. I'll have to get this down very fast. Yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity and by decreasing the cost of Government to the place that we have balanced budgets and are no longer grinding out printing press money, flooding the market with it because the Government is spending more than it takes in. And my economic plan calls for that. The President's economic plan calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way. But we'll have a very poor nation and a very unsound economy if we follow that path. MR. SMITH. A followup, Mr. Ellis? MR. ELLIS. Yes, you have centered on cutting Government spending in what you have just said about your own policies. You have also said that you would increase defense spending. Specifically, where would you cut Government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes, so that, presumably, Federal revenues would shrink? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, most people, when they think about cutting Government spending, they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or wiping out something, some service that Government is supposed to perform. I believe that there is enough extravagance and fat in Government. As a matter of fact, one of the Secretaries of HEW under Mr. Carter testified that he thought there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare and in the medical programs associated with it. We've had the General Accounting Office estimate that there is probably tens of billions of dollars that is lost in fraud alone, and they have added that waste adds even more to that. We have a program for a gradual reduction of Government spending based on these theories, and I have a task force now that has been working on where those cuts could be made. I'm confident that it can be done and that it will reduce inflation, because I did it in California. And inflation went down below the national average in California when we returned money to the people and reduced government spending. MR. SMITH. President Carter. THE PRESIDENT. Governor Reagan's proposal, the Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal, is one of the most highly inflationary ideas that ever has been presented to the American public. He would actually have to cut Government spending by at least $130 billion in order to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. I noticed that his task force that's working for his future plans had some of their ideas revealed in the Wall Street Journal this week. One of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage, and several times this year, Governor Reagan has said that the major cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. This is a heartless kind of approach to the working families of our country which is typical of many Republican leaders in the past, but I think has been accentuated under Governor Reagan. In California — I'm surprised Governor Reagan brought this up — he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that State under his administration. He more than doubled State spending while he was Governor — 122-percent increase — and had between a 20- and 30-percent increase in the number of employees — MR. SMITH. Sorry to interrupt — THE PRESIDENT. — in California. MR. SMITH. — Mr. Carter. THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan has the last word on this question. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. The figures that the President has just used about California is a distortion of the situation there, because while I was Governor of California, our spending in California increased less per capita than the spending in Georgia while Mr. Carter was Governor of Georgia in the same 4 years. The size of government increased only onesixth in California of what it increased in proportion to population in Georgia. And the idea that my tax-cut proposal is inflationary: I would like to ask the President, why is it inflationary to let the people keep more of their money and spend it the way they'd like, and it isn't inflationary to let him take that money and spend it the way he wants? MR. SMITH. I wish that question need not be rhetorical, but it must be because we've run out of time on that. [Laughter] Now, the third question to Governor Reagan from William Hilliard. URBAN POLICIES MR. HILLIARD. Yes, Governor Reagan, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, the persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in the services to the public. The signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. What, specifically, would you do in the next 4 years to reverse this trend? GOVERNOR REAGAN. I have been talking to a number of Congressmen who have much the same idea that I have, and that is that in the inner-city areas, that in cooperation with local government and with National Government, and using tax incentives and with cooperation with the private sector, that we have development zones. Let the local entity, the city, declare this particular area, based on the standards of the percentage of people on welfare, unemployed, and so forth, in that area. And then, through tax incentives, induce the creation of businesses providing jobs and so forth in those areas. The elements of government through these tax incentives for example, a business that would not have, for a period of time, an increase in the property tax reflecting its development of the unused property that it was making wouldn't be any loss to the city, because the city isn't getting any tax from that now. And there would simply be a delay, and on the other hand, many of the people that would then be given jobs are presently wards of the Government, and it wouldn't hurt to give them a tax incentive, because that wouldn't be costing Government anything either. I think there are things to do in this regard. I stood in the South Bronx on the exact spot that President Carter stood on in 1977. You have to see it to believe it. It looks like a bombed-out city — great, gaunt skeletons of buildings, windows smashed out, painted on one of them "Unkept promises," on another, "Despair." And this was the spot at which President Carter had promised that he was going to bring in a vast program to rebuild this area. There are whole blocks of land that are left bare, just bulldozed down flat, and nothing has been done. And they are now charging to take tourists through there to see this terrible desolation. I talked to a man just briefly there who asked me one simple question: "Do I have reason to hope that I can someday take care of my family again? Nothing has been done." MR. SMITH. Follow-up, Mr. Hilliard? MR. HILLIARD. Yes, Governor Reagan. Blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our cities. Many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. There is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as nonwhites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. What do you think is the Nation's future as a multiracial society? GOVERNOR REAGAN. I believe in it. I am eternally optimistic, and I happen to believe that we've made great progress from the days when I was young and when this country didn't even know it had a racial problem. I know those things can grow out of despair in an inner city, when there's hopelessness at home, lack of work, and so forth. But I believe that all of us together — and I believe the Presidency is what Teddy Roosevelt said it was; it's a bully pulpit — and I think that something can be done from there, because the goal for all of us should be that one day, things will be done neither because of nor in spite of any of the differences between us — ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be — that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. And I would do everything I could in my power to bring that about. MR. SMITH. Mr. Hilliard, would you repeat your question for President Carter? MR. HILLIARD. President Carter, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, the persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in services to the public. The signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. What, specifically, would you do in the next 4 years to reverse this trend? THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. When I was campaigning in 1976, everywhere I went the mayors and local officials were in despair about the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our Nation. We initiated a very fine urban renewal program, working with the mayors, the Governors, and other interested officials. This has been a very successful effort. That's one of the main reasons that we've had such an increase in the number of people employed. Of the 9 million people put to work in new jobs since I've been in office, 1.3 million of those has been among black Americans and another million among those who speak Spanish. We now are planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid transit, mass transit. Under the windfall profits tax, we expect to spend about $43 billion in the next 10 years to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. We also are pursuing housing programs. We've had a 73-percent increase in the allotment of Federal funds for improved education. These are the kinds of efforts worked on a joint basis with community leaders, particularly in the minority areas of the central cities that had been deteriorating so rapidly in the past. It's very important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens. I've brought into the top levels of Government — into the White House, into administrative offices of the executive branch, into the judicial system — highly qualified black and Spanish citizens and women who in the past had been excluded. I noticed that Governor Reagan said that when he was a younger man that there was no knowledge of a racial problem in this country. Those who suffered from discrimination because of race or sex certainly knew we had a racial problem. We have gone a long way toward correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go. MR. SMITH. A followup question? MR. HILLIARD. Yes, President Carter, I'd like to repeat the same followup to you. Blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our cities. Many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. There is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as nonwhites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. What is your assessment of the Nation's future in a multiracial society? THE PRESIDENT. Ours is a nation of refugees, a nation of immigrants. Almost all of our citizens came here from other lands and now have hopes, which are being realized, for a better life, preserving their ethnic commitments, their family structures, their religious beliefs, preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries, but still forming themselves together in a very coherent society, which gives our Nation its strength. In the past, those minority groups have often been excluded from participation in the affairs of government. Since I've been President, I've appointed, for instance, more than twice as many black Federal judges as all previous Presidents in the history of this country. I've done the same thing in the appointment of women, and also Spanish-speaking Americans. To involve them in administration of government and a feeling that they belong to the societal structure that makes decisions in the judiciary and in executive branch is a very important commitment which I am trying to realize and will continue to do so in the future. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. The President talks of Government programs, and they have their place. But as Governor, when I was at that end of the line and receiving some of these grants for Government programs, I saw that so many of them were dead-end. They were public employment for these people who really want to get out into the private job market, where there are jobs with a future. Now, the President spoke a moment ago about — that I was against the minimum wage. I wish he could have been with me when I sat with a group of teenagers who were black and who were telling me about their unemployment problems, and that it was the minimum wage that had done away with the jobs that they once could get. And indeed, every time it has increased you will find there is an increase in minority unemployment among young people. And therefore, I have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. With regard to the great progress that has been made with this Government spending, the rate of black unemployment in Detroit, Michigan, is 56 percent. MR. SMITH. President Garter, you have the last word on this question. THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's obvious that we still have a long way to go in fully incorporating the minority groups into the mainstream of American life. We have made good progress, and there's no doubt in my mind that the commitment to unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, welfare, national health insurance, those kinds of commitments that have typified the Democratic Party since ancient history in this country's political life are a very important element of the future. In all those elements, Governor Reagan has repeatedly spoken out against them, which, to me, shows a very great insensitivity to giving deprived families a better chance in life. This, to me, is a very important difference between him and me in this election, and I believe the American people will judge accordingly. There is no doubt in my mind that in the downtown, central cities, with the new commitment on an energy policy, with a chance to revitalize homes and to make them more fuel-efficient, with a chance for a synthetic fuels program, solar power, this will give us an additional opportunity for jobs which will pay rich dividends. MR. SMITH. Thank you, gentlemen. Now for the fourth question, to President Garter from Barbara Walters. INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MS. WALTERS. Mr. President, the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in Iran. I realize this is a sensitive area, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. Other countries have policies that determine how they will respond. Israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. For the future, Mr. President, the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and what have we learned from this experience in Iran that might cause us to do things differently if this or something similar happens again? THE PRESIDENT. Barbara, one of the blights on this world is the threat and the activities of terrorists. At one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of the We. stern world, we committed ourselves to take strong action against terrorism. Airplane hijacking was one of the elements of that commitment. There is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against Jews in France and, of course, against those who live in Israel by the PLO and other terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the most serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations, who believe in terrorism as a policy, should have atomic weapons. Both I and all my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries like Libya or Iraq. We have even alienated some of our closest trade partners, because we have insisted upon the control of the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries. When Governor Reagan has been asked about that, he makes a very disturbing comment that nonproliferation, or the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, is none of our business. And when he was asked specifically, recently, about Iraq, he said there's nothing we can do about it. This ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all, and it's part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds. MR. SMITH. Ms. Walters, a followup? MS. WALTERS. Yes. While we are discussing policy, had Iran not taken American hostages, I assume that, in order to preserve our neutrality, we would have stopped the flow of spare parts and vital war materiels once war broke out between Iraq and Iran. Now, we're offering to lift the ban on such goods if they let our people come home. Doesn't this reward terrorism, compromise our neutrality, and possibly antagonize nations now friendly to us in the Middle East? THE PRESIDENT. We will maintain our position of neutrality in the Iran and Iraq war. We have no plans to sell additional materiel or goods to Iran that might be of a warlike nature. When I made my decision to stop all trade with Iran as a result of the taking of our hostages, I announced then and have consistently maintained since then that if the hostages are released safely, that we would make delivery on those items which Iran owns, which they have bought and paid for-also, that the frozen Iranian assets would be released. That's been a consistent policy, one I intend to carry out. MR. SMITH. Would you repeat the question now for Governor Reagan, please, Ms. Walters? Ms. WALTERS. Yes. Governor, the eyes of the country tonight remain on the hostages in Iran, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. There are other countries that have policies that determine how they will respond. Israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. For the future, the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and what have we learned from this experience in Iran that might cause us to do things differently if this, or something similar, should happen again? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, Barbara, you've asked that question twice. I think you ought to have at least one answer to it. [Laughter] I have been accused lately of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. Now, this comes from an answer that I've made at least 50 times during this campaign to the press. The question would be, "Have you any ideas of what you would do if you were there?" And I said, well, yes. And I think that anyone that's seeking this position, as well as other people, probably, have thought to themselves, "What about this, what about that?" These are just ideas of what I would think of if I were in that position and had access to the information, in which I would know all the options that were open to me. I have never answered the question, however. Second — the one that says, "Well, tell me, what are some of those ideas?" First of all, I would be fearful that I might say something that was presently under way or in negotiations, and thus expose it and endanger the hostages. And sometimes, I think some of my ideas might involve quiet diplomacy, where you don't say in advance or say to anyone what it is you're thinking of doing. Your question is difficult to answer, because, in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay, in any way, the return of those hostages if there is a chance of their coming home soon, or that might cause them harm. What I do think should be done, once they are safely here with their families and that tragedy is over — and we've endured this humiliation for just lacking 1 week of a year now — then, I think, it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why they have been there so long, and when they come home, what did we have to do in order to bring that about, what arrangements were made? And I would suggest that Congress should hold such an investigation. In the meantime, I'm going to continue praying that they'll come home. MR. SMITH. Follow-up question. Ms. WALTERS. Well, I would like to say that neither candidate answered specifically the question of a specific policy for dealing with terrorism, but I will ask Governor Reagan a different followup question. You have suggested that there would be no Iranian crisis had you been President, because we would have given firmer support to the Shah. But Iran is a country of 37 million people who were resisting a government they regarded as dictatorial. My question is not whether the Shah's regime was preferable to the Ayatollah's, but whether the United States has the power or the right to try to determine what form of government any country will have, and do we back unpopular regimes whose major merit is that they are friendly to the United States? GOVERNOR REAGAN. The degree of unpopularity of a regime when the choice is total authoritarianism — totalitarianism, I should say, in the alternative government, makes one wonder whether you are being helpful to the people. And we've been guilty of that. Because someone didn't meet exactly our standards of human rights, even though they were an ally of ours, instead of trying patiently to persuade them to change their ways, we have, in a number of instances, aided a revolutionary overthrow which results in complete totalitarianism, instead, for those people. And I think that this is a kind of a hypocritical policy when, at the same time, we're maintaining a detente with the one nation in the world where there are no human rights at all — the Soviet Union. Now, there was a second phase in the Iranian affair in which we had something to do with that. And that was, we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our Embassy, and we could have done what other Embassies did — either strengthen our security there or remove our personnel before the kidnap and the takeover took place. MR. SMITH. Governor, I'm sorry, I must interrupt. President Carter, you have a minute for rebuttal. THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear any comment from Governor Reagan about what he would do to stop or to reduce terrorism in the future. What the Western allies did decide to do is to stop all air flights-commercial air flights — to any nation involved in terrorism or the hijacking of airplanes, or the harboring of hijackers. Secondly, we all committed ourselves, as have all my predecessors in the Oval Office, not to permit the spread of nuclear weapons to a terrorist nation or to any other nation that does not presently have those weapons or capabilities for explosives. Third, not to make any sales of materiel or weapons to a nation which is involved in terrorist activities. And, lastly, not to deal with the PLO until and unless the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist and recognizes U.N. Resolution 242 as a basis for a Middle East peace. These are a few of the things to which our Nation is committed, and we will continue with these commitments. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, you have the last word on that question. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the things that have been done, because I believe it is high time that the civilized countries of the world made it plain that there is no room worldwide for terrorism; there will be no negotiation with terrorists of any kind. And while I have a last word here, I would like to correct a misstatement of fact by the President. I have never made the statement that he suggested about nuclear proliferation, and nuclear proliferation, or the trying to halt it, would be a major part of a foreign policy of mine. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, gentlemen. That is the first half of the debate. Now, the rules for the second half, quite simple. They're only complicated when I explain them. [Laughter] In the second half, the panelists with me will have no followup questions. Instead, after the panelists have asked a question the candidates have answered, each of the candidates will have two opportunities to follow up, to question, to rebut, or just to comment on his opponent's statement. Governor Reagan will respond, in this section, to the first question from Marvin Stone. STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION Mr. STONE. Governor Reagan, arms control: The President said it was the single most important issue, Both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but by methods that are vastly different. You suggest that we scrap the SALT II treaty, already negotiated, and intensify the buildup of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. MR. STONE. President Carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it's the best we can hope to get. Now, both of you cannot be right. Will you tell us why you think you are? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. I think I'm right, because I believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong America, and a strong economy. And then, as we build up our national security, to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time try to restrain the Soviet buildup, which has been going forward at a rapid pace and for quite some time. The SALT II treaty was the result of negotiations that Mr. Carter's team entered into after he had asked the Soviet Union for a discussion of actual reduction of nuclear strategic weapons, and his emissary, I think, came home in 12 hours having heard a very definite yet. But taking that one no from the Soviet Union, we then went back into negotiations on their terms, because Mr. Carter had canceled the B-1 bomber, delayed the MX, delayed the Trident submarine, delayed the cruise missile, shut down the Minuteman missile production line, and whatever other things that might have been done. The Soviet Union sat at the table knowing that we had gone forward with unilateral concessions without any reciprocation from them whatsoever. Now, I have not blocked the SALT II treaty, as Mr. Carter and Mr. Mondale suggest that I have. It has been blocked by a Senate in which there is a Democratic majority. Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 10 to 0, with 7 abstentions, against the SALT II treaty, and declared that it was not in the national security interests of the United States-besides which, it is illegal, because the law of the land, passed by Congress, says we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal. And we're not equal in this treaty for one reason alone: Our B-52 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons; their Backfire bombers are not. MR. SMITH. Governor, I have to interrupt you at that point. The time is up for that. But the same question now to President Carter. MR. STONE. Yes, President Carter. Both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but through vastly different methods. The Governor suggests we scrap the SALT II treaty, which you signed in Vienna — intensify the buildup of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. You, on the other hand, say you will again try to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it is the best we can hope to get from the Russians. You cannot both be right. Will you tell us why you think you are? THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'd be glad to. Inflation, unemployment, the cities-all very important issues, but they pale into insignificance in the life and duties of a President when compared with the control of nuclear weapons. Every President who has served in the Oval Office since Harry Truman has been dedicated to the proposition of controlling nuclear weapons, to negotiate with the Soviet Union — balanced, controlled, observable, and then reducing levels of atomic weaponry. There is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of Governor Reagan. He has never supported any of those arms control agreements — the limited test ban, SALT I, nor the antiballistic missile treaty, nor the Vladivostok Treaty negotiated with the Soviet Union by President Ford — and now he wants to throw into the wastebasket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on a balanced and equal basis between ourselves and the Soviet Union, negotiated over a 7-year period, by myself and my two Republican predecessors. The Senate has not voted yet on the strategic arms limitation treaty. There have been preliminary skirmishings in the committees of the Senate, but the treaty has never come to the floor of the Senate for either a debate or a vote. It's understandable that a Senator in the preliminary debates can make an irresponsible statement, or, maybe, an ill-advised statement. You've got 99 other Senators to correct that mistake, if it is a mistake. But when a man who hopes to be President says, "Take this treaty, discard it, do not vote, do not debate, do not explore the issues, do not finally capitalize on this long negotiation" — that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, you have an opportunity to rebut that. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes, I'd like to respond very much. First of all, the Soviet Union — if I have been critical of some of the previous agreements, it's because we've been outnegotiated for quite a long time. And they have managed, in spite of all of our attempts at arms limitation, to go forward with the biggest military buildup in the history of man. Now, to suggest that because two Republican Presidents tried to pass the SALT treaty — that puts them on its side — I would like to say that President Ford, who was within 90 percent of a treaty that we could be in agreement with when he left office, is emphatically against this SALT treaty. I would like to point out also that Senators like Henry Jackson and Hollings of South Carolina — they are taking the lead in the fight against this particular treaty. I am not talking of scrapping; I am talking of taking the treaty back and going back into negotiations. And I would say to the Soviet Union, we will sit and negotiate with you as long as it takes, to have not only legitimate arms limitation but to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither one of us represents a threat to the other. That is hardly throwing away a treaty and being opposed to arms limitation. MR. SMITH. President Carter? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Governor Reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements. He not only advocates the scrapping of this treaty — and I don't know that these men that he quotes are against the treaty in its final form — but he also advocates the possibility-he said it's been a missing element-of playing a trump card against the Soviet Union of a nuclear arms race and insisting upon nuclear superiority by our own Nation as a predication for negotiation in the future with the Soviet Union. If President Brezhnev said, "We will scrap this treaty, negotiated under three American presidents over a 7-year period of time; we insist upon nuclear superiority as a basis for future negotiations; and we believe that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future negotiations," it's obvious that I, as President, and all Americans would reject such a proposition. This would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. It would be very disturbing to American people. It would change the basic tone and commitment that our Nation has experienced ever since the Second World War, with all Presidents, Democratic and Republican, and would also be very disturbing to our allies, all of whom support this nuclear arms treaty. In addition to that, the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the Soviet Union would undoubtedly deteriorate very rapidly. This attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in its tone, although it's said with a quiet voice. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan? GOVERNOR REAGAN. I know the President's supposed to be replying to me, but sometimes, I have a hard time in connecting what he's saying with what I have said or what my positions are. I sometimes think he's like the witch doctor that gets mad when a good doctor comes along with a cure that'll work. My point I have made already, Mr. President, with regard to negotiating. It does not call for nuclear superiority on the part of the United States; it calls for a mutual reduction of these weapons, as I say, that neither of us can represent a threat to the other. And to suggest that the SALT II treaty that your negotiators negotiated was just a continuation, and based on all of the preceding efforts by two previous Presidents, is just not true. It was a new negotiation, because, as I say, President Ford was within about 10 percent of having a solution that could be acceptable. And I think our allies would be very happy to go along with a fair and verifiable SALT agreement. MR. SMITH. President Carter, you have the last word on this question. THE PRESIDENT. I think, to close out this discussion, it would be better to put into perspective what we're talking about. I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry and the control of nuclear arms. This is a formidable force. Some of these weapons have 10 megatons of explosion. If you put 50 tons of TNT in each one of railroad cars, you would have a trainload of TNT stretching across this Nation. That's one major war explosion in a warhead. We have thousands, equivalent of megaton, or million tons, of TNT warheads. The control of these weapons is the single major responsibility of a President, and to cast out this commitment of all Presidents, because of some slight technicalities that can be corrected, is a very dangerous approach. MR. SMITH. We have to go to another question now, from Harry Ellis to President Carter. ENERGY MR. ELLIS. Mr. President, as you have said, Americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. Yet U.S. dependence on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is today much higher than it was at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. And for some time to come, the loss of substantial amounts of Arab oil could plunge the U.S. into depression. Now, this means that a bridge must be built out of this dependence. Can the United States develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment, and will this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for American families? THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there's any doubt that, in the future, the cost of oil is going to go up. What I've had as a basic commitment since I've been President is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil: It can only be done in two ways: one, to conserve energy, to stop the waste of energy, and secondly, to produce more American energy. We've been very successful in both cases. We've now reduced the importing of foreign oil in the last year alone by onethird. We imported today 2 million barrels of oil less than we did the same day just a year ago. This commitment has been opening up a very bright vista for our Nation in the future, because with the windfall profits tax as a base, we now have an opportunity to use American technology and American ability and American natural resources to expand rapidly the production of synthetic fuels, yes; to expand rapidly the production of solar energy, yes; and also to produce the conventional kinds of American energy. We will drill more oil and gas wells this year than any year in history. We'll produce more coal this year than any year in history. We're exporting more coal this year than any year in history. And we have an opportunity now, with improved transportation systems and improved loading facilities in our ports, to see a very good opportunity on the world international market, to replace OPEC oil with American coal as a basic energy source. This exciting future will not only give us more energy security but will also open up vast opportunities for Americans to live a better life and to have millions of new jobs associated with this new and very dynamic industry now in prospect because of the new energy policy that we've put into effect. MR. SMITH. Would you repeat the question now for Governor Reagan? MR. ELLIS. Governor Reagan, Americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. And yet, U.S. reliance on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. And the substantial loss of Arab oil could plunge the United States into depression. The question is whether the development of alternative energy sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment, and will it mean for American families steadily higher fuel bills? GOVERNOR REAGAN. I'm not sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but I do believe that this Nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy-poor when it is energy-rich. The coal that the President mentioned: Yes, we have it, and yet one-eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now. The mines are closed down; there are 22,000 miners out of work. Most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it. With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act. I think, as technology improves, we'll be able to do even better with that. The other thing is that we have only leased out and begun to explore 2 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf for oil, where it is believed by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy that there are vast supplies yet to be found. Our Government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were — well, they were public lands subject to multiple-use exploration for minerals and so forth. It is believed that probably 70 percent of the potential oil in the United States is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. This is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of Alaska. Nuclear power: There were 36 powerplants planned in this country — and let me add the word "safety"; it must be done with the utmost of safety. But 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because Government regulations and permits and so forth make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the United States as it does to build one in Japan or in Western Europe. We have the sources here. We are energy-rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have. MR. SMITH. President Carter, your comment? THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. To repeat myself, we have this year the opportunity, which we'll realize, to produce 800 million tons of coal — an unequaled record in the history of our country. Governor Reagan says that this is not a good achievement, and he blames restraints on coal production on regulations — regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality of our water and our land. We cannot cast aside those regulations. We have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. Governor Reagan's approach to our energy policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal or to change substantially the windfall profits tax, to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil companies, to do away with the Department of Energy, to shortcircuit our synthetic fuels program, to put a minimal emphasis on solar power, to emphasize strongly nuclear powerplants as a major source of energy in the future. He wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan. GOVERNOR REAGAN. That is a misstatement, of course, of my position. I just happen to believe that free enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than Government can. The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion. It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy. And for Mr. Carter to suggest that I want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth as Governor of California, I took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the United States — the strictest air quality law that has ever been adopted in the United States. And we created an OSHA, an occupational safety and health agency, for the protection of employees before the Federal Government had one in place. And to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. So, I think some of those charges are missing the point. I am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary; that Government can do without; that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country; and that are contributing their part to inflation. And I would like to see us a little more free, as we once were. MR. SMITH. President Carter, another crack at that? THE PRESIDENT. Sure. As a matter of fact, the air pollution standard laws that were passed in California were passed over the objections of Governor Reagan, and this is a very well known fact. Also, recently, when someone suggested that the Occupational Safety and Health Act should be abolished, Governor Reagan responded, "Amen." The offshore drilling rights is a question that Governor Reagan raises often. As a matter of fact, in the proposal for the Alaska lands legislation, 100 percent of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95 percent of all the Alaska lands where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. We have, with our 5-year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. So, we're not putting restraints on American exploration; we're encouraging it in every way we can. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, you have the last word on this question. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. If it is a wellknown fact that I opposed air pollution laws in California, the only thing I can possibly think of is that the President must be suggesting the law that the Federal Government tried to impose on the State of California — not a law, regulations that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any California city, or have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. It would have destroyed the economy of California, and, I must say, we had the support of Congress when pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the Environmental Protection Agency. We still have the strictest air control or air pollution laws in the country. As for offshore oiling, only 2 percent now is so leased and is producing oil. The rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next 5 years or so — we're already 5 years behind in what we should be doing. There is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled than has been taken out in the 121 years that they've been drilled. MR. SMITH. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. President. The next question goes to Governor Reagan from William Hilliard. SOCIAL SECURITY MR. HILLIARD. Governor Reagan, wage earners in this country — especially the young — are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? GOVERNOR REAGAN. The social security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase. It is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. Now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our Nation's history, the payroll tax increase for social security, which will only put a Band-aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. What is needed is a study that I have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on social security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. We cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens, leave them thinking that in some way they're endangered and they would have no place to turn. They must continue to get those checks, and I believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. But it's going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the roof fall in on the next administration. MR. SMITH. Would you repeat that question for President Carter? MR. HILLIARD. Yes, President Carter. Wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? THE PRESIDENT. As long as there's a Democratic President in the White House, we will have a strong and viable social security system, free of the threat of bankruptcy. Although Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions he has advocated making social security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. I noticed also in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making social security more sound by reducing the adjustments in social security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. These kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security and the well-being, and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. But no matter what it takes in the future to keep social security sound, it must be kept that way. And although there was a serious threat to the social security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when I became President, the action of the Democratic Congress, working with me, has been to put social security back on a sound financial basis. That's the way it will stay. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, that just isn't true. It has, as I said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes. And I don't believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they're paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. Now, again this statement that somehow I wanted to destroy it, and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it. Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for social security insurance, because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who's paying in should be able to name his own beneficiaries. And that's the closest I've ever come to anything voluntary with social security. I, too, am pledged to a social security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours they're going to continue to get their money. Them are some changes I'd like to make. I would like to make a change that discriminates in the regulations against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her husband's benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in; but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. I'd like to change that. MR. SMITH. President Carter's rebuttal now. THE PRESIDENT. Fine. These constant suggestions that the basic social security system should be changed does cause concern and consternation among the aged of our country. It's obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that social security benefits should not be taxed, and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which social security payments are made to the retired people. We also need to continue to index the social security payments so that if inflation rises, the social security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of the social security check continue intact. In the past, the relationship between social security and Medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this Nation against Medicare. Now we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease; an emphasis on outpatient care, not inpatient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care for those who are ill; an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kind of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal. MR. SMITH. Governor. GOVERNOR REAGAN. There you go again. [Laughter] When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation as versus another. There is something else about social security — of course, that doesn't come out of the payroll tax; it comes out of the general fund — that something should be done about. I think it's disgraceful that the Disability Insurance Fund in social security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from social security every month while a State institution provides for all of their needs and their care. MR. SMITH. President Carter, you have the last word on this question. THE PRESIDENT. I think this debate on social security, Medicare, national health insurance typifies as vividly as any other subject tonight the basic historical differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The allusions to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments that Governor Reagan has made about unemployment compensation. These commitments that the Democratic Party has historically made to the working families of this Nation have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. I noticed recently that Governor Reagan frequently quotes Democratic Presidents, in his acceptance address and otherwise. I have never heard a candidate for President, who is a Republican, quote a Republican President, but when they get in office, they try to govern like Republicans. So, its good for the American people to remember there is a sharp basic historical difference between Governor Reagan and me on these crucial issues-also, between the two parties that we represent.  MR. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President, Governor Reagan.  We now go to another question, a question to President Carter by Barbara Walters. ASSESSMENTS OF OPPONENT MS. WALTERS. Thank you. You have addressed some of the major issues tonight, but the biggest issue in the minds of American voters is yourselves, your ability to lead this country. When many voters go into that booth just a week from today, they will be voting their gut instinct about you men. You've already given us your reasons why people should vote for you. Now would you please tell us for this your final question, why they should not vote for your opponent, why his Presidency could be harmful to the Nation and, having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness. THE PRESIDENT. Barbara, reluctant as I am to say anything critical about Governor Reagan, I will try to answer your question. [Laughter] First of all, there's the historical perspective that I just described. This is a contest between a Democrat in the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the actions that I've taken in the Oval Office the last 4 years, as contrasted with Governor Reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of Eisenhower and others. The most important crucial difference in this election campaign, in my judgment, is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the inclination to control or not to control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations that don't presently have it, particularly the terrorist nations. The inclination that Governor Reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he's been running for President — I think since 1968 — to inject American military forces in places like North Korea, to put a blockade around Cuba this year, or in some instances, to project American forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of Ecuador on the west coast of South America — this is typical of his longstanding inclination, on the use of American power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. Obviously, no President wants war, and I certainly do not believe that Governor Reagan, if he were President, would want war. But a President in the Oval Office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how to exercise the enormous power of our country for peace, through diplomacy, or in a careless way, in a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past. MR. SMITH. Barbara, would you repeat the question for Governor Reagan? MS. WALTERS. Yes, thank you. Realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, may I ask why people should not vote for your opponent, why his Presidency could be harmful to the Nation? And having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, could you tell us his greatest weakness? GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, Barbara, I believe that there is a fundamental difference-and I think it has been evident in most of the answers that Mr. Carter has given tonight — that he seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a Federal Government program. I happen to believe that the Federal Government has usurped powers and autonomy and authority that belongs back at the State and local level — it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people — and that there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves, if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them. Now, as to why I should be and he shouldn't be, when he was a candidate in 1976, President Carter invented a thing he called the misery index. He added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5 under President Ford. And he said that no man with that size misery index had a right to seek reelection to the Presidency. Today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20 percent, and I think this must suggest something. But when I have quoted a Democrat President, as the President says, I was a Democrat. I said many foolish things back in those days. [Laughter] But the President that I quoted had made a promise, a Democrat promise, and I quoted him because it was never kept. And today, you would find that that promise is at the very heart of what Republicanism represents in this country today. And that's why I believe there are going to be millions of Democrats that are going to vote with us this time around, because they too want that promise kept. It was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people. MR. SMITH. President Carter. THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I mentioned the radical departure of Governor Reagan from the principles or ideals or historical perspective of his own party. I don't think this can be better illustrated than in the case with guaranteeing women equal rights under the Constitution of our Nation. For 40 years, the Republican Party platforms called for guaranteeing women equal rights with a constitutional amendment. Six predecessors of mine who served in the Oval Office called for this guarantee of women's rights. Governor Reagan and the new Republican Party has departed from this commitment — a very severe blow to the opportunity for women finally to correct discrimination under which they have suffered. When a man and a woman do the same amount of work, a man gets paid a dollar; a woman only gets paid 59 cents. And the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for women by the Federal Government or by the State governments. That's all it says — a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the Democratic Party and which is a very important commitment of mine, as contrasted with Governor Reagan's radical departure from the longstanding policy of his own party. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes. Mr. President, once again, I happen to be against the amendment, because I think the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. I am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for 4 years, and not one single State — and most of them have a majority of Democratic legislators has added to the ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. While I was Governor, more than 8 years ago, I found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of California law, and I had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. I believe that if in all these years that we've spent trying to get the amendment, that we'd spent as much time correcting these laws, as we did in California — and we were the first to do it. If I were President, I would also now take a look at the hundreds of Federal regulations which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. I would have someone ride herd on those regulations, and we'd start eliminating those discriminations in the Federal Government against women. MR. SMITH. President Carter. THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Howard, I'm a southerner, and I share the basic beliefs of my region about an excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of American citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. One of the commitments that I made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. We've been remarkably successful, with the help of the Democratic Congress. We've deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions; now working on the communications industry. In addition to that, I believe this element of discrimination is something that the South has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected — not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people that have to work for a living — because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps since the long Depression years and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. We've made remarkable success. It's part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress. So, my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the Oval Office, convinces me that what I've just described is a proper course for the future. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan, yours is the last word. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Well, my last word is again to say that we were talking about this very simple amendment and women's rights. And I make it plain again: I am for women's rights. But I would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that so-called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to them. Those could all be challenged by men. And the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. I thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on. But, if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, I'm the only fellow that ever ran for this job who was six times president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. MR. SMITH. Gentlemen, each of you now have 3 minutes for a closing statement. President Carter, you're first. CLOSING STATEMENTS THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I'd like to thank the League of Women Voters for making this debate possible. I think it's been a very constructive debate, and I hope it's helped to acquaint the American people with the sharp differences between myself and Governor Reagan. Also, I want to thank the people of Cleveland and Ohio for being such hospitable hosts during this last few hours in my life. I've been President now for almost 4 years. I've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. I've seen the strength of my Nation, and I've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way. And I've had to deal with those crises as best I could. As I've studied the record between myself and Governor Reagan, I've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. I think the results of this debate indicate that that fact is true. I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of Presidents who've served before me. The United States must be a nation strong; the United States must be a nation secure. We must have a society that's just and fair. And we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. I believe that since I've been in office, there've been six or eight areas of combat evolve in other parts of the world. In each case, I alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. I've done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness; sometimes consulting experts. But I've learned in this last 3 1/2 years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. And the final judgment about the future of our Nation — war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern — has to be made by the man in the Oval Office. It's a lonely job, but with the involvement of the American people in the process, with an open government, the job is a very gratifying one. The American people now are facing, next Tuesday, a lonely decision. Those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. And I think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. If one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, John Kennedy would never have been President of this Nation. And if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, Hubert Humphrey would have been President; Richard Nixon would not. There is a partnership involved. And our Nation, to stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in all other nations is my plan for the future. I ask the American people to join me in this partnership. MR. SMITH. Governor Reagan. GOVERNOR REAGAN. Yes, I would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the League of Women Voters for making these debates possible. I'm sorry that we couldn't persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. But still, it's good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. Next Tuesday is election day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls; you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last 4 years is what you would like to see us follow for the next 4, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in. We do not have to go on sharing in scarcity, with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. We talk about the unemployment lines. If all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing 2 feet for each one of them, that line would reach from New York City to Los Angeles, California. All of this can be cured, and all of it can be solved. I have not had the experience the President has had in holding that office, but I think in being Governor of California, the most populous State in the Union if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world-I, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. I know that the economic program that I have proposed for this Nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. I know because we did it there. We cut the cost — the increased cost of government-the increase in half over the 8 years. We returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits, and cuts to our people. We, as I've said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. And I know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. I would like to have a crusade today, and I would like to lead that crusade with your help. And it would be one to take government off the backs of the great people of this country and turn you loose again to do those things that I know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. Thank you. MR. SMITH. Gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years the League of Women Voters has been committed to citizen education and effective participation of Americans in governmental and political affairs. The most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen who goes to the polls and who votes. On behalf of the League of Women Voters, now, I would like to thank President Carter and Governor Reagan for being with us in Cleveland tonight. And, ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good night. NOTE: The debate began at 9:30 p.m. in the Cleveland Convention Center Music Hall. It was broadcast live on radio and television. Ruth J. Hinerfeld is chair of the League of Women Voters Education Fund, and Howard K. Smith is a correspondent with ABC News. Jimmy Carter, Presidential Debate in Cleveland Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217132

September 21, 1980 RUTH J. HINERFELD, CHAIR, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: Good evening. I'm Ruth Hinerfeld of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. We're pleased to be in Baltimore for the first of our 1980 Presidential Debates. The League is a non-partisan organization. We're presenting these debates to provide citizens an opportunity to see and hear the candidates state their positions on important issues of concern to us all. Our moderator is Bill Moyers. MR. MOYERS, HOST AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "BILL MOYERS' JOURNAL," PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM: Thank you, Mrs. Hinerfeld. My colleagues and I agreed to participate tonight, although the questioners are limited by the constraints of the format, because we thought with the League of Women Voters, that it is desirable to seek a comparison of views on a few issues in a joint appearance by the men who would be the next President of the United States. Former Governor Ronald Reagan, a Republican Party candidate, and Congressman John Anderson, who is running as an Independent, accepted the League of Women Voters' invitation to be here. President Carter declined. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Anderson will respond with their views on certain issues posed by questions from my colleagues: Carol Loomis of Fortune Magazine; Daniel Greenberg, a syndicated columnist; Charles Corddry of the Baltimore Sun; Lee May of The Los Angeles Times; James Bryant Quinn. Jane Bryant Quinn of Newsweek; and Soma Golden of The New York Times. None of the questions has been submitted in advance to either the League of Women Voters, or to the candidates, or to their representatives. Gentlemen, thank you both for coming. The ground rules you agreed upon with the League are brief. Each panelist will ask a single question. You will have two and a half minutes in which to respond. After you've stated your positions in those two and a half minutes, each of you will have one minute and 15 seconds for response. At the close of the debate, each of you will have three minutes for closing remarks. We ask the Convention Center audience to abide by one simple ground rule: Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. You may do that on November 4. Having won the toss of the coin, Mr. Anderson will respond to the first question from Carol Loomis. CAROL LOOMIS, BOARD OF EDITORS,FORTUNE MAGAZINE : Mr. Anderson, opinion polls show that the American public sees inflation as the country's number one economic problem, yet, as individuals, they oppose cures that hurt them personally. Elected officials have played along by promising to cure inflation while backing away from tough programs that might hurt one special interest group or another, and by actually adding inflationary elements to the system, such as indexing. They have gone for what is politically popular, rather than for what might work and amount to leadership. My question, and please be specific, is what politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with, that might provide real progress in reducing inflation? REP. JOHN B. ANDERSON: Miss Loomis, I think it's very appropriate that the first question in this first debate of Campaign '80 should relate to the economy of the country, because it seems to me that the people who are watching us tonight - 221 million Americans - are truly concerned about the poor rate of performance of the American economy over the last four years. Governor Reagan is not responsible for what has happened over the last four years, nor am I. The man who should be here tonight to respond to those charges chose not to attend. But I want to answer as specifically as I can the question that you have just put to me. Let me tell you that I, first of all, oppose an election year tax cut, whether it is the 10% across-the-board tax cut promised to the taxpayers by my opponent in this debate tonight, or whether it is the $27.5 billion tax cut promised on the 20th of August by President Carter. I simply think that when we are confronting a budget deficit this year - and this fiscal year will end in about 10 days, and we are confronted with the possibility of a deficit of $60 billion, perhaps as much as $63 billion - that that simply would be irresponsible. That, once again, the printing presses will start to roll; once again we will see the monetization of that debt result in a higher rate of inflation. Even though we've seen some hopeful signs, perhaps, in the flash report on the third quarter, that perhaps the economy is coming out of the recession, we've also seen the rise in the rate of the prime; we have seen mortgage rates back up again, a sure sign of inflation in the housing industry. What I would propose, and I proposed it way back in March when I was a candidate in my own state of Illinois, I proposed $11.3 billion, specifically, in cuts in the Federal budget. I think we've got to have fiscal restraint. And I said at that time that one of the things that we could do, that perhaps would save as much as $5 billion to $7 billion, according, to one of the leading members of the House Budget Committee, was to recalculate the index that is used to determine the cost of living benefits that are paid to civil service retirees, to military retirees. That we ought to ... in addition to that, we ought to pay those retirement benefits on the basis of once a year, rather than twice a year, and save $750 billion. In other words.... MOYERS: Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: fiscal restraint, I think is necessary. MOYERS: your time is up. Ms. Loomis? LOOMIS: Governor Reagan, repeating the question, and I would ask you, again, to engage in as many specifics as you possibly can. What politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation? GOV. RONALD REAGAN: I believe that the only unpopular measures, actually, that could be, or would be applied, would be unpopular with the government, and with those. perhaps, some special interest groups who are tied closely to government. I believe that inflation today is caused by government simply spending more than government takes in, at the same time that government has imposed upon business and industry, from the shopkeeper on the corner to the biggest industrial plant in America, countless harassing regulations and punitive taxes that have reduced productivity at the same time they have increased the cost of production. And when you are reducing productivity at the same time that you are turning out printing-press money in excessive amounts, you're causing inflation. And it isn't really higher prices, it's just, you are reducing the value of the money. You are robbing the American people of their savings. And so, the plan that I have proposed - and contrary to what John says, my plan is for a phased-in tax cut over a three-year period, tax increase and depreciation allowances for business and industry to give them the capital to refurbish plant and equipment, research and development, improved technology - all of which we see our foreign competitors having, and we have the greatest percentage of outmoded industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations - produce more, have stable money supply, and give the people of this country a greater share of their own savings. Now, I know that this has been called inflationary by my opponent and by the man who isn't here tonight. But I don't see where it is inflationary to have people keep more of their earnings and spend it, and it isn't inflationary for government to take that money away from them and spend it on the things it wants to spend it on. I believe we need incentive for the individual, and for business and industry, and I believe the plan that I have submitted, with detailed backing, and which has been approved by a number of our leading economists in the country, is based on projections. conservative projections out for the next five years, that indicates that this plan would, by 1983, result in a balanced budget. We have to remember, when we talk a tax cut, we're only talking about reducing a tax increase, because this Administration has left us with a built-in tax increase that will amount to $86 billion next year. MOYERS: Your time is up. REAGAN: ...and $500 billion over the next five. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson? ANDERSON: Mr. Movers, in addition to saying that this is no time for a tax cut, in view of the incipient signs of renewed inflation, in addition to calling for restraint in Federal spending, 15 months ago, I also suggested we ought to have an emergency excise tax on gasoline. I say that because I think, this year, we will send $90 billion out of this country to pay for imported oil, even though that. those imports have been reduced. And since I first made that proposal 15 months ago, the price of gasoline, which was then $.80, has gone up to about $1.30. In other words, we've had a huge increase of about $.50 a gallon since that time, and all of that increase has gone out of this country - or much of it - into the pockets of OPEC oil producers. Whereas I have proposed we ought to take. put that tax on here at home, reduce our consumption of that imported oil. Recycle those proceeds, then, back into the pockets of the American workers by reducing their tax payments. their Social Security tax payments by 50%. That, I think, in addition, would be an anti-inflationary measure that would strengthen the economy of this country. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan. REAGAN: Well, I cannot see where a $.50 a gallon tax applied to gasoline would have changed the price of gasoline. It would still have gone up as much as it has, and the $.50 would be added on top of that. And it would be a tax paid by the consumers, and then we're asked to believe that some way, they would get this back to the consumers. But why? Why take it in the first place if you're going to give it back? Why not leave it with them? And John spoke about 15 years ago, on the position that he. or 15 months ago, on what he believed in. Fifteen months ago, he was a cosigner and advocating the very tax cut that I am proposing, and said that that would be a forward step in fighting inflation, and that it would be beneficial to the working people of this country. MOYERS: The next question goes to Mr. Reagan from Daniel Greenberg. GREENBERG, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, gentlemen, what I'd like to say first is, I think the panel and the audience would appreciate responsiveness to the questions, rather than repetitions of your campaign addresses. My question for the Governor is: Every serious examination of the future supply of energy and other essential resources - including air, land and water - finds that we face shortages and skyrocketing prices, and that, in many ways, we're pushing the environment to dangerous limits. I'd like to know, specifically, what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and general consumption, to meet problems that aren't going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production? REAGAN: Well, I believe that conservation, at course, is worthy in and of itself. Anything that would preserve, or help us use less energy, that would be fine, and I'm for it. But I do not believe that conservation alone is the answer to the present energy problem, because all you're doing then is staving off, by a short time, the day when you would come to the end of the energy supply. To say that we are limited, and at a dangerous point in this country with regard to energy, I think, is to ignore the fact. The fact is, that in today's oil wells, there is more oil still there than we have so far taken out and used. But it would require what is known as secondary or tertiary efforts to bring it out of the ground. And this is known oil reserves, known supplies. There are hundreds of millions of acres of land that have been taken out of circulation by the Government for whatever reason they have, that is believed by the most knowledgeable oil geologists to contain probably more oil and natural gas than we have used so far since we drilled that first well 121 years ago. We have a coal supply that is equal to 50% of the world's coal supply, good for centuries, in this country. I grant you that prices may go up, because as you go further and have to go deeper, you are adding to the cost of production. We have nuclear power, which, I believe, with the safest. the most stringent of safety requirements, could meet our energy needs for the next couple of decades while we go forward exploring the areas of solar power and other forms of energy that might be renewable and that would not be exhaustible. All of these things can be done. When you stop and think that we are only drilling on 2%. have leased only 2% of the possible. possibility for oil of the continental shelf around the United States; when you stop to think that the government has taken over 100 million acres of land out of circulation in Alaska, alone, that is believed by geologists to contain much in the line of minerals and energy sources, then I think it is the Government, and the Government with its own restrictions and regulations, that is creating the energy crisis. That we are, indeed, an energy-rich nation. MOYERS: I would like to say at this point that the candidates requested the same questions to be repeated, for the sake of precision, on the part of the interrogator. So, Mr. Greenberg, you may address Mr. Anderson. GREENBERG: Mr. Anderson, I'd like to know specifically, what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and consumption, to meet problems that aren't going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production? ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Greenberg, I simply cannot allow to go unpassed the statements that have just been made by Mr. Reagan, who once again, has demonstrated, I think, a total misunderstanding of the energy crisis that confronts, not only this country, but the world, when he suggests that we have 27 years' supply of natural gas, 47 years' supply of oil, and all the rest, and that we really. all we have to do is to get the Government off the back of the oil industry, and that's going to be enough. I agree with what I think is the major premise of your question, sir, that we are going to have to create a new conservation ethic in the minds of the American people. and that's simply why I proposed, 15 months ago, the emergency excise tax on gasoline that I did. I did it as a security measure to be sure, because I would rather see us reduce the consumption of imported oil than have to send American boys to fight in the Persian Gulf. But at the same time, I think it's going to take a dramatic measure of that kind to convince the American people that we will have to reduce the use of the private automobile. We simply cannot have people sitting one behind the wheel of a car in these long traffic jams going in and out of our great cities. We are going to have to resort to van pooling, to car pooling. We're going to have to develop better community transportation systems, so that with buses and light rail, we can replace the private automobile in those places where it clearly is not energy-efficient. I think that, with respect to housing, when we are consuming, even though our per capita income today is about the same as that of the Federal Republic of Germany, we are consuming about, by a factor of two, the amount of energy that they consume in that country. Surely, there are things that we can do in the retrofitting, ;n the redesign of our homes, not only of our houses, but of our commercial structures, as well, that will make it possible for us to achieve. According to one study that was published a short time ago - the Harvard Business School study - indicated that just in the commercial sector alone of the economy, we could save between 30% and 40% of the energy that we consume in this country today. So I think, yes, we will have to change in a very appreciable way, some of the lifestyles that we now enjoy. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan. REAGAN: Well, as I've said, I am not an enemy of conservation. I wouldn't be called a conservative if I were. But, when my figures are challenged, as the President himself challenged them after I made them, I think it should be called to the attention of John and the others here that my figures are the figures of the Department of Energy, which has not been overly optimistic in recent years as to how much supply we have left. That is the same Government that, in 1920, told us we only had enough oil left for 13 years, and 19 years later, told us we only had enough left for another 15 years. As for saving energy and conserving, the American people haven't been doing badly at that. Because in industry today, we're producing more, over the last several years, and at 12% less use of energy than we were back in about 1973. And motorists are using 8% less than they were back at that time of the oil embargo. So, I think we are proving that we can go forward with conservation and benefit from that. But also, I think it is safe to say that we do have sources of energy that have not yet been used or found. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: Mr. Greenberg, I think my opponent in this debate tonight is overlooking one other very important fact. And that is, that we cannot look at this as simply a national problem. Even though it's true that, perhaps, between now and the end of the decade, our total consumption of oil may not increase by more than, perhaps, a million or 2 million barrels of oil a day. The rest of the Western world, we are told, may see its consumption increase from 51 million barrels to about 66 million. And that additional 15 million barrels is going to cause scarcity. It is going to cause scarcity in world markets because there are at least five reputable studies, one even by the American Petroleum Institute itself, that, I think, clearly indicate that somewhere along around the end of the present decade, total world demand for oil is simply going to exceed total available supplies. I think that conservation - I think that a change in lifestyles - is necessary, and we had better begin to plan for that now rather than later. MOYERS: This question goes to you, Mr. Anderson, from Charles Corddry. CHARLES CORDDRY, MILITARY CORRESPONDENT,THE SUN , BALTIMORE: Mr. Anderson, you and Mr. Reagan both speak for better defense. for stronger defense and for programs that would mean spending more money. You do not, either of you, however, come to grips with the fundamental problem of manning the forces, of who shall serve, and how the burden will be distributed. This will surely be a critical issue in the next Presidential term. You both oppose the draft. The questions are, how would you fill the under-strength combat forces with numbers and quality, without reviving conscription? And will you commit yourself, here, tonight, should you become the Commander in Chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not working? ANDERSON: Mr. Corddry, I am well aware of the present deficiencies in the Armed Forces of this country. When you have a report, as we did recently, that six out of 10 CONUS Divisions in this country - Continental United States Army Divisions - simply could not pass a readiness test: that two out of three divisions that were to be allocated to the so-called Rapid Deployment Force could not meet a readiness test. And in most cases, that failure to meet the test was because of a lack of manning requirements, an inability to fill many of the slots in those divisions. Yes, I have seen figures that indicate that perhaps as of September, 1980 - this very month - that there is a shortage of about 104,000 in the ranks between E-4 and E-9. And there were reports. public reports not long ago about ships that could not leave American ports because of a lack of crews. I talked to one of the leading former chiefs of Naval operations in my office a few weeks ago, who told me about 25,000 Chief Petty Officers being short. But, I think that that is clearly related to the fact that, going back to the time when the all-volunteer Army was created in 1973 - and I worked hard for it and supported it - we simply have failed to keep pace with the cost of living. And today, on the average, the average serviceman is at least 15% - and I happen to think that's a very modest estimate - 15% below what has happened to the cost of living over that period of time. And as a result, the families of some of our young servicemen are on food stamps today. And I think that's shocking; it's shameful. So, yes, I told the American Legion National! Convention, the VFW National Convention - when I spoke to each of those bodies - I outlined a very specific program of increasing pay and allowances, reenlistment bonuses. That only makes sense. But I would leave you with this thought, sir, to be quite specific in my answer to your question: that, of course, to protect the vital interests of this country, if that became impossible; if I could not, despite the very best efforts that I asked the Congress to put forward, to raise those pay and incentives and allowances, of course, I would not leave this country go undefended. MOYERS: Mr. Corddry? CORDDRY: Mr. Reagan, I will just repeat the two questions: How would you fill the under-strength combat forces with numbers and with quality, without reviving conscription? And will you commit yourself; here, tonight, should you become the Commander in Chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not solving our manpower problems? REAGAN: Mr. Corddry, it's a shame now that there are only two of us here debating, because the two that are here are in more agreement than disagreement on this particular issue, and the only one who would be disagreeing with us is the President, if he were present. I. too, believe in the voluntary military. As a matter of fact, today the shortages of non-commissioned officers that John mentioned are such that if we tried to have a draft today, we wouldn't have the non-commissioned officers to train the draftees. I believe the answer lies in just recognizing human nature and how we make everything else work in this country, when we want it to work. Recognize that we have a voluntary military. We are asking for men and women to join the military as a career, and we're asking them to deal with the most sophisticated of equipment. And a young man is out there on a $1 billion carrier in charge of the maintenance of a $20 million aircraft, working 100 hours a week at times, and he's earning less for himself and his family, while he's away from his family, than he could earn if he were in one of the most menial jobs, working 40 hours a week here at home. As an aid to enlistment. we had an aid - 46% of the people who enlisted in the voluntary military up until 1977 said they did so for one particular reason, the G.I. Bill of Rights - the fact that, by serving in the military, they could provide for a future college education. In 1977, we took that away from the military. That meant immediately 46% of your people that were signing up had no reason for signing up. So I think it is a case of pay scale, of recognizing that if we're going to have young men and women responsible for our security, dealing with this sophisticated equipment, then for heaven's sakes, let's go out and have a pay scale that is commensurate with the sacrifice that we're asking of them. Along with this, I think we need something else that has been allowed to deteriorate. We need a million-man active reserve that could be called up on an instant's notice, and that would be also trained, ready to use that type of equipment. Both of these, I think, would respond to the proper kind of incentives that we could offer these people. The other day, I just - I'll hasten - I just saw one example. Down in Texas. I saw a high school that is military. MOYERS: Your time is up, Mr. Reagan. REAGAN: Fine. MOYERS: I'm sorry. REAGAN: I'll catch up with it later. MOYERS: You can finish it after it's over. Mr. Anderson? ANDERSON: Mr. Moyers. I must say that I think I have better opportunity, however, of finding the necessary funds to pay what, admittedly, will be very, very substantial sums of money. We signed one bill. or we passed one bill, just a couple of weeks ago in the House of Representatives for $500 million - a half a billion dollars. That is just a downpayment, in my opinion. But, unlike Governor Reagan, I do not support a boondoggle like the MX missile. I've just gotten a report from the Air Force that indicates that the 30-year lifecycle cost of that system is going to be $100 billion. The initial cost is about $54 billion, and then when you add in the additional costs - not only the construction of the system, the missiles and the personnel, and so on - when you add in the additional costs over the lifecycle of that system, over $100 billion. I would propose to save the taxpayers of this country from that kind of costly boondoggle. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan? REAGAN: Well, let me just say that, with regard to that same missile system, I happen to support and believe in the missile, itself. But that's not the $54 billion cost that John is talking about. He's talking about that fantastic plan of the Administration to take thousands and thousands of square miles out in the Western states. And first, he was going to dig a racetrack and have it going around in the racetrack so it would meet the requirements of SALT II treaty, and now he's decided it'll have a straight up and down thing, so it can he both verifiable and yet hideable from the Soviet Union. We need the missile, I think, because we are so out of balance strategically that we lack a deterrent to a possible first assault. But I am not in favor of the plan that is so costly. And therefore, if I only had another second left, I'd say that that high school class in a military training - 40 of its 80 graduates last year entered the United States service academies; West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and to see those young men made me very proud to realize that there are young people in this country that are prepared to go into that kind of a career in service of their country. MOYERS: This question comes to you, Mr. Reagan, from my colleague, Lee May. LEE MAY, STAFF WRITER,THE LOS ANGELES TIMES - WASHINGTON BUREAU: Mr. Reagan, the military is not the only area in crisis. American cities are physically wearing out, as housing, streets, sewers and budgets all fall apart. And all of this is piled upon the emotional strain that comes from refugees and racial confrontations. Now, I'm wondering what specific plans do you have for Federal involvement in saving our cities from these physical and emotional! crises, and how would you carry out those plans in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint? REAGAN: I don't think I'd have to go against that pledge. I think one of the problems today with the cities is Federal aid. The mayors that I've talked to in some of our leading cities tell! me that the Federal grants that come with. for a specific cause or a specific objective, come with such red tape, such priorities established by a bureaucracy in Washington, that the local government's hands are tied with regard to using that money as they feel could best be used, and for what they think might be the top priority. If they had that money without those government restrictions, every one of them has told me they could make great savings and make far greater use of the money. What I have been advocating is, why don't we start with the Federal Government turning back tax sources to states and local governments, as well as the responsibilities for those programs? Seventy-five percent of the people live in the cities. I don't know of a city in America that doesn't have the kind of problems you're talking about. But, where are we getting the money that the Federal Government is putting out to help them? New York is being taxed for money that will then go to Detroit. But Detroit is being taxed for money that, let's say, will go to Chicago, while Chicago is being taxed to help with the problems in Philadelphia. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if the government let them keep their own money there in the first place? But there are other things that we can do with the inner cities, and I've believed. I have talked of having zones in those cities that are run down, where there is a high percentage of people on welfare, and offer tax incentives. The government isn't getting a tax now from businesses there because they aren't there, or from individuals who are on welfare rather than working. And why don't we offer incentives for business and industry to start up in those zones? Give them a tax moratorium for a period if they build and develop there. The individuals that would then get jobs - give them a break that encourages them to leave the social welfare programs and go to work. We could have an urban homestead act. We've got thousands and thousands of homes owned by government boarded up, being vandalized, that have been taken in mortgage foreclosures. What if we had a homestead act, and said to the people, for $1 we sell you this house. All have to do is agree to refurbish it, make it habitable, and live in it - just as 100 or more years ago, we did with the open land in this country - urban . or country homesteading. MOYERS: Mr. May? MAY: Mr. Anderson, let me ask you, what specific plans do you have for Federal involvement in saving cities from the physical and emotional crises that confront them, and how would you carry out those plans, in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint? ANDERSON: Mr. May, I recently saw a Princeton University study that indicated that the cities of America - the large cities of this country - are in worse shape today than they were in 1960. It seems to totally belie the claim that I heard President Carter make a few days ago, that he was the first President that had come forth with a real urban strategy to meet the problems of urban America. Incidentally, just this past week, the crown jewel in that program that he had devised was stolen, I guess, because a conference committee turned down the ambitious plan that he had to increase the amount of money that would be available to the Economic Development Administration for loan guarantees and direct loans and credits. I'm happy to say that, in contrast to that, the Anderson-Lucey platform for America, program for the 80s, has devoted considerable time, and in very specific detail, we have talked about two things that ought to be done to aid urban America. We call, first of all, for the creation of a $4 billion urban reinvestment trust fund to do exactly what you spoke about in your question - to rebuild the streets, to rebuild the cities, the leaking water mains. I was in North Pittsburgh - I think it was a few weeks ago, on my campaign - the water mains in that city had begun to leak, and literally, there wasn't money available to fix them. And until we can begin to recreate the basic infrastructure of the great cities of America, particularly in the upper Midwest and in the Northeast, they simply are not going to provide the kind of economic climate that will enable them to retain industry, enable them to retain the kind of solid industrial base that they need, so that they can provide jobs. We have also provided in our program for a $4 billion Community Trust Fund, and we've told you where the money is coming from. It's going to come from the dedication, by 1984, of the excise revenues that today are being collected by the Federal Government on alcohol and tobacco. That money, I think, ought to be put into rebuilding the base of our cities. In addition to that, jobs programs to re-employ the youth in our cities would be very high on my priority list, both the Youth Opportunities Act of 1980 and a billion-dollar program that I would recommend to put youth to work in energy projects, in conservation projects, in projects that would carry out some of the great national goals of our country. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan, your response. REAGAN: Yes. Government claims. John claims that he is making plain where the money will come from. It will come from the pockets of the people. It will come from the pockets of the people who are living in those very areas. And the problem is, with Governments - Federal, State and Local - taking $.44 out of every dollar earned, that the Federal Government has pre-empted too many of the tax sources, and that the cities. if Pittsburgh does not have the money to fix the leaking water mains, it's because the Federal Government has pre-empted. Now, the Federal Government is going to turn around and say, well you have this problem; we will now hand you the money to do it. But the Federal Government doesn't make money. It just takes - from the people. And in my view, this is not the answer to the problem. Stand in the South Bronx as I did, in the spot where Jimmy Carter made his promise that he was going to, with multi-billion dollar programs, refurbish that area that looks like bombed-out London in World War II. I stood there, and I met the people. And I heard them ask just for something that would give them hope. And I believe that, while all of the promises have been broken, they've never been carried out. But I believe that my plan might offer an opportunity for that, if we would move into those areas and let, encourage - with the tax incentive - the private sector, to develop and to create the jobs for the people. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: Well, of course, where has the private sector been, Governor Reagan, during the years that our cities have been deteriorating? It seems to me that to deny the responsibility of the Federal Government to do something about our crumbling cities is to deny the opportunity for one thing: To 55% of the black population of our country that is locked within the inner cities of the metropolitan areas of our country. We simply cannot ignore the fact that, in those cities today, we have 55% youth unemployment among black and Hispanic youth. And why is that? It's because they have lost their industry. And why have they lost their industry? It's because they no longer present the kind of viable economic climate that makes it possible for industry to remain there, or to locate there. I think Government has a responsibility to find jobs for the youth of this country, and that the place to start is to assist in the very important and necessary task of helping cities rebuild. MOYERS: Jane Bryant Quinn has the next question, for you, Mr. Anderson. JANE BRYANT QUINN, CBS NEWS/NEWSWEEK /WASHINGTON POST : Mr. Anderson, many voters are very worried that tax cuts, nice as they are, will actually add to inflation. And many eminent conservatives have testified that even business tax cuts, as you have proposed, can be inflationary as long as we have a budget deficit. Now, Mr. Reagan has mentioned that he put out a five-year economic forecast, which indeed he did, but it contained no inflation number. You have published a detailed program, but it too does not have any hard numbers on it about how these things work with inflation. So I would like to ask you, if you will commit to publish specific forecasts within two weeks, so that the voters can absorb them and understand them and analyze them, showing exactly what al these problems you've mentioned tonight - on energy, on defense, on the cities - how these impact on inflation, and what inflation's actually going to be over five years. ANDERSON: Miss Quinn, I would be very happy to accept the challenge of your question tonight, to tell the voters of this country exactly what I think it's going to cost, because I believe that all too often in past elections, politicians have simply been promising people things that they cannot deliver. When these Presidential Debates were held just four years ago, I remember the incumbent President, who was willing to debate, President Ford, telling the American people that they simply ought not to vote for somebody who promised more than they could deliver. Well, we've seen what has happened. We haven't gotten either the economies in Government that were promised; we haven't gotten the 4% inflation that we were supposed to get at the end of Mr. Carter's first term. Instead we had, I think, in the second quarter, a Consumer Price Index registering around 12%. And nobody really knows, with the latest increase in the Wholesale Price Index - that's about 18% on an annualized basis - what it's going to be. Let me say this. I think my programs are far less inflationary than those of Governor Reagan. His own running mate, when he was running for the Presidency, said that they would cost 30% inflation inside of two years, and he cited his leading economic advisor, a very distinguished economist, Paul Macavoy, as the source of that information. He went so far as to call it "brutal economics." I've been very careful - I have been very careful in saying that what I'm going to do is to bring Federal spending under control first. I would like to stand here and promise the American people a tax cut, as Governor Reagan has done. But, you know, it's gotten to be about $122 difference. Somebody worked it out. And they figured out that between the tax cut that Governor Reagan is promising the American people, and the tax cut that Jimmy Carter is promising in 198I, his is worth about $122 more. So you, dear voters, are out there on the auction block, and these two candidates are bidding for your votes. And one is going to give you $122 more if you happen to be in that range of about a $20,000-a-year income. I'm going to wait until I see that that inflation rate is going down, before I even begin to phase in the business tax cuts that I've talked about. But I think, by improving productivity, they would be far less inflationary than the consumption-oriented tax cut that Governor Reagan is recommending. MOYERS: Ms. Quinn. QUINN: Mr. Anderson, I'll call you for that forecast. Mr. Reagan, will you publish specific forecasts within two weeks, so that the voters can have time to analyze and absorb them before the election, showing exactly what all these things you've discussed tonight - for energy, cities and defense - mean for inflation over the next five years? REAGAN: Miss Quinn, I don't have to. I've done it. We have a back-up paper to my economic speech of a couple of weeks ago in Chicago, that gives all of the figures. And we used - yes, we used - the Senate Budget Committee's projections for five years, which are based on an average inflation rate of 7.5% - which, I think, that under our plan, can be eliminated. And eliminated probably more quickly than our plan, but we wanted to be so conservative with it, that people would see how. how well it could be done. Now, John's been in the Congress for 20 years. And John tells us that first, we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker. But Government has never reduced Government does not tax to get the money it needs. Government always needs the money it gets. And when John talks about his non-inflationary plan, as far as I have been able to learn, there are 88 proposals in it that call for additional Government spending programs. Now, I speak with some confidence of our plan, because I took over a state - California - 10% of the population of this nation - a state that, if it were a nation, would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world. And that state we controlled spending. We cut the rate of increase in spending in half. But at the same time, we gave back to the people of California - in tax rebates, tax credits, tax cuts - $5.7 billion. I vetoed 993 measures without having a veto overturned. And among those vetoes, I stopped $16 billion in additional spending. And the funny thing was that California, which is normally above the national average in inflation and unemployment, for those six years for the first time, was below the national average in both inflation and unemployment. We have considered inflation in our figures. We deliberately took figures that we, ourselves, believed were too conservative. I believe the budget can be balanced by 1982 or 1983, and it is a combination of planned reduction of the tax increase that Carter has built into the economy, and that's what he's counting on for his plan. But he's going to get a half-a-trillion dollars more over the next five years that he can use for additional programs, or hopefully, someplace down the line, balancing the budget. We believe that that's too much additional money to take out of the pockets of the people. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: Mr. Moyers, I'm not here to debate Governor Reagan's record as Governor. This is 1980 and not 1966. But I do know that, despite his pledge to reduce state Government spending, that it rose from $4.6 billion when he took office in 1967, to $10.2 billion during his eight years in office. Spending, in other words. more than doubled, and it rose at a faster rate than spending was rising in the Federal Government. But on his very optimistic figures about his tax cut producing a balanced budget by 1983, and the fact that he is using, he says, the figures of the Senate Budget Committee, that Senate Budget Committee Report does not accommodate all of the Reagan defense plans. It doesn't accommodate the expenditures that he calls for, for accelerated development and deployment of a new manned strategic bomber, for a permanent fleet in the Indian Ocean, for the restoration of the fleet to 600 ships, to the development and deployment of a dedicated modern aircraft interceptor. In other words, I have seen his program costed out to the point where it would amount to more than $300 million a year, just for the military. And I think the figures that he has given are simply not going to stand up. MOYERS: Would would you have a comment, Mr. Reagan? REAGAN: Well, some people look up figures, and some people make up figures. And John has just made up some very interesting figures. We took the Senate report, of course. But we did factor in our own ideas with regard to increases in the projected military spending that we believe would, over a period of time, do what is necessary. Now also, with regard to the figures about California. The truth of the matter is, we did cut the increase in spending in half. It at the John doesn't quite realize - he's never held an executive position of that kind. And I think being Governor of California is probably the closest thing to the Presidency, if that's possible, of any executive job in America today - because it is the most populous state. And I can only tell him that we reduced, in proportion of other states, the per capita spending, the per capita size of Government - we only increased the size of Government one-twelfth what it had increased in the preceding eight years. And one journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, a respected newspaper, said there was no question about the fact that Governor Reagan had prevented the State of California from going bankrupt. MOYERS: Our final question comes from Soma Golden, and it's directed to Mr. Reagan. GOLDEN, EDITORIAL WRITER,THE NEW YORK TIMES : I'd like to switch the focus from inflation to God. This week, Cardinal Medeiros of Boston warned Catholics that it's sinful to vote for candidates who favor abortion. This did not defeat the two men he opposed, but it did raise questions about the roles of church and state. You. Mr. Reagan, have endorsed the participation of fundamentalist churches in your campaign. And you, Mr. Anderson, have tried three times to amend the Constitution to recognize the, quote, "law and authority," unquote, of Jesus Christ. My question: Do you approve of the Church's actions this week in Boston? And should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights, and defense spending? MOYERS: Mr. Reagan. GOLDEN: Mr. Reagan. REAGAN: Oh, I'm it's my question. But whether I agree or disagree with some individual, or what he may say, or how he may say it, I don't think there's any way that we can suggest that because people believe in God and go to church, that they should not want reflected in those people and those causes they support, their own belief in morality, and in the high traditions and principles which we've abandoned so much in this country. Going around this country, I think that I have found a great hunger in America for a spiritual revival. For a belief that law must be based on a higher law. For a return to traditions and values that we once had. Our Government, in its most sacred documents - the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all - speak of man being created, of a Creator. That we're a nation under God. Now, I have thought for a long time that too many of our churches have been too reluctant to speak up in behalf of what they believe is proper in Government, and they have been too too lax in interfering, in recent years, with Government's invasion of the family itself, putting itself between parent and child. I vetoed a number of bills of that kind myself, when I was in California. Now, whether it is rightful, on a single issue, for anyone to advocate that someone should not be elected or not, I won't take a position on that. But I do believe that no one in this country should be denied the right to express themselves, or to even try to persuade others to follow their leader. That's what elections are all about. MOYERS: Ms. Golden. GOLDEN: Okay. I would point out that churches are tax-exempt institutions, and I'll repeat my question. Do you approve the Church's action this week in Boston, and should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights and defense spending? ANDERSON: Ms. Golden, certainly the church has the right to take a position on moral issues. But to try, as occurred in the case that you mentioned - that specific case - to try to tell the parishioners of any church, of any denomination, how they should vote, or for whom they should vote, I think violates the principle of separation of church and state. Now, Governor Reagan is running on a platform that calls for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I think that is a moral issue that ought to be left to the freedom of conscience of the individual. And for the state to interfere with a Constitutional amendment, and tell a woman that she must carry that pregnancy to term, regardless of her personal belief, that, I think, violates freedom of conscience as much as anything that I can think of. And he is also running on a platform that suggests a litmus test for the selection of judges - that only judges that hold a certain, quote, "view," on the sanctity of family life, ought to be appointed to the Federal Judiciary, one of the three great independent branches of our Government. No. I believe in freedom of choice. I don't believe in Constitutional Amendments that would interfere with that. I don't believe in trying to legislate new tests for the selection of the Federal Judiciary. On the Amendment that you mentioned, I abandoned it 15 years ago. And I have said freely, all over this country, that it was a mistake for me or anyone to ever try to put the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country, important as it is, and important as my religious faith is to me - it's a very deeply personal matter. But for me to try, in this very pluralistic society of ours, to try to frame any definition, whatever, of what that belief should be, is wrong. And so, not once, but twice - in 1971 - I voted on the floor of the House of Representatives against a Constitutional amendment that tried to bring prayer back into the public schools. I think mother ought to whisper to Johnny and to Susie, as they button their coats in the morning and leave for the classroom, "Be sure to say a prayer before you start your day's work." But I don't think that the state, the Board of Regents, a Board of Education, or any state official, should try to compose that prayer for a child to recite. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan. REAGAN: The litmus test that John says is in the Republican platform, says no more than the judges to be appointed should have a respect for innocent life. Now, I don't think that's a bad idea. I think all of us should have a respect for innocent life. With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there's one individual who's not being considered at all. That's the one who is being aborted. And I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. I I think that, technically, I know this is a difficult and an emotional problem, and many people sincerely feel on both sides of this, but I do believe that maybe we could find the answer through medical evidence, if we would determine once and for all, is an unborn child a human being? I happen to believe it is. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: I also think that that unborn child has a right to be wanted. And I also believe, sir, that the most personal intimate decision that any woman is ever called upon to make is the decision as to whether or not she shall carry a pregnancy to term. And for the state to interfere in that decision, under whatever guise, and with whatever rationale, for the state to try to take over in that situation, and by edict, command what the individual shall do, and substitute itself for that individual's conscience, for her right to consult her rabbi, her minister, her priest, her doctor - any other counselor of her choice - I think goes beyond what we want to ever see accomplished in this country, if we really believe in the First Amendment: if we really believe in freedom of choice and the right of the individual. MOYERS: Mr. Reagan you now have three minutes for closing remarks. REAGAN: Before beginning my closing remarks, here, I would just like to remark a concern that I have that we have criticized the failures of the Carter policy here rather considerably, both of us this evening. And there might be some feeling of unfairness about this because he was not here to respond. But I believe it would have been much more unfair to have had John Anderson denied the right to participate in this debate. And I want to express my appreciation to the League of Women Voters for adopting a course with which I believe the great majority of Americans are in agreement. Now, as to my closing remarks: I've always believed that this land was placed here between the two great oceans by some divine plan. That it was placed here to be found by a special kind of people - people who had a special love for freedom and who had the courage to uproot themselves and leave hearth and homeland, and came to what, in the beginning, was the most undeveloped wilderness possible. We came from 100 different corners of the earth. We spoke a multitude of tongues. We landed on this Eastern shore and then went out over the mountains and the prairies and the deserts and the far western mountains to the Pacific, building cities and towns and farms, and schools and churches. If wind, water or fire destroyed them, we built them again. And in so doing, at the same time, we built a new breed of human called an American - a proud, an independent., and a most compassionate individual, for the most part. Two hundred years ago, Tom Paine, when the 13 tiny colonies were trying to become a nation, said, we have it in our power to begin the world over again. Today. we're confronted with the horrendous problems that we've discussed here tonight. And some people in high positions of leadership, tell us that the answer is to retreat. That the best is over. That we must cut back. That we must share in an ever-increasing scarcity. That we must, in the failure to be able to protect our national security as it is today, we must not be provocative to any possible adversary. Well, we, the living Americans, have gone through four wars. We've gone through a Great Depression in our lifetime that literally was worldwide and almost brought us to our knees. But we came through all of those things and we achieved even new heights and new greatness. The living Americans today have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth. For 200 years, we've lived in the future, believing that tomorrow would be better than today, and today would be better than yesterday. I still believe that. I'm not running for the Presidency because I believe that I can solve the problems we've discussed tonight. I believe the people of this country can, and together, we can begin the world over again. We can meet our destiny - and that destiny to build a land here that will be, for all mankind, a shining city on a hill. I think we ought to get at it. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson, you have the final three minutes. ANDERSON: Mr. Movers, President Carter was not right a few weeks ago when he said that the American people were confronted with only two choices, with only two men, and with only two parties. I think you've seen tonight in this debate that Governor Reagan and I have agreed on exactly one thing - we are both against the reimposition of a peacetime draft. We have disagreed, I believe, on virtually every other issue. I respect him for showing tonight - for appearing here, and I thank the League of Women Voters for the opportunity that they have given me. I am running for President as an Independent because I believe our country is in trouble. I believe that all of us are going to have to begin to work together to solve our problems. If you think that I am a spoiler, consider these facts: Do you really think that our economy is healthy? Do you really think that 8 million Americans being out of work and the 50% unemployment among the youth of our country are acceptable? Do you really think that our armed forces are really acceptably strong in those areas of conventional capability where they should be? Do you think that our political institutions are working the way they should when literally only half of our citizens vote? I don't think you do think that. And therefore, I think you ought to consider doing something about it, and voting for an Independent in 1980. You know, a generation of office seekers has tried to tell the American people that they could get something for nothing. It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes. We've got to stop drifting. What I wish tonight so desperately is that we had had more time to talk about some of the other issues that are so fundamentally important. A great historian, Henry Steele Commager, said that in their lust for victory, neither traditional party is looking beyond November. And he went on to cite three issues that their platforms totally ignore: atomic warfare, Presidential Directive 59 notwithstanding. If we don't resolve that issue, all others become irrelevant. The issue of our natural resources; the right of posterity to inherit the earth, and what kind of earth will it be? The issue of nationalism - the recognition, he says, that every major problem confronting us is global, and cannot be solved by nationalism here or elsewhere - that is chauvinistic, that is parochial, that is as anachronistic as states' rights was in the days of Jefferson Davis. Those are some of the great issues - atomic warfare, the use of our natural resources, and the issue of nationalism - that I intend to be talking about in the remaining six weeks of this campaign, and I dare hope that the American people will be listening and that they will see that an Independent government of John Anderson and Patrick Lucey can give us the kind of coalition government that we need in 1980 to begin to solve our problems. Thank you. MOYERS: Mr. Anderson, we, too, wish there were more time, and for all the limitations of the form - and there are other forms to try - the Chair, for one, would like to see such meetings become a regular and frequent part of every Presidential campaign. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Anderson, we thank you for coming, and thanks to our panelists, Carol Loomis, Daniel Greenberg, Charles Corddry, Lee May, Jane Bryant Quinn and Soma Golden. And thank you in the audience at home for joining us. This first Presidential Debate of 1980 has been brought to you as a public service by the League of Women Voters Education Fund. I'm Bill Moyers. Good night. Presidential Candidate Debates, Presidential Debate in Baltimore (Reagan-Anderson) Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217115

October 15, 1976 HOGE: Good evening, I'm James Hoge, editor of the Chicago Sun Times, and moderator of this third of the historic debates of the 1976 campaign. Tonight we have the vice-presidential candidates: for the Democrats, Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota; for the Republicans, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas. Thank you, Senator Mondale, and thank you, Senator Dole, for being with us this evening. This debate is taking place before an audience in the Alley Theater in Houston, Texas. It is also being broadcast by radio and television to an audience estimated at some eighty-five million persons in this nation and overseas. As far as we can tell this is the first formal debate ever held between vice-presidential candidates. Their views are important not only because they seek the second highest office in the land, but because as potential vice presidents, they must be judged on their capacities to serve as president of the United States. For example, of the last five presidents, three have become president due to death, or resignation, by a chief executive. We will begin this debate tonight with opening statements of up to two minutes by each candidate. By the toss of a coin it was determined that Senator Dole would go first. Senator Dole, your opening statement. DOLE: Thank you very much. First, I wish to thank the League of Women Voters, and this is a great privilege and honor for me. I also wanna thank my many friends in Russell, Kansas, for that big long telegram I received today. I think tonight may be sort of a fun evening. It's a very important evening; it's a very historic evening. But I've known ah my counterpart for some time, and we've been friends and we're - we'll be friends when this debate is over and we'll be friends when the election is over and he'll still be in the Senate. [audience laughter] And I think first of all I should make it very clear that I'm most proud to be on the ticket with President Ford. I've known President Ford for sixteen years - sixteen years. It's a long time. He's known me for that long. I know him to be a man of compassion and competence. He has that confidence and he projects that leadership that America needs and that you need right now. Now, I don't know much about uh - Governor Carter. I've tried to find out. I know he's very ambitious. I know he wants to be president. He's been running for three years. But I know he said uh - at least one thing - that he does agree with my opponent, my friend, uh - Walter Mondale, probably the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. And that's really what this debate's all about. If by some uh - tragic circumstance one of us should become president of the United States, where do we stand on the issues? I would just say in a very uh - summary way that I have a great deal of faith in you, the American people. I'm concerned about farmers and housewives and young people and professional people, working men and women. I think we can find our solutions working together. My opponent has a record of voting for ever- every inflationary spending program except in defense, where he votes for every cut. And we'll explore that as this debate goes on. HOGE: Thank you, Senator Dole. Senator Mondale, your opening statement. MONDALE: I believe that most Americans would agree on the problems that this country faces and that the next - and which the next administration must solve. They include the need once again for an economy that works. The economy today is in very, very bad shape - the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, 50 percent higher than when Mr. Ford took office; raging inflation, with the latest uh - wholesale price indexes once again raising the specter of double-digit inflation. The purchasing power of the average American has slipped so much that it is now the equivalent of the purchasing power in 1965. It is not getting better. It is getting worse. All the leading indicators now point downward, and stock investors are now losing confidence and over $50 billion of value has disappeared from the stock market in less than a month. We need a government that works, and we need a government that cares, and once again we have to get back to work on education, on health, on housing, on the environment, on energy; and we need a foreign policy that once again reflects the values and the beliefs of the American people. This will take leadership, and we need leadership, too. The Republican administration, the Republican party has had eight years to solve these problems. All of them have gotten worse. The Republican ticket does not offer new plans for their solution but is engaged in a frantic effort to defend the past. This nation desperately needs new leadership. The Carter-Mondale ticket would offer a new generation of leadership dedicated to solving the problems which I have listed, and that is the basis of our appeal. HOGE: Thank you gentlemen. The subject matter of tonight's debate, like that of the first two presidential debates, covers domestic and economic policies, and foreign and defense issues. The questioners tonight are Hal Bruno, chief political correspondent of Newsweek magazine; Marilyn Berger, White House correspondent of NBC News; and Walter Mears, special correspondent for the Associated Press. Questions will be alternated between the two candidates. After a question is asked, the candidate will have up to two and a half minutes to respond. His opponent will then have two and a half minutes to reply to that. The first candidate then may reply to those remarks for up to one minute. I should mention at this point that I will intervene if a candidate is not addressing the question which has been posed to him. At the conclusion of the questioning, each candidate will be allowed up to three minutes for a closing remark. Senator Mondale and Senator Dole do not have prepared notes or comments with them this evening. However, they may make notes and refer to them during the debate. We now begin with questions on domestic and economic policies. The first question goes to Senator Dole, as was determined by the coin toss. Mr. Bruno, you have the first question. Hal Bruno: Senator Dole, presidential candidates always promise that their vice president will play an important role. But it seldom turns out that way and they usually wind up as standby equipment, which is the way Vice President Rockefeller once described the job. What's your view of this office that you're seeking? Has President Ford told you what your role might be, and what would you like it to be? DOLE: Well, I've said, as I've traveled around the country, in - mostly in jest, that - why you are running for vice president, I said, well, it's indoor work and no heavy lifting. [audience laughter] But I've also thought very seriously about it. President Ford has discussed it with me. It's a great opportunity. It's a great responsibility. I can't stand here tonight uh - in Houston, Texas, and say that come uh - January when I'll be sworn in as vice president that I'm gonna do anything in the first hundred days, or even the second hundred days. But I have discussed it with President Ford. He's indicated two uh - responsibilities that he's going to designate. One will be having some role in increasing our agricultural exports, because we believe - we believe together that the future of American agriculture lies in its exports. Also, because of my long association with families who had uh - their sons or husbands as missing in action and prisoners of war - he indicated to me last week that I would have a role as his representative - try to get some accounting for the missing in action in Southeast Asia. But beyond that, of course, our constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, and vote in case of a tie. We also serve on the National Security Council, Domestic Council, and whatever other assignments we may have from time to time. I think probably one important aspect that we ought to talk about - and that's our vision of America. I believe the people viewing tonight - people who watching us tonight - may well determine the role I play as vice president. I believe that we're going forward in America under the leadership of President Ford, and I believe there'll be more and more challenges, positive challenges, to those of us who hold high office, to serve the American people. And that's really what it's all about: whether we're vice president, on the city council, member of the legislature, or whatever. Our obligation is to the people. We must have faith in the American people - and I have that faith. But I think the opponents have more faith in bigger government, more controls and more interference with their everyday lives. HOGE: Senator Mondale, your response. MONDALE: The problems that our country faces are so great that a very strong role is required of the vice president and of all federal officials. I've discussed this matter - uh extensively with Governor Carter and as vice president I would have such a substantial role in both domestic and foreign policy. I would work with the president, for example, in this long overdue effort to basically restructure and reorganize the federal government. Today it's a mess. There's no one in charge. There's great waste, great duplication, and the time has come for a long overdue reorganization. That would be one of the first tasks that I would have working with the new president. There would be a whole range of duties that I would have working with the president and uh - on problems of economic growth, we got to get people back to work, attacking inflation and finally getting a policy to - to keep the dollar worth a dollar, and the other problems that we face here at home. One of the specific suggestions that uh - we are considering now is that I would head up the task force to deal with the federal aspects of crime in America. Today, the federal function in law enforcement is in disarray. The Drug Enforcement Ad- Administration is totally demoralized. The FBI is also under great difficulty. We need to have a coordinated, effective, and national attack on organized and hard crime, those crimes prohibited by federal law. We need to finally get a national effort that really makes sense, that stops the importation of those death-dealing imported illegal drugs. We need to have a new look at official lawlessness at the federal level, because we've seen too many instances where people in high public office - uh violate the law themselves. And one of the things that we're considering is establishing an interdepartmental agency under the chairmanship of the vice president to finally, at long last, put some strength behind a national effort to deal with these uh - terrible problems in American life. And may I close by saying that uh - one of the reasons that I believe I am gonna be the vice president, is one of the reasons that uh - my opponent mentioned, and that is the present president imposed an embargo on farm exports four times in three years, and they want a change. HOGE: Senator Dole, do you have a further comment? DOLE: Well, I would just say to my good friend, uh - I'm happy that you're going to be responsible uh - for reorganization. I hope you don't pattern it after Governor Carter's efforts in Georgia. They added more bureaucrats to the government in Georgia, the cost of government went up, his Human Resources uh - Committee or whatever it's called was called an organizational nightmare by Governor Busbee, his successor. I understand from Bobby Smith, who's supposed to be the ag expert in the Carter campaign, that you're going to do away with the Department of Agriculture. That's in essence what he said. You're gonna put it together with a lot of other things. And I know the farmers who may be viewing will be pleased to know that. They should also be pleased to know that uh - Senator Mondale - uh sponsors export licensing proposals in the Congress, which would make it necessary for farmers to get an export license before they could ship their goods overseas. And under his proposal - which is still pending, thank goodness it hasn't passed, we'd all be in difficulty - we wouldn't be able to ship anything out. HOGE: Miss Berger, your question to Senator Mondale. Marilyn Berger: Senator Mondale, the polls indicate that less than half of those eligible will vote in this coming election. And although you and Senator Dole have both touched on the very important issues that are before the country, many Americans feel that they're being shortchanged by a campaign that has descended into a name-calling contest. For example, Governor Carter has said that President Ford has been brainwashed; President Ford says that Carter is slandering America. If the tone of the campaign worries the electorate, does it worry you, Senator Mondale? MONDALE: There are many things that I think have contributed to this phenomenon that I find very, very discouraging. And that is, the great numbers of Americans do not plan to participate in the electoral process which is so crucial to uh - a sound and effective nation. We can't solve our problems unless everyone helps. There've been so many things that have dispirited the American people, that have fed frustration and despair. We've gone through the worst war in American history, that divided this country perhaps just as much it's ever been divided. We then went through the worst political scandal in American history, with the highest officers in government being found guilty or at least charged with guilt in very serious crimes. We then saw evidence that even our own intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies, charged to enforce the law, had themselves violated the law. And then we've seen a government that is unable to deal with the real problems that the American people face. People need jobs. It's a tragedy every time an able-bodied American is denied the opportunity to make - to work. There are now eight million Americans who can't find work. It's a tragedy when Americans work and find the value of their dollar disappearing. It's a tragedy when children can't get educated, when health care wipes them out, when senior citizens find that the attention and the credit they're entitled to - through Social Security and Medicaid - is being taken from them. These things have all contributed to a growing feeling in America that government does not respond to solve people's problems, that government lives by one standard and expects Americans to live by another, and because of that we have this large feeling in America, reflected in those surveys that were suggested in your question, that has contributed to this feeling that involvement in politics does not count. And if there's one hope that Governor Carter and I have, if there's one objective that's central above all, is that we can restore the faith in the American people by simply telling the truth, obeying the law, seeing problems as they really are, attacking the real questions, the real problems that affect Americans, and then I think we will see the restoration of public trust. HOGE: Senator Dole, your response. DOLE: Well I think it's a very good question. It goes back to the party institutions. Uh - maybe it's uh - an indictment uh - in that sense of uh - those of us who seek office. It goes back to my basic premise - and that's faith in the people. It just seems to me that some of those who lust for power are not really concerned about the people. They say they're concerned, and they talk about the people. They never give us their positions. And so I think many Americans are sort of turned off, and they were turned off by the war in Southeast Asia. They were turned off by Watergate - I'll say that word first - they were turned off by Watergate. But we're looking ahead. They were probably turned off by what they saw in U.S. House of Representatives. They've been turned off by a lot of things they've seen in politics. But I think they've been turned off too by promises and promises, and bigger and bigger spending programs, and more and more inflation. They're looking for leadership. They yearn for leadership and they found that leadership in President Ford. And Governor Carter talks about tax reform, talks about taxing the rich. He talks about nearly everyone. He said former president Johnson lied and cheated and distorted the facts. I think that turns a lot of people off. He was quick to apologize to Mrs. Johnson. He insulted Governor Wallace, but he was quick to apologize to Governor Wallace. Someone in the family insulted Billy Graham but they were quick to apologize to Billy Graham. I think it's time we stopped apologizing and talked - it's time we started talking to you, the American people. We need your help. We wanna restore faith in this system and I think we can. Let's not promise what we can't deliver. Let's be honest with you, the voter, with you the taxpayer. It's fine to talk about education, more this, more that, and more that. But there're eighty-eight million people working in America that are gonna pay the taxes - the highest number ever working in America - some 40 percent of the population, the highest in history, working now in America. And we're concerned about the 7.8 percent unemployed. We'll be concerned until that's reduced to 4 percent or 3 percent or wherever. But we can't lose sight of the number one enemy, and that number one enemy is inflation. And I think the American people are coming around. They're beginning to understand that President Ford says what he means and does what he says. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: Well, who really has faith in the people? A candidate like Governor Carter, who campaigns far the people, is out every day meeting and talking with the people, holds news conferences and answers questions of the - of the news media as he has every day for twenty-four months, or a president who's in the White House, not through election but through appointment, who has held only two preannounce news conferences since February? Who trusts the people more - Governor Carter and Senator Mondale, who have disclosed our income-tax returns so the American people can look at our private financial affairs and determine how we conducted our affairs, or President Ford and Senator Dole, who refuse to let the American people see their tax returns? Who trusts the people? A candidate like Governor Carter, who tells the truth, or a president like Mr. Ford, who last week told the American people that he had fought the Arab boycott and sought legislation and sanctions against it when the whole record shows he's proc- proceeded in just the opposite direction? HOGE: Thank you. Mr. Mears, your question for Senator Dole. Walter Mears: Senator Dole, prior to your current campaign you sometimes expressed concern about a negative image of the Republican party. You're quoted as having said last spring that, "We're in the unfortunate position of having a president vetoing bills and getting on the wrong side of people issues. He's vetoed the education bill, the jobs bill, you name it." Are you still concerned about the risk that Republicans will be perceived as opposed to what you call vet- uh - "people issues" and do you think that President Ford has exercised the veto too frequently? DOLE: Well, I might say at the outset I haven't always agreed with President Ford and I've voted to override on occasion - but not every time, as my counterpart has. I think President Ford uh - and hindsight's very good, particularly when you're on the ticket. And my hindsight is, the president's been very courageous. And there is a difference. You know, we look at our states and we look at the bills and we decide to sustain or override. The president - and particularly this president, who has courage - President Ford looks at the nation; he looks at all the American people, and he makes that judgment: Should I sign, can I sign, or must I veto this bill? And so he's vetoed sixty-two bills - I think the sixty-second happened today. And I say that's uh - a courageous act repeated sixty-two times, because much of that legislation sounded good, some of it was good, some of it we just couldn't have unless we're gonna fuel the fires of inflation. I don't suggest that every veto uh - I must agree with. But I also suggest that I'm a Republican. I'm proud to be a Republican. We're sometimes perceived, as I've said before, as the anti-people party because we're not for more spending. We're not for more government; we're for a strong defense. We're for peace in the world. Those aren't very attractive to some people. They wanna know how much we're gonna spend for this, and how much we're gonna spend for that. Well Senator Mondale could tell 'em that because he votes for every piece of spending legislation that comes down the pike unless it's in the area of defense, and then he votes for every budget cut. I think he's voted to cut the budget - in addition to what had already been cut in the Congress - some $16 billion: against the B-1 bomber, which means a lot of jobs, against the C5-A, against the Trident submarine. And the list goes on and on and on and on. I believe the American people want us to be responsible. We've got to make the tough decisions. It's one thing to be in the office of the president or a senator of the United States and vote for every spending program, never concern ourselves with inflation or the total cost. But I would only close by saying that I hope the viewers remember we had a Democratic Congress, we've had one for twenty-two straight years. And so if anyone stands up to debate this Republican senator and tries to dump all the responsibility on a Republican president by the name of Gerald Ford, I'd just ask that question: Where have you been for twenty-two years? HOGE: Senator Mondale, your response. MONDALE: Perhaps the most pronounced difference that ref- separates the Democratic and the Republican candidates is reflected in the question that was just asked. There is practically no difference between the two parties in terms of how much they would spend. The Senate Budget Committee estimated that the Republican platform cost $50 billion, the Democratic platform cost $40 billion. The difference between the Democratic Congressional budget which I supported and the - and the president's budget was only $3 billion in deficit, and if you removed the gimmickry in the president's budget it was exactly the same. The difference is in how we spend those resources. And I am unashamed of my support for programs to put people back to work. I am unashamed of my support for programs to build housing so the families of this country can live in decent housing. I'm unashamed of supporting education programs that give our kids a decent education. I'm unashamed of supporting health programs that give people who get ill a chance to have decent health without being totally wiped out. And I'm unashamed of supporting programs such as Medicare. My opponent voted against Medicare. Can you imagine voting against program, as did the president, that would provide help for senior citizens after they're past their earning years so that they could have decent health care without being wiped out? Now, where do the Republicans want to spend their money? Well, I'll tell you. First of all, this year they're spending $55 billion in the cost of the recession that they created. We didn't give 'em this recession. We had full employment when they took over. Mr. Ford, in just two years, has increased unemployment by two and a half million Americans. They haven't solved inflation and they - and instead of trying to deal with the problem of unemployment, instead of that they proposed a $20 billion tax cut for wealthy corporations, despite the fact that just yesterday a newspaper carried a story that ten major corporations made massive amounts of money and didn't owe a dime in federal taxes. Ford Motor Corporation earned $800 million and didn't owe a dime to the federal government; in fact, got a hundred and eighty million dollars back. So between those tax cuts and between the massive costs of unemployment, they spend much more than we would. But what do they get for it? We wanna see money spent to help problems that people really face in their lives. HOGE: Senator Dole. DOLE: Well, we're all for those programs. Uh - but it's uh - we just don't believe in excesses. I think in retrospect uh - the elder-care program that I voted for instead of Medicare is probably a better program because Medicare, everybody gets the benefits, whether you're in need or not, once you reach the age of sixty-five. Now they're having a lot of problems in Medicare. I'm glad you mentioned Ford Motor Company not paying taxes. Again the Democrats control the committee. I'm on the committee. Senator Mondale's on the Finance Committee. Henry Ford happens to be supporting Governor Carter, maybe that's why. Governor Carter did have a little meeting with him at the Twenty-One Club, had some small businessmen there, said don't worry about taxes, I won't be doing anything for at least a year. That's after he said the tax system was a disgrace. We have peace in this country today. That's important to me - important to mothers who may be listening. They talk about their full employment when we took over - that's because they had a full-grown war in Southeast Asia. That's not the way we try to end unemployment in the Republican party. HOGE: Mr. Bruno, your question to Senator Mondale. Hal Bruno: Uh - Senator Mondale, uh - everyone seems to agree that solving the economic problems of inflation and unemployment has to be given top priority. Uh - you and Governor Carter have a whole shopping list of things that you wanna do. After - after the economic problem, what do you see as the next most urgent and crucial domestic problems? In what order of importance would you go to work on such problems as the decay and bankruptcy of the cities, uh - tax reform, health insurance, uh - help for the poor and the elderly - in short, after the economy, what would be the very specific priorities of a Carter administration? MONDALE: You have to work on several problems at once, because they all demand the attention of the American people. One of the key problems would be to try to finally get a health insurance program to deal with the health crisis in America. In just the past two years, health costs in America have risen in the cities by over 25 percent. We have to do something about that. There's no hope under the ad- Republican administration. Mr. Ford said he vet- he would veto any legislation if we sent it. We have to do something about housing. We're in a housing depression. Today, nearly 20 percent of the building tradesmen in America are unemployed. We need to put them back to work - to build that Americans need. We need to continue to - to build support, as the budget permits, for education. We need to - to get back to work on the problems of senior citizens. Now, all of this has to be done prudently, within a budget, and within the constraints that our resources permit; but once we put people back to work, once we end this recession - which we will do - even president's own estimates indicates that we will have somewhere between sixty and seventy billion dollars of increased revenues on existing tax rates just from economic growth which we can use to work on these programs. Then we'll have tax reform, and I wanna deal with this problem just a moment. Mr. Dole has probably the worst record in favor of loopholes of any senator in the United States Senate. Mr. Ford has one of the worst records in favor of tax loopholes in the history of the House of Representatives. I have one of the best records of tax reform in the United States Senate, and it - I find it very peculiar to find two people who spent their congressional careers trying to block tax reform that permits very wealthy Americans to avoid most of their taxes to suddenly complain when the Congress hadn't passed the kind of legislation that we're talking about. What we're basically talking about is presidential leadership. We need leadership in the presidency to help support those of us in the Congress that have been pushing for tax reform and then we will have it. It is now possible for people of great wealth, by using complete tax fictions, to avoid all or most their taxes. But most Americans listening to me tonight could hire the best tax lawyer in America and you couldn't save a dime. There are no loopholes for you. HOGE: Senator Dole, your response. DOLE: I think Senator Mondale is a little nervous, but uh - time I think of loophole, I think of Governor Carter. I don't know why it comes to me, but uh - uh - I remember his '75 tax return - you've probably seen it, since it's public. His tax liability was $58 thousand. Not many Americans - I don't imagine many of you in the viewing audience - uh had to worry about a $58 thousand tax bill. I didn't. But Governor Carter did until he took off $41 thousand. That's called the investment tax credit - he bought some peanut machinery - gonna use it next year. So he took $41 thousand off his tax and sent the government a check for $17 thousand. So how much did he pay on his income? Well, he paid about twelve point eight percent. This that same man, that same Governor Carter who runs around the country talking about tax reform, loopholes, and the rich. I don't know who uh - rates uh - Senator Mondale on the Finance Committee. I don't know how they rated him on the Honeywell amendment he offered and the IDS amendment he offered. They never passed, they never got out of the Senate. They're both special interest amendments. That's all right, because those were his amendments. I don't know where Governor Carter's corporate returns are and partnership returns - I haven't seen those published anywhere. But I know about his tax reform. I wanna get back to the question, if that's all right. We're talking about the economy. What are we going to do after the economy's taken care of? Well, I don't know, it's occurred to me, and I'm certain it hasn't occurred to my counterpart - we might - it's not illegal, to take some of that surplus and apply it to the national debt. We've never done it, but we wouldn't be put in jail if Congress voted to try to retire some of that debt, to take some of the pressure off the American working man, and the American working woman. And I get a little tired of Governor Carter's anti-business attitude. I know they get great support, monetary support, from George Meany. In fact I've been suggesting that George Meany was probably Senator Mondale's makeup man - he may or may not have been, they did a good job. (laughter from audience). But I think it's time the American people understand that this is a very serious election; and we got a tough choice to make. Governor Carter talks about raising everyone's taxes above the median income. He didn't know what the median income was, of course. It's $14 thousand per American family, that's what it is. So I say, take a look and you'll vote for Ford. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: The question was, what would we do to deal with the human problems in America? The first thing we would do is to put people back to work. The most atrocious result of the Republican policy is massive unemployment. It costs us $50 billion this year. Secondly, we will fight inflation. Today, inflation is three times worse than it was under the Democrats. And the latest indexes indicate that it's back on its way up. No effort to fight this at all. We will have tax reform. There's no question about our commitment to tax reform. My record proves it. Governor Carter's uh - positions prove that. We are fully committed to tax reform, and when the Republicans are raising money around the country, they say give us same money to defeat Governor Carter because if he gets elected there'll be a tax reform. And they are right when they say that, because we'll have tax reform and bring relief to the average income earner in this country. They know what Governor Carter is talking about, He's talking about the loopholes that favor Americans, usually earning above $50 thousand a year. HOGE: Thank you, Senator Mondale. We now turn to questions on foreign and defense issues. Miss Berger, you have the first question in this subject area and it is for Senator Dole. Marilyn Berger: Senator Dole, President Ford said in an interview this week that if he's elected he would like to see Henry Kissinger stay on as secretary of state. This hardly seems to square with the Republican platform which appears to repudiate much of Kissinger's foreign policy. Which way do you go, Senator Dole, with President Ford or with the Republican platform? DOLE: I go with both and stay with Henry. Uhh - you know if you look back over history, uh - President Washington had Thomas Jefferson for his secretary of state, uh - Harry Truman had Dean Acheson for his secretary of state, both very strong men, both very active men, both very powerful men. Henry Kissinger is a powerful man. And I haven't always agreed with Henry - Henry Kissinger but I - when I start disagreeing with Henry I start looking at what he's done for America - uh what he's done for the free world. I think about the breakthrough in China. I think about our increased responsive relations with - with the Soviet Union. I think about winding down the war that we inherited from another Democrat administration in Southeast Asia. I think most recently about his efforts in South Africa, where he's trying to protect the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority. You know we sort of thought that Henry might have had a role to play in grain embargoes, so we weren't totally happy at that time. We're not happy with embargoes; there'll not be any more embargoes except in extreme circumstances under a Ford-Dole Administration. So I agree with the president. Uh Secretary Kissinger's performed yeoman service. Anywhere you look you find Henry's tracks and they're tracks that are right for America. They're tracks that are right for the free world. And I wonder how many mothers and how many fathers and how many young men and young women who may be viewing tonight have really stopped to think about what this Republican administration has done. No one's being drafted; no one's going off to war; no one's being shot at; no one's being hospitalized; no one's being buried in America; not a single shot being fired in anger. And this is a Republican administration, this is a Republican policy. And this policy by and large has been spearheaded by one Henry Kissinger. And we have our differences. And I looked at the platform - I was on the Platform Committee. I don't see any contradiction on that platform. I've read the morality section. I think it sustains President Ford, and sustains Henry Kissinger. HOGE: Senator Mondale, your response. MONDALE: The real question of the foreign policy of the next administration is the responsibility of the president of the United States. He is the person elected to discharge the responsibility of foreign policy. He is the person that must conduct it and lead this nation's efforts. And that's where I think the key difference between the two parties lie. We want a change. We want new leadership. And above all we want a change of philosophy and direction. America's greatest strength is to be found in its values and its beliefs. And every time in our pursuit of foreign policy that we disregard those basic values, of freedom, of democracy, of national independence, we pursue a policy that is not credible, is not sustainable, either overseas or at home. Now let me say what I mean. For example, in Africa, for seven and a half years it was the policy of this administration to support the colonial control of black Africa and support white minority rule in majority black states. That was our explicit policy. And after that failed, and on the eve of this election, suddenly we've turned around and wanted to be believed as we pursued the policy that we should have pursued in the first place. Failure to follow our beliefs in the first instance is causing us great trouble in Africa. Look at Greece. During the whole period that the military junta controlled Greek government, this administration cozied up to that military dictatorship, befriended them, did everything they could to support them, but once Greek restored their own democracy, we've turned our back on them and have not assisted them in seeking a just and final settlement on the island of Cyprus. Take the issue of the Middle East. This government of ours is pursuing a policy of permitting the vicious Arab boycott to continue in this country. They have not sought any reform. They are pursuing an arms-peddling policy in this world which - in which we s- sell more arms by double of all the rest of the world put together. And last year alone, or this year, we're selling and contracting for seven and a half billion dollars of arms for Saudi Arabia and only a billion four for Israel. We've lost our way. We need a new sense of values, and we intend to restore them. HOGE: Senator Dole. DOLE: Well, I noticed in all that discussion he never once criticized Secretary Kissinger; I don't recall Senator Mondale ever criticizing Secretary Kissinger. As I think back uh - the Democrat policies that - and their secret agreements at Yalta and Potsdam and how this had the effect of enslaving Eastern Europe, and as I think of uh - the leadership of President Roosevelt - and I think about that every day because of a personal experience in World War II - I'm kind of thankful we have somebody who's concerned about peace. And whether Senator Mondale likes it or not, or whether Governor Carter likes it or not - and Governor Carter won't tell us who he's gonna to put in the cabinet. He probably doesn't know - I think it's kinda nice to be at peace in the world, to be respected in the world. We've had more respect than we've ever had. Prime Minister Rabin said our relations to - Israel are at a peak, the highest they've been. The same is true of France and West Germany. We have a balanced peace in the Mideast because of our leadership. HOGE: Mr. Mears, your question to Senator Mondale. Walter Mears: Senator Mondale, you and Governor Carter have made an issue of President Ford's statement that there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe - a statement the president now says was in error. I'd like to know whether there's any real difference between the two tickets an Eastern Europe or whether this is simply an effort by the Democrats to attract voters of Eastern European backgrounds. What would a Democratic administration do that the Republicans are not doing to foster freedom in Eastern Europe? And what would a new administration do on the question that the president declined to answer yesterday? If an Eastern European nation attempted to overthrow Soviet domination, should the United States help? MONDALE: Well, there're several things we would do. The first thing we would do was - is to make clear consistently what the facts are in Eastern Europe. The comment that the president made that Eastern Europe was independent and autonomous from Soviet control is probably one of the most outrageous statements made by a president in recent political history. It's caused great confusion in Europe. Communist newspapers in Poland are praising the president because the statement helped give credibility to Soviet control. I'm glad the president finally apologized for that remark, but it's surprising that it took six days and several attempts before we finally received that apology. What we think is needed in our policies with Eastern Europe is not to deal with Eastern Europe as a bloc as does this administration, but to deal with each country individually on its own status directly and not through the Soviet Union; to continue to identify with their aspirations for national independence, not because we are any- under any illusions about how easy it would be for them to become independent, but because it's important for us to identify as the nation which above all stands for freedom and independence with the aspirations of all people around the world for those same objectives. Secondly, we would push the - that part of the Helsinki accords known as Basket Three, which requires much opening up - much more opening up in people-to-people contacts and informational contacts. This administration signed the Helsinki accords but don- has done practically nothing to push those agreements which would open up communications between our nation and our peoples and the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact it was just the other day, after several weeks delay, before they even finally appointed representatives of the administration to the commission looking into the enforcement of that provision. And finally, I think it's important that we honor people from Eastern Europe who stand as symbols of the human spirit's ability to stand up to police oppression. And I will never understand why this president of the United States refused to even receive and honor Mr. Solzhenitsyn, who perhaps above all people in the human race stands as a symbol for the ability and the strength of spirit against police oppression. HOGE: Senator Dole, your response. DOLE: Well, I'm glad you mentioned Solzhenitsyn. I checked today with his interpreter and I understand you've never met Mr. Solzhenitsyn, and neither has Mr. Carter. Now I've had the privilege of meeting uh - uh - Mr. Solzhenitsyn - maybe you've shook his hand somewhere - but uh - I want to move into the Eastern Europe sector. I'm reminded of how the Berlin Wall went up and who was in power when it went up. I think if we take a hard look at President Ford's record rather than all the rhetoric that followed uh - a mistake in the last debate about uh Poland, uh we'd know very clearly where President Ford not only stands but has stood for twenty some years I think one way to let the people in Eastern Europe know of our concern is by trade. As President Ford said, they've never really given up hope. Their government may be dominated, their leaders of that government may be dominated by Soviet Russia, but the hearts and the minds of the Polish people, or the Yugoslavs or Rumanians, or the Czechs, or whoever, have never been dominated. And they're good customers. You know we have a favorable balance of trade with Eastern Europe. I think last year they exported almost a half-billion dollars' worth of goods and material and we sent in about a billion dollars' worth. I just wish Governor Carter had a foreign policy. He doesn't have any - doesn't have any experience. He made some statement about Italy that bothers me because I was in World War II in Italy. My whole life changed because of my experience in Italy. I know the Italian people. I know they're God-fearing, freedom-loving people. I couldn't quite understand what Governor Carter meant in Playboy magazine. I couldn't understand frankly why he was in Playboy magazine. But he was, and we'll give him the bunny vote. But I couldn't understand what he meant when he said that we ought to extend the hand of friendship to Communists in Portugal and governments of France and Italy, because by doing that he simply invites difficulty from Communist leaders in those countries. So I say, oh we're strong, we're firm, President Ford understands, we're still at peace, we still have those same hopes and aspirations of the Eastern Europeans. And that's what it's all about: freedom, peace, no bloodshed. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: Well, I regret that uh - Mr. Dole made that statement about Mr. Solzhenitsyn, because it's false. I've repeatedly spoken out in admiration of him. I served on the host committee receiving Mr. Solzhenitsyn in the United States Senate. He's a man that deserved to be honored and it was a shame to me that the president of the United States, because we were fearful of offending the Soviet Union, failed to accord that high honor to Mr. Solzhenitsyn. I'm also sorry that he's tried to misrepresent Governor Carter's position on the government that should control Portugal and Italy. The governor made it very clear that he hoped the noncommunist would continue to control those countries. The biggest thing that we're doing today that is undermining those forces of democracy is the disarray of our economy here at home. With our tremendous unemployment, with our tremendous inflation, and the dominance of our economy on the economies of Western Europe, of Japan and Canada, we have contributed to such conditions that it has strengthened the radical forces in those countries. And that's what we need to do to best help the democratic forces of those nations. HOGE: Thank you, Senators. We have reserved time this evening for questions on general subjects. The first question in this area is from Mr. Bruno, and it is for Senator Dole. Hal Bruno: Senator Dole, out there in the campaign trail uh - you been saying that a Carter-Mondale Administration would take its orders from George Meany and the AFL-CIO. Yet Mr. Meany was among those who influenced President Ford on the grain embargo, which you personally opposed. Now how do you know that Mr. Meany will influence Governor Carter any more than he already has influenced President Ford? And what, if anything, is wrong with labor or business or farmers making their views known in the White House as long as it's done openly and honestly? DOLE: I don't have any quarrel, uh - say, first of all, with anybody making their views known. I wish more businessmen would participate in active politics. In fact, I've held up labor as an example for others to follow because they are very active. I just don't believe that uh - labor leaders, whether it's Leonard Woodcock or George Meany or Jerry Wurf, whoever, ought to make a decision for thousands and millions of working men and women who are concerned about spending; they're concerned about taxes; they're concerned about the gun control that Mondale and Carter favor. They're concerned about abortion. They're concerned about a lot of things and their labor leader makes the decision, "We're gonna support the Carter-Mondale ticket." Now, George Meany did exercise some influence on the first embargo. I don't know how much because I wasn't privy to those meetings. He said he did it in the name of the consumer, when he really did it in the name of organized labor to increase the shipping subsidy. at the taxpayers' expense. Working with Mr. Gleason and the Longshoremen's Union they refused to load the ships, and it really put the president in a very difficult spot. As I think back of all the Democrat senators who now talking about embargoes, uh I can only recall one who spoke out at the time, that was Senator George McGovern. He had no allegiance and owed nothing to Mr. Meany because, as you know, Meany didn't support him in 1972. But, all of a sudden embargoes have cropped up as a great big issue. I know how much strength uh - labor leaders have. I know how much they're out pushing voter registration. I know how much they - control they have in the Democratic party. And that's their right, to have influence, but not to take aver the party. They have great influence on Senator Mondale, always have had. He's got a 95 percent labor rating or higher, the most liberal senor- senator in the United States Senate, and that's his right. He wants to be liberal and spend your money and tax and tax and spend and spend. That's his right. He gets - when he first - he was appointed as attorney general, then appointed to the Senate. Some of us had to run for what we have. When you have had things given to you, you like to give something else to someone else. You give away your tax money back to the taxpayers. And I just think that George Meany has every right to have influence, but not domination of a great party like the Democratic party. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: Well, there are many things that could be said about that, I might begin first with voting records. Uh - there are many organizations that uh - prepare voting records. I'm pleased to have a very high rating in small business groups, among farmer groups, a much higher rating than my opponent from - the senator from Kansas; good ratings, high ratings in housing, in health and education; good ratings from organizations dealing with economic management - and I'm pleased by that. But perhaps one that's most appropriate tonight is an independent dispassionate organization that represents the views of all Americans: conservative, liberal, moderate, and so on - called the League of Women Voters. For five years the league has prepared the list of the most crucial issues that they believe affects governmental effectiveness, that affects governmental honesty, that affects dealing with America's real problems. And I'm proud of the fact that in each of those five years the League of Women Voters has rated me one hundred percent in favor of every one of those issues that they, on an independent and a bipartisan basis, have believed to be the most important to this country. And I note in that same record that my opponent was wrong half the time. He only was there 50 percent of the time. And I noted that the president of the United States, Mr. Ford, when he was in the Congress was right only 35 percent of the time. And I think that says something about balance. We are in the mainstream of public life. We want to get along with business, we want to get along with farmers, we want to get along with labor. We think the president has to lead everyone. And that's the only way that a president can lead. This president and his running mate think they can get elected by whipping labor on the back. Well labor's got a right to participate in the public life of this country as well as anyone else. Just take the embargo, for example. I was opposed, and said so at the time, of all the embargoes: the four imposed by the Republicans and the short one imposed by members of the labor movement. I thought it was wrong in both instances. This - this particular ticket here uh - is - selects out Mr. Meany as the scapegoat. Well, you can't run this country trying to scapegoat Americans. You have to bring everybody together and have a united country working together to solve our real problems. And that's another reason why we need Governor Carter. HOGE: Senator Dole, any further response? DOLE: Well, I'd say as far as the League of Women Voters - uh concerned, you can look at that two ways - either I was wrong half the time or they were wrong half of the time. [audience laughter] And I think, knowing the League of Women Voters, I think I'll take my interpretation. But with reference to uh - and they - cause they - very fine, but they tend to be a little bit liberal. Now, George Meany, he wants the right-to-work law repealed in Texas, in my state. Senator Mondale's for the repeal of right-to-work laws. He wants to force you to join a labor union. Seventy-five percent of America's working men and women don't belong to labor unions, but they will if George Meany and Governor Carter and Senator Mondale have their way. They've also got some big Proposition Fourteen out in California where organizers come on your property three hours a day and organize farmers, unionize farmers. Governor Carter's for that. I assume Senator Mondale's for that. Certainly Cesar Chavez is, and other labor leaders. I just say they ought to have influence; they shouldn't have domination. What about your national security voting record where you get a zero every year - to talk about our defense? HOGE: Thank you. Miss Berger, your question to Senator Mondale. Marilyn Berger: Senator Mondale, you've criticized Mr. Ford for having defended Richard Nixon - that is, while Mr. Ford was vice president - and you did see in your own political career that Hubert Humphrey suffered a great deal politically by standing with Lyndon Johnson almost to the end on Vietnam. And now you've acknowledged that you have differences with Governor Carter. You've said that an important mark of national leadership is the ability to put loyalty to principle above loyalty to party, or even to the president of the United States. If push came to shove, would you put principle above loyalty to your running mate, and possibly to the president of the United States? And what issues are important enough to do that? MONDALE: The answer is, yes I would. But I would not have accepted a place as the running mate of Governor Carter if I thought that was a real possibility. We had a long talk about the problem of independence between the two - the president and the vice president. And I made it clear to him that I was not interested in serving in a role that was ceremonial, or serving in a role where if I really felt deeply about something I was prevented from saying so. I did not wanna go through that; I did not wanna give up my position in the Senate where I have that right. We agreed that that would be the relationship. And during this campaign on three separate occasions where I've agreed with Mis- disagreed with Mr. Carter, I've said so in the course of this campaign. And I think the whole issue of public trust and public faith is bound up very closely with that question. We have had so much politics-as-usual, so much political trimming, that Americans have lost faith in public leadership. For example, in Watergate, when this nation's whole system of liberty was at stake, and the Ervin Committee was established to investigate wrongdoing by the president of the United States, my opponent introduced a resolution to slam the door shut on the Ervin Committee so the people could not see and hear what was going on. In the - night of the Saturday Night Massacre, perhaps the most treacherous moment in the history of American liberty, when the high officers - Richardson and Ruckelshaus - were fired for enforcing the law fired by the president of the United States, both Mr. Ford and Mr. Dole stood up and defended Mr. Nixon. And if Mr. Nixon had gotten away with that massacre that night he would - probably still be president of the United States and we would not have taught that crucial lesson that not even the highest officials in government can violate the law. Never again can we permit that kind of politics-above-all to dominate this country. Even today this administration is fighting all the Watergate reforms, opposed the appointment of a special prosecutor, opposed the reforms that were cried out for adoption following the revelations of the abuse of the CIA and the FBI. And with a record like that, and with all of the abuse of public faith and trust that we've been through, surely that, too, is another reason for a new generation of leadership. HOGE: Senator Dole. DOLE: Well, Watergate is a Republican problem, and I voted for the Watergate investigation. My opponent was absent - which is - we're all absent sometimes, but he's absent more than others. I think also it's well to point up that uh - I did introduce a resolution to shut off the public hearings and to get down to business and get Watergate behind us. Democrats didn't wanna do that. They were having great fun on TV every day it looked for a while they didn't want to find a solution. I remember Senator Ervin's report, the chairman of the Watergate committee, and he said in that report - and I was chairman of the Republican party during the Watergate years, and I'm very proud to have been chairman. I've always said that the night Watergate happened was my night off, so can't hook me for that. But Senator Ervin said had Senator Dole been in charge, there wouldn't have been a Watergate, so I don't want any rub-off from Senator Mondale's statements to want any of you people to believe that he might be suggesting that somehow President Ford or Senator Dole was in any way involved in Watergate; we were not. He brings it up all the time, he brings up the pardon all the time. He didn't bring up the fact that we tried to extend the investigation of Watergate back into other areas that were voted down along straight party lines. That's their right. They control the Senate. He didn't bring up the fact that uh - on the problems in the House uh - Democrats this year, the speaker appointed three Democrats to investigate the Democrats. Can you imagine the hue and cry in America had the Republicans done that? Why Mondale would've dropped dead. And that's the way it's been - that's the way it's been. But Watergate's our burden. We're going forward. It's behind us, and Governor Carter can talk about it, and Senator Mondale can talk about it, but beyond that I think we must say as Senator Mondale has - and I don't quarrel with him - that if there comes a time when I'm the vice president I can't agree with the president, then I must say so. I think that's fundamental. I think we're both honorable men, I think we both make that judgment. The only mystery to me is how do you know what Governor - Carter stands for? I've been trying to find out for six weeks. He has three positions on everything - that's why they're having three TV debates. [audience laughter] So I just suggest that uh - maybe in the time remaining Senator Mondale can tell us what his running mate stands for. The American people would like to know. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: My candidate stands for jobs for all Americans. He stands for a government that fights inflation. He stands for tax reform and to take those revenues and reduce taxes for the average American. He stands for a program at long last to solve the high - health crisis in America. He stands for - at long last, to get the housing industry back an its feet. He will support programs to give senior citizens a decent break. He will not try, as Mr. Ford did, to put a cap on Social Security so senior citizens were robbed of their inflationary adjustments. He will not destroy the housing programs for senior citizens as this Republican administration has done. Governor Carter stands for leadership. He's gonna take charge. We need someone to lead this country. We haven't had it. Governor Carter will provide that leadership. And Governor Carter will restore to this nation a foreign policy that operates in the public and on the basis of the beliefs of the American people. HOGE: Gentlemen, we have about five minutes left for short questions and short answers. Each sequence from now on will consist only of the question, the answer and the other candidate's response. We'll drop the further response. The first question is from Mr. Mears to Senator Dole. Walter Mears: Senator Dole, ten days ago when Senator Mondale raised the issues of Watergate and the Nixon pardon, you called it the start of a campaign mud-slinging. Two years ago when you were running for the Senate you said that the pardon was prematurely granted and that it was a - and that it was a mistake. You were quoted by the Kansas City Times as saying, "You can't ignore our tradition of equal application of the law." Did you approve of the Nixon pardon when President Ford granted it? Do you approve of it now, and if the issue was fair game in your 1974 campaign in Kansas, why is it not an appropriate topic now? DOLE: Well it - [cough] it is an appropriate topic, I guess, but it's not a very good issue any more than the war in Vietnam would be or World War II, or World War I, or the war in Korea, all Democrat wars, all in this century. I figured up the other day, if we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it'd be about one point six million Americans - enough to fill the city of Detroit. Now if we wanna go back and rake that over and over and over, we can do that. I assume Senator Mondale doesn't want to do that. But it seems to me that the pardon of Richard Nixon is behind us, Watergate's behind us. If we have this vision for American, if we're really concerned about those people out there and their problems, yes, and their education and their jobs, we ought to be talking about that. I know it strikes a responsive chord in some to kick Richard Nixon around. I don't know how long you can keep that up. How much mileage is there in someone who's been kicked, whose wife suffered a serious stroke, who's been disgraced in office and stepped down from that office, and I think after two years and some months that it's probably a dead issue. But let 'em play that game. That's the only game they know. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: I think uh - Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by implying, and stating, that World War II and the Korean War were Democratic wars. Does he really mean to suggest to the American people that there was a partisan difference over our involvement in the war to fight Nazi Germany? I don't think any reasonable American would accept that. Does he really mean to suggest that it was only partisanship that got us into the war in Korea? Does he really mean to forget that part of the record where Mr. Nixon and the Republican party wanted us to get involved earlier in the war in Vietnam, and long after Mr. Nixon and the Republican party promised to finish the war in Vietnam, they kept urging us forward, and that in fact it was the Democratic Congress that passed the law ending the war in Vietnam and preventing a new war in Angola? Now, on Watergate, we're not charging, and he knows it, his involvement in Watergate. What we're saying is that they defended Mr. Nixon up to the last. HOGE: Mr. Bruno, your question to Senator Mondale. Hal Bruno: Senator Mondale, uh - you cited the priorities of a Carter administration. At the same time Governor Carter has promised to balance the federal budget within four years. Now can we take just one of those items that you gave very high priority to that would be very costly, uh - national health insurance? Now, realistically, what are the chances of getting this program in a Carter-Mondale administration, or would it have to be postponed until the budget is balanced? Which comes first? MONDALE: Well, I think both the presidential budget and our estimates agree that if we move back to full employment, as we intend to do, and achieve a five and a half percent real growth rate, as we did under Truman, and as we did under Kennedy and Johnson, that within four years the revenues generated by that growth, without increasing taxes, will pay for the costs of the programs now in place, such as Social Security, pensions and the rest, the ongoing programs that are essential in America - the defense program and the rest - and that we will have a full employment yield of somewhere between seventy and eighty billions of dollars. Some of that could be used for tax relief and it should be. Some of it should be, however, used for programs that at long last start dealing with the real problems that American faces, such as health care. Now, there are many different versions of health care; but we would work closely with Senator Kennedy, with Paul Rogers and others to develop a health program. Now there's no question about the difference in spending. The Republicans would spend more than we do during that same period, but they would spend it first by $20 billion in tax relief for wealthy businessmen or wealthy corporations, and secondly by the continuation of these economic policies that are costing us over $50 billion a year. So the question is not spending, the question is the priorities. HOGE: Senator Dole. DOLE: Well, I would remind uh - those who may be still tuned in that the Democrats still control the Congress. They did when we started this debate an hour and twenty minutes ago; they still do by two-to-one margins almost, and they're responsible for legislation. I know Senator Long, who's the chairman of our finance committee, be very pleased to learn what Senator Mondale is gonna do now with Governor Carter. Now if they're talking about full employment they're talking about the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, which they support. We don't know what it costs - twenty billion dollars? forty billion dollars? or more? Another government employment program. I'd like to add up the number of jobs Senator Mondale has cost this country in defense plants, defense jobs, in all his anti-defense votes. They'd be hundreds and hundreds of thousands and he knows it. He wants bigger welfare programs, bigger giveaway programs. We wanna take care of those out of work; we wanna take care of those in need. Let's not wreck our business system, let's not wreck our free enterprise system just to prove a point. HOGE: Thank you, Senators. That concludes the questioning for this evening. Each candidate now has up to three minutes for a closing statement. By the coin toss, it was determined that Senator Dole would make the first opening statement and take the first question. He now also goes first with his closing statement. Senator Dole. DOLE: Well, first I wish to thank the panel for their indulgence and of course all those in the viewing audience who may still be with us. I really hope - and I haven't prepared any final statement in advance - I really hope you were listening and we were able to tell you who's concerned about the American people, which party has faith in the American people, which party and which candidates want bigger and bigger and bigger government, which candidates want more and more spending, more and more interference. And we added up five of the programs that Governor Carter and Mondale talk about - only five, they really want sixty some new programs in their platform or expanded programs - they wanna create twenty-two new agencies, or expand that many existing agencies. We only added up five programs and the cost is a hundred and three billion dollars, a hundred and three billion! That would cost every taxpayer in America several hundred dollars. They don't care about inflation - the cruelest tax of all. And if you're in your living room watching tonight and you're making six thousand dollars a year on a fixed income and there's a six percent inflation, that's three hundred and sixty dollars a year, that's thirty dollars a month. That affects everybody in America. And add up your inflation if you let Carter and Mondale have their way - one spending program after another. We're concerned about the poor. We're concerned about the sick. We're concerned about the disabled. We're concerned about those on Social Security. And we have programs for that. We're concerned about housing - Carla Hills announced one today to reduce the interest payments from eight and a half percent to eight percent for FHA and VA homes. Governor Carter wants to preclude you from taking off your interest, your mortgage interest as a tax reduction. He says nobody wants their taxes lowered. Well, maybe not if they're getting a forty-one thousand dollar tax credit as he is. I just say in my final minute, it's a great honor and privilege to even be standing here - whatever happens on November second - it's an honor and a privilege. It's an honor and a privilege to have known President Ford for sixteen years, sixteen years, as I said at the outset. He's a man of unparalleled decency and honesty and courage; he's a man we can be proud of; he's gonna give us that leadership that America needs - all Americans - white, blacks, Spanish-speaking, rich, poor. Don't be fooled by the words, don't be fooled by the rhetoric, don't be fooled by the promises because somebody has to pay for those promises. Just take a look at the leadership. Take a look at President Ford. And thank President Ford for the fact that we live in peace and freedom and your sons and your husbands and your relatives are home and they're safe. It could only happen in America. Thank you. HOGE: Senator Mondale. MONDALE: Americans are not interested in partisan debating points. They're not interested in how many uh - debate points are scored. That means little to the lives of Americans. What really counts is whether this country can begin to solve those problems that are overwhelming so many Americans: record unemployment - the highest since the Great Depression, and getting worse; runaway inflation - three times worse than that under the Democratic party; deficits that are unbelievable. Just last year, under this administration, we had a deficit larger than all of the deficits created in the eight years of the Democratic administration, and under this Republican party higher deficits than in the previous one hundred and ninety two years of this government's history. Now we recognize that you have to be prudent, that you have to live within a budget, that you have to deal with the resources that are at hand. There's no dispute on that. The question is how will those resources be used? And we believe that we need a government that works, that's efficient, but we also think that we need a government that cares. We've cared too little for people in this country that have gotten sick and can't afford decent health care. We've cared too little for the thousands and thousands of American families that cannot get or afford decent housing. This administration has fought time and time again to cut back support for our senior citizens. They have no energy policy. They have no environmental policy. Those things must change. We believe in a strong defense. We're not going to let this nation's defenses drop. But there's a big difference between waste and strength, and what we've been attacking is waste because waste does not contribute to strength - it contributes to weakness. There are many problems in the Defense Department that require better management in order to get that increased strength. We need leadership in this country to do all of those things. For eight years now the Republicans have controlled government. For eight years they've controlled the White House, and every one of those problems has gotten worse. They are not now proposing new policies and new directions. Tonight you heard what they are doing. They are defending the past. Everything is all right. The problems are not as bad as the statistics or the people believe, and therefore they might go away. That is not enough. This country cries out for new leadership. We need a fresh start. And the Carter-Mondale ticket promises that start. Not because we know all the answers - we know better. Not because we can do everything at once - because we know better than that. But because a good nation requires that we begin the effort. HOGE: Thank you, Senator Mondale and thank you, Senator Dole. I want to thank as well the audience here tonight and my colleagues who were our questioners. The final debate in this series will be between the presidential candidates, Gerald Ford and his challenger, Jimmy Carter. It will be held on October 22nd at 9:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the campus of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia. The subject matter will cover all issues. The sponsors of these debates is the League of Women Voters Education Fund, whose purpose is to promote greater participation by a better informed electorate in the election on November second. Now, from the Alley Theater, Houston, Texas, good night. Presidential Candidate Debates, Vice Presidential Debate in Houston, Texas Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217312

October 22, 1976 THE MODERATOR. Good evening, I am Barbara Walters, moderator of the last of the debates of 1976 between Gerald R. Ford, Republican candidate for President, and Jimmy Carter, Democratic candidate for President. Welcome, President Ford, welcome, Governor Carter, and thank you for joining us this evening. This debate takes place before an audience in Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall on the campus of the College of William and Mary in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. It is particularly appropriate in this Bicentennial Year that we meet on these grounds to hear this debate. Two hundred years ago, five William and Mary students met at nearby Raleigh Tavern to form Phi Beta Kappa, a fraternity designed, they wrote, "to search out and dispel the clouds of falsehood by debating without reserve the issues of the day." In that spirit of debate--"without reserve, ....to dispel the clouds of falsehood"--gentlemen, let us proceed. The subject matter of this debate is open, covering all issues and topics. Our questioners tonight are Joseph Kraft, syndicated columnist, Robert Maynard, editorial writer for the Washington Post, and Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. The ground rules tonight are as follows: Questioners will alternate questions between the candidates. The candidate has up to 2 1/2 minutes to answer the question. The other candidate then has up to 2 minutes to respond. If necessary, a questioner may ask a follow-up question for further clarification, and in that case the candidate has up to 2 minutes to respond. As was initially agreed to by both candidates, the answers should be responsive to the particular questions. Finally, each candidate has up to 3 minutes for a closing statement. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have prepared notes or comments with them this evening, but they may make notes and refer to them during the debate. It has been determined that President Ford would take the first question in this last debate, and, Mr. Kraft, you have that first question for President Ford. MR. KRAFT. Mr. President, I assume that the Americans all know that these are difficult times and that there is no pie in the sky and that they don't expect something for nothing. So I'd like to ask you, as a first question, as you look ahead in the next 4 years, what sacrifices are you going to call on the American people to make? What price are you going to ask them to pay to realize your objectives? Let me add, Governor Carter, that if you felt that it was appropriate to answer that question in your comments, as to what price it would be appropriate for the American people to pay for a Carter administration, I think that would be proper, too. Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kraft, I believe that the American people in the next 4 years, under a Ford administration, will be called upon to make those necessary sacrifices to preserve the peace--which we have--which means, of course, that we will have to maintain an adequate military capability; which means, of course, that we will have to add, I think, a few billion dollars to our defense appropriations to make certain that we have adequate strategic forces, adequate conventional forces. I think the American people will be called upon to be in the forefront in giving leadership to the solution of those problems that must be solved in the Middle East, in southern Africa, and any problems that might arise in the Pacific. The American people will be called upon to tighten their belts a bit in meeting some of the problems that we face domestically. I don't think that America can go on a big spending spree with a whole lot of new programs that would add significantly to the Federal budget. I believe that the American people, if given the leadership that I would expect to give, would be willing to give this thrust to preserve the peace and the necessary restraint at home to hold the lid on spending so that we could, I think, have a long overdue and totally justified tax decrease for the middle-income people. And then--with the economy that would be generated from a restraint on spending and a tax reduction primarily for the middle-income people--then I think the American people would be willing to make those sacrifices for peace and prosperity in the next 4 years. MR. KRAFT. Could I be a little bit more specific, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT. Sure, sure. MR. KRAFT. Doesn't your policy really imply that we are going to have to have a pretty high rate of unemployment over a fairly long time, that growth is going to be fairly slow, and that we are not going to be able to do very much in the next 4 or 5 years to meet the basic agenda of our national needs in the cities, in health, in transit, and a whole lot of other things like that? THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. MR. KRAFT. Aren't those the real costs? THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Kraft. We're spending very significant amounts of money now, some $200 billion a year, almost 50 percent of our total Federal expenditure by the Federal Government at the present time, for human needs. Now, we will probably have to increase that to some extent, but we don't have to have growth in spending that will blow the lid off and add to the problems of inflation. I believe we can meet the problems within the cities of this country and still give a tax reduction. I proposed, as you know, a reduction to increase the personal exemption from $750 to $1,000, with the fiscal program that I have. And if you look at the projections, it shows that we will reduce unemployment, that we will continue to win the battle against inflation and, at the same time, give the kind of quality of life that I believe is possible in America: a job, a home for all those that will work and save for it, safety in the streets, health care that is affordable. These things can be done if we have the right vision and the right restraint and the right leadership. THE MODERATOR. Thank you. Governor Carter, your response, please. MR. CARTER. Well, I might say first of all, that I think in case of a Carter administration, the sacrifices would be much less. Mr. Ford's own environmental agency has projected a 10-percent unemployment rate by 1978 if be is President. The American people are ready to make sacrifices if they are part of the process, if they know that they will be helping to make decisions and won't be excluded from being an involved party to the national purpose. The major effort that we must put forward is to put our people back to work. And I think that this is one example where a lot of people have selfish, grasping ideas now. I remember in 1973, in the depth of the energy crisis, when President Nixon called on the American people to make a sacrifice to cut down on the waste of gasoline, to cut down on the speed of automobiles. It was a tremendous surge of patriotism. "I want to make a sacrifice for my country? I think we could call together--with strong leadership in the White House-business, industry, and labor, and say, let's have voluntary price restraints, let's lay down some guidelines so we don't have continuing inflation. We could also have an end to the extremes. We now have one extreme, for instance, of some welfare recipients who, by taking advantage of the welfare laws, the housing laws, the Medicaid laws, and the food stamp laws, make over $10,000 a year, and they don't have to pay any taxes on it. At the other extreme just I percent of the richest people in our country derive 25 percent of all the tax benefits. So both those extremes grasp for advantage, and the person who has to pay that expense is the middle-income family who is still working for a living. And they have to pay for the rich who have the privilege and for the poor who are not working. But I think that a balanced approach, with everybody being part of it, and striving for unselfishness could help, as it did in 1973, to let people sacrifice for their own country. I know I'm ready for it; I think the American people are, too. THE MODERATOR. Thank you. Mr. Maynard, your question to Governor Carter. MR. MAYNARD. Governor, by all indications, the voters are so turned off by this election campaign so far that only half intend to vote. One major reason for this apathetic electorate appears to be the low level at which this campaign bas been conducted. It has digressed frequently from important issues into allegations of blunders and brainwashing and fixations on lust in Playboy. What responsibility do you accept for the low level of this campaign for the Nation's highest office? MR. CARTER. I think the major reason for a decrease in participation that we've experienced ever since 1960 bas been the deep discouragement of the American people about the performance of public officials. When you've got 7 1/2, 8 million people out of work, when you've got three times as much inflation as you had during the last 8-year Democratic administration, when you have the highest deficits in history, when you have it becoming increasingly difficult for a family to put a child through college or to own a home, there is a natural inclination to be turned off. Also, in the aftermath of Vietnam and Cambodia and Watergate and the CIA revelations, people have felt that they've been betrayed by public officials. I have to admit that in the heat of the campaign--I've been in 30 primaries during the springtime; I've been campaigning for 22 months--I've made some mistakes. And I think this is part of just being a human being. I have to say that my campaign has been an open one. The Playboy thing bas been of very great concern to me. I don't know how to deal with it exactly. I agreed to give the interview to Playboy. Other people have done it who are notable--Governor Jerry Brown, Walter Cronkite, Albert Schweitzer, Mr. Ford's own Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Simon, William Buckley, many other people. But they weren't running for President. And in retrospect, from hindsight, I would not have given that interview had I to do it over again. If I should ever decide in the future to discuss my deep Christian beliefs and condemnation and sinfulness, l would use another forum besides Playboy. But I can say this: I'm doing the best I can to get away from that. And during the next 10 days, the American people will not see the Carter campaign running television advertisements or newspaper advertisements based on a personal attack on President Ford's character. I believe that the opposite is true with President Ford's campaign. And I hope that we can leave those issues, in the next 10 days, about personalities and mistakes of the past--we've both matte some mistakes--and talk about unemployment, inflation, housing, education, taxation, government organization, stripping away of secrecy, and the things that are crucial to the American people. I regret the things in my own long campaign that have been mistaken, but I'm trying to do away with those the last 10 days. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, Governor Carter. President Ford, your response? THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the American people have been turned off in this election, Mr. Maynard, for a variety of reasons. We have seen on Capitol Hill, in the Congress, a great many allegations of wrongdoing, of alleged immorality. Those are very disturbing to the American people. They wonder how an elected representative can serve them and participate in such activities,' serving in the Congress of the United States. Yes, and I'm certain many, many Americans were turned off by the revelations of Watergate, a very, very bad period of time in American political history. Yes, and thousands, maybe millions of Americans were turned off because of the problems that came out of our involvement in Vietnam. But on the other hand, I found on July 4 of this year a new spirit born in America. We were celebrating our Bicentennial. And I find that there is a movement--as I traveled around the country--of greater interest in this campaign. Now, like any hard-working person seeking public office, in the campaign, inevitably, sometimes you will use rather graphic language. And I am guilty of that just like, I think, most others in the political arena. But I do make a pledge that in the next 10 days when we are asking the American people to make one of the most important decisions in their lifetime, because I think this election is one of the most vital in the history of America, that we do together what we can to stimulate voter participation. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, President Ford. Mr. Nelson, your question to President Ford. MR. NELSON. Mr. President, you mentioned Watergate, and you became President because of Watergate, so don't you owe the American people a special obligation to explain in detail your role of limiting one of the original investigations of a Watergate--that was the one by the House Banking Committee? And I know you've answered questions on this before, but there are questions. that still remain, and I think people want to know what your role was. Will you name the persons you talked to in connection with that investigation, and since you say you have no recollection of talking to anyone from the White House, would you be willing to open for examination the White House tapes of conversations during that period? THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Nelson, I testified before two committees, House and Senate, on precisely the questions that you have asked. And the testimony, under oath, was to the effect that I did not talk to Mr. Nixon, to Mr. Haldeman, to Mr. Ehrlichman, or to any of the people at the White House. I said I had no recollection whatsoever of talking with any of the White House legislative liaison people. I indicated under oath that the initiative that I took was at the request of the ranking members of the House Banking and Currency Committee on the Republican side, which was a legitimate request and a proper response by me. Now, that was gone into by two congressional committees, and following that investigation both committees overwhelmingly approved me, and both the House and the Senate did likewise. Now, in the meantime the Special Prosecutor--within the last few days after an investigation himself--said there was no reason for him to get involved, because he found nothing that would justify it. And then, just a day or two ago, the Attorney General of the United States made a further investigation and came to precisely the same conclusion. Now, after all of those investigations by objective, responsible people, I think the matter is closed once and for all. But to add one other feature: I don't control any of the tapes. Those tapes are in the jurisdiction of the courts, and I have no right to say yes or no. But all the committees, the Attorney General, the Special Prosecutor--all of them have given me a clean bill of health. I think the matter is settled once and for all. MR. NELSON. Well, Mr. President, if I do say so, though, the question is that I think you still have not gone into details about what your role in it was. And I don't think there was any question about whether or not there was a criminal prosecution, but whether you have told the American people your entire involvement in it and whether you would be willing--even though you don't control the tapes--whether you would be willing to ask that the tapes be released for examination? THE PRESIDENT. That's for the proper authorities who have control over those tapes to make that decision. I have given every bit of evidence, answered every question that's been asked me by any Senator or any Member of the House, plus the fact that the Special Prosecutor, on his own initiation, and the Attorney General, on his initiation--the highest law enforcement official in this country-all of them have given me a clean bill of health. And I've told everything I know about it. I think the matter is settled once and for all. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter, your response. MR. CARTER. I don't have any response. THE MODERATOR. Thank you. Then we will have the next question from Mr. Kraft to Governor Carter. MR. KRAFT. Governor Carter, the next big crisis spot in the world may be Yugoslavia. President Tito is old and sick, and there are divisions in his country. It's pretty certain that the Russians are going to do everything they possibly can after Tito dies to force Yugoslavia back into the Soviet camp. But last Saturday, you said--and this is a quote--"I would not go to war in Yugoslavia even if the Soviet Union sent in troops." Doesn't that statement practically invite the Russians to intervene in Yugoslavia? Doesn't it discourage Yugoslavs who might be tempted to resist? And wouldn't it have been wiser on your part to say nothing and to keep the Russians in the dark, as President Ford did and as, I think, every President has done since President Truman? MR. CARTER. In the last 2 weeks I've had a chance to talk to two men who have visited the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and China. One is Governor Averell Harriman,1 who visited the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the other one is James Schlesinger,2 whom I think you accompanied to China. I got a complete report back from those countries from these two distinguished gentlemen. Mr. Harriman talked to the leaders in Yugoslavia, and I think it's accurate to say that there is no prospect, in their opinion, of the Soviet Union invading Yugoslavia should Mr. Tito pass away. The present leadership there is fairly uniform in their purpose. I think it's a close-knit group, and I think it would be unwise for us to say that we will go to war in Yugoslavia if the Soviets should invade, which I think would be an extremely unlikely thing. I have maintained from the very beginning of my campaign--and this was a standard answer that I made in response to the Yugoslavian question--that I would never go to war, become militarily involved in the internal affairs of another country, unless our own security was directly threatened. And I don't believe that our security would be directly threatened if the Soviet Union went into Yugoslavia. I don't believe it will happen. I certainly hope it won't. I would take the strongest possible measures short of actual military action there by our own troops, but I doubt that that would be an eventuality. MR. KRAFT. One quick follow-up. Did you clear the response you made with Secretary Schlesinger and Governor Harriman? MR. CARTER. No, I did not. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, your response. THE PRESIDENT. Well, I firmly believe, Mr. Kraft, that it's unwise for a President to signal in advance what options he might exercise if any international problem arose. I think we all recall with some sadness that at the period of the late 1940's, early 1950's, there were some indications that the United States would not include South Korea in an area of defense. There are some who allege--I can't prove it true or untrue--that such a statement, in effect, invited the North Koreans to invade South Korea. It's a fact they did. But no President of the United States, in my opinion, should signal in advance to a prospective enemy what his decision might be or what option he might exercise. It's far better for a person sitting in the White House, who has a number of options, to make certain that the other side, so to speak, doesn't know precisely what you're going to do. And therefore, that was the reason that I would not identify any particular course of action when I responded to a question a week or so ago. THE MODERATOR. Thank you. Mr. Maynard, your question to President Ford, please. MR. MAYNARD. Sir, this question concerns your administrative performance as President. The other day, General George Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered his views on several sensitive subjects, among them Great Britain, one of this country's oldest allies. He said, and I quote him now, "Great Britain--it's a pathetic thing, it just makes you cry. They are no longer a world power. All they have are generals, admirals, and bands." Since General Brown's comments have caused this country embarrassment in the past, why is he still this Nation's leading military officer? THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated to General Brown that the words that he used in that interview, in that particular case, and in several others were very ill-advised. And General Brown has indicated his apology, his regrets, and I think that will, in this situation, settle the matter. It is tragic that the full transcript of that interview was not released, and that there were excerpts, some of the excerpts, taken out of context--not this one, however--that you bring up. General Brown has an exemplary record of military performance. He served this Nation with great, great skill and courage and bravery for 35 years. And I think it's the consensus of the people who are knowledgeable in the military field that he is probably the outstanding military leader and strategist that we have in America today. Now, he did use ill-advised words. But I think in the fact that he apologized, that he was reprimanded, does permit him to stay on and continue that kind of leadership that we so badly need as we enter into negotiations under the SALT II agreement, or if we have operations that might be developing in the Middle East or in southern Africa or in the Pacific--we need a man with that experience, that knowledge, that know-how. And I think in light of the fact that he has apologized, would not have justified my asking for his resignation. THE MODERATOR. Thank you. Governor Carter, your response. MR. CARTER. Well, just briefly, I think this is the second time that General Brown has made a statement for which he did have to apologize--and I know that everybody makes mistakes. I think the first one was related to the unwarranted influence of American Jews on the media and in the Congress. This one concerned Great Britain. I think he said Israel was a military burden on us and that Iran hoped to reestablish the Persian Empire. I am not sure that I remembered earlier that President Ford had expressed his concern about the statement or apologized for it. This is something, though, that I think is indicative of a need among the American people to know how the Commander in Chief, the President, feels. And I think the only criticism that I would have of Mr. Ford is that immediately when the statement was revealed, perhaps a statement from the President would have been a clarifying and a very beneficial thing. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Nelson, your question now to Governor Carter. MR. NELSON. Governor, despite the fact that you've been running for President a long time now, many Americans still seem to be uneasy about you. They don't feel that they know you or the people around you. And one problem seems to be that you haven't reached out to bring people with broad background or national experience into your campaign or your Presidential plans. Most of the people around you on a day-to-day basis are the people you've known in Georgia. Many of them are young and relatively inexperienced in national affairs. Doesn't this raise a serious question as to whether you would bring into a Carter administration people with the necessary background to run the Federal Government? MR. CARTER. I don't believe it does. I began campaigning 22 months ago. At that time nobody thought I had a chance to win. Very few people knew who I was. I came from a tiny town, as you know--Plains--and didn't hold public office, didn't have very much money. And my first organization was just four or five people plus my wife and my children, my three sons and their wives. And we won the nomination by going out into the streets, barbershops, beauty parlors, restaurants, stores, in factory shift lines, also in farmers' markets and livestock sale barns, and we talked a lot and we listened a lot, and we learned from the American people. We built up an awareness among the voters of this country, particularly those in whose primaries I entered--30 of them, nobody has ever done that before--about who I was and what I stood for. Now we have a very wide-ranging group of advisers who help me prepare for these debates and who teach me about international economics and foreign affairs, defense matters, health, education, welfare, government reorganization-I'd say several hundred of them, and they are very fine and very highly qualified. The one major decision that I have made since acquiring the nomination-and I share this with President Ford--is the choice of the Vice President. I think this would be indicative of the kind of leaders that I would choose to help me if I am elected. I chose Senator Walter Mondale. And the only criterion that I have put forward in my own mind was, who among the several million people in this country would be the best person qualified to be President if something should happen to me and to join me in being Vice President if I should serve out my term? And I'm convinced now, more than I was when I got the nomination, that Walter Mondale was the right choice. And I believe this is a good indication of the kind of people that I would choose in the future. Mr. Ford has had that same choice to make. I don't want to say anything critical of Senator Dole, but I have never heard Mr. Ford say that that was his primary consideration--who is the best person I could choose in this country to be President of the United States. I feel completely at ease knowing that some day Senator Mondale might very well be President. In the last five Vice-Presidential nominees, incumbents, three of them have become President. But I think this is indicative of what I would do. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, your response please. THE PRESIDENT. The Governor may not have heard my established criteria for the selection of a Vice President, but it was a well-established criteria that the person I selected would be fully qualified to be President of the United States. And Senator Bob Dole is so qualified--16 years in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, very high responsibilities on important committees. I don't mean to be critical of Senator Mondale, but I was very, very surprised when I read that Senator Mondale made a very derogatory, very personal comment about General Brown after the news story that broke about General Brown. If my recollection is correct, he indicated that General Brown was not qualified to be a sewer commissioner. I don't think that's a proper way to describe a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has fought for his country for 35 years. And I'm sure the Governor would agree with me on that. I think Senator Dole would show more good judgment and discretion than to so describe a heroic and brave and very outstanding leader of the military. So, I think our selection of Bob Dole as Vice President is based on merit. And if he should ever become the President of the United States, with his vast experience as a Member of the House and a Member of the Senate, as well as a Vice President, I think he would do an outstanding job as President of the United States. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Kraft, your question to President Ford. MR. KRAFT. Mr. President, let me assure you and maybe some of the viewing audience that being on this panel hasn't been, as it may seem, all torture and agony. One of the heartening things is that I and my colleagues have received literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of suggested questions from ordinary citizens all across the country who want answers. THE PRESIDENT. That's a tribute to their interest in this election. MR. KRAFT. I will give you that. But let me go on, because one main subject on the minds of all of them has been the environment, particularly curious about your record. People 'really want to know why you vetoed the strip mining bill. They want to know why you worked against strong controls on auto emissions. They want to know why you aren't doing anything about pollution of the Atlantic Ocean. They want to know why a bipartisan organization such as the National League of Conservation Voters says that when it comes to environmental issues, you are--and I am quoting--"hopeless." THE PRESIDENT. First, let me set the record straight. I vetoed the strip mining bill, Mr. Kraft, because it was the overwhelming consensus of knowledgeable people that that strip mining bill would have meant the loss of literally thousands of jobs, something around 140,000 jobs. Number two, that strip mining bill would have severely set back our need for more coal, and Governor Carter has said repeatedly that coal is the resource that we need to use more in the effort to become independent of the Arab oil supplies. So, I vetoed it because of a loss of jobs and because it would have interfered with our energy independence program. The auto emissions--it was agreed by Leonard Woodcock, the head of the UAW, and by the heads of all of the automobile industry--we had labor and management together saying that those auto emission standards had to be modified. But let's talk about what the Ford administration has done in the field of environment. I have increased, as President, by over 60 percent, the funding for water treatment plants in the United States, the Federal contribution. I have fully funded the land and water conservation program; in fact, have recommended, and the Congress approved, a substantially increased land and water conservation program. I have added in the current year budget, the funds for the National Park Service. For example, we proposed about $12 million to add between 400 and 500 more employees for the National Park Service. And a month or so ago, I did likewise say over the next 10 years we should expand--double--the national parks, the wilderness areas, the scenic river areas. And then, of course, the final thing is that I have signed and approved of more scenic rivers, more wilderness areas since I've been President than any other President in the history of the United States. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, I might say I think the League of Conservation Voters is absolutely right. This administration's record of environment is very bad. I think it's accurate to say that the strip mining law, which was passed twice by the Congress and only lacked two votes, I believe, of being overridden, would have been good for the country. The claim that it would have put 140,000 miners out of work is hard to believe when at the time Mr. Ford vetoed it, the United Mine Workers was supporting the bill. And I don't think they would have supported the bill had they known that they would lose 140,000 jobs. There has been a consistent policy on the part of this administration to lower or to delay enforcement of air pollution standards and water pollution standards. And under both Presidents Nixon and Ford, moneys have been impounded that would have gone to cities and others to control water pollution. We have no energy policy. We, I think, are the only developed nation in the world that has no comprehensive energy policy to permit us to plan, in an orderly way, how to shift from increasing the scarce energy forms--oil--and have research and development concentrated on the increased use of coal, which I strongly favor--the research and development to be used primarily to make the coal burning be clean. We need a heritage trust program, similar to the one we had in Georgia, to set aside additional lands that have geological and archeological importance, natural areas for enjoyment. The lands that Mr. Ford brags about having approved are in Alaska, and they are enormous in size, but as far as the accessibility of them by the American people, is very far in the future. We have taken no strong position in the control of pollution of our oceans. And I would say the worst threat to the environment of all is nuclear proliferation. And this administration, having been in office now for 2 years or more, has still not taken a strong and bold action to stop the proliferation of nuclear waste around the world, particularly plutonium. Those are some brief remarks about the failures of this administration. I would do the opposite in every respect. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Maynard to Governor Carter. MR. MAYNARD. Governor, Federal policy in this country since World War II has tended to favor the development of suburbs at the great expense of central cities. Does not the Federal Government now have an affirmative obligation to revitalize the American city? We have heard little in this campaign suggesting that you have an urban reconstruction program. Could you please outline your urban intentions for us tonight? MR. CARTER. Yes, I would be glad to. In the first place, as is the case with the environmental policy and energy policy that I just described, and the policy for nonproliferation of nuclear waste, this administration has no urban policy. It's impossible for mayors or Governors to cooperate with the President, because they can't anticipate what is going to happen next. A mayor of a city like New York, for example, needs to know 18 months or 2 years ahead of time what responsibility the city will have in administration and in financing, in things like housing, pollution control, crime control, education, welfare and health. This has not been done, unfortunately. I remember the headline in the Daily News that said, "Ford To New York--Drop Dead." I think it's very important that our cities know that they have a partner in the Federal Government. Quite often, Congress has passed laws in the past designed to help people with the ownership of homes and with the control of crime and with adequate health care and better education programs and so forth. Those programs were designed to help those who need it most, and quite often this has been in the very poor people and neighborhoods in the downtown urban centers. Because of the greatly advantaged persons who live in the suburbs--better education, better organization, more articulate, more aware of what the laws are--quite often this money has been channeled out of the downtown centers where it's needed. Also, I favor all revenue sharing money being used for local governments and also to remove the prohibitions in the use of revenue sharing money, so that it can be used to improve education and health care. We have now, for instance, only 7 percent of the total education costs being financed by the Federal Government. When the Nixon-Ford administration started, this was 10 percent. That's a 30-percent reduction in the portion that the Federal Government contributes to education in just 8 years and, as you know, the education costs have gone up tremendously. The last point is that the major thrust has got to be to put people back to work. We've got an extraordinarily high unemployment rate among downtown, urban ghetto areas; particularly among the very poor and particularly among minority groups, sometimes 50 or 60 percent. And the concentration of employment opportunities in those areas would help greatly not only to reestablish the tax base, but also to help reduce the extraordinary welfare costs. One of the major responsibilities on the shoulders of New York City is to finance welfare. And I favor the shifting of the welfare cost away from the local governments altogether and, over a longer period of time, let the Federal Government begin to absorb part of it that is now paid by the State government. Those things would help a great deal with the cities, but we still have a very serious problem there. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Let me speak out very strongly. The Ford administration does have a very comprehensive program to help our major metropolitan areas. I fought for, and the Congress finally went along with, a general revenue sharing program whereby cities and States--the cities, two-thirds, and the States, one-third--get over $6 billion a year, in cash, with which they can provide many, many services, whatever they really want. In addition, we in the Federal Government make available to cities about $3,300 million in what we call community developments. In addition, as a result of my pressure on the Congress, we got a major mass transit program over a 4-year period--$11,800 million. We have a good housing program that will result in cutting the down payments by 50 percent and having mortgage payments lower at the beginning of any mortgage period. We are expanding our homestead housing program. The net result is, we think, under Carla Hills, who is the Chairman of my Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization program, we will really do a first-class job in helping the communities throughout the country. As a matter of fact, that committee, under Secretary Hills, released about a 75-page report with specific recommendations, so we can do a better job in the weeks ahead. And in addition, the tax program of the Ford administration, which provides an incentive for industry to move into our major metropolitan areas, into the inner cities, will bring jobs where people are and help to revitalize those cities as they can be. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Nelson, your question next to President Ford. MR. NELSON. Mr. President, your campaign has run ads in black newspapers saying that "for black Americans, President Ford is quietly getting the job done." Yet, study after study has shown little progress in desegregation and, in fact, actual increases in segregated schools and housing in the Northeast. Now, civil rights groups have complained repeatedly that there has been lack of progress in commitment to an integrated society during your administration. So, how are you getting the job done for blacks and other minorities, and what programs do you have in mind for the next 4 years? THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say at the outset, I am very proud of the record of this administration. In the Cabinet I have one of the outstanding, I think, administrators as the Secretary of Transportation--Bill Coleman. You are familiar, I am sure, with the recognition given in the Air Force to General James. And there was just approved a three-star admiral, the first in the history of the United States Navy. So, we are giving full recognition to individuals, of quality in the Ford administration in positions of great responsibility. In addition, the Department of Justice is fully enforcing, and enforcing effectively, the Voting Rights Act--the legislation that involves jobs, housing for minorities, not only blacks but all others. The Department of HUD is enforcing the new legislation that takes care of redlining. What we are doing is saying that there are opportunities--business opportunities, educational opportunities, responsibilities--where people with talent--blacks or any other minority--can fully qualify. The office of minority business in the Department of Commerce has made available more money in trying to help black businessmen, or other minority businessmen, than any other administration since the office was established. The office of small business, under Mr. Kobelinski, has a very massive program trying to help the black community. The individual who wants to start a business or expand his business as a black businessman is able to borrow either directly or with guaranteed loans. I believe on the record that this administration has been responsive and have carried out the law to the letter, and I am proud of the record. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter, your response, please. MR. CARTER. The description just made of this administration's record is hard to recognize. I think it is accurate to say that Mr. Ford voted against the voting rights acts and against the civil rights acts in their debative stage. I think once it was assured they were going to pass, he finally voted for it. This country changed drastically in 1969 when the terms of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were over, and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford became the Presidents. There was a time when there was hope for those who were poor and downtrodden and who were elderly or who were ill or who were in minority groups. That time has been gone. I think the greatest thing that ever happened to the South was the passage of the civil rights acts and the opening up of opportunities to black people, to have a chance to vote, to hold a job, to buy a house, to go to school, and to participate in public affairs. It not only liberated black people but it also liberated the whites. We have seen in many instances in recent years a minority affairs section of a small loan administration, Small Business Administration, lend a black entrepreneur just enough money to get started, and then to go bankrupt. The bankruptcies have gone up an extraordinary degree. The FHA [Federal Housing Administration], which used to be a very responsible agency that everyone looked to to help own a home, lost $600 million last year. There have been over 1,300 indictments in HUD, over 800 convictions relating just to home loans. And now the Federal Government has become the world's greatest slum landlord. We've got a 30-percent or 40-percent unemployment rate among minority young people. And there has been no concerted effort given to the needs of those who are both poor and black, or poor and who speak a foreign language. And that's where there has been a great generation of despair and ill-health and lack of education and lack of purposefulness and a lack of hope for the future. But it doesn't take just a quiet, dormant, minimum enforcement of the law. It requires an aggressive searching out and reaching out to help people who especially need it. And that's been lacking in the last 8 years. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Kraft, to Governor Carter. MR. KRAFT. Governor Carter, in the nearly 200-year history of the Constitution, there have been only, I think it is, 25 amendments, most of them on issues of the very broadest principle. Now we have proposed amendments in many highly specialized causes like gun control, school busing, balanced budget, school prayer, abortion, things like that. Do you think it's appropriate to the dignity of the Constitution to tack on amendments in a wholesale fashion, and which of the ones I listed--that is, balanced budget, school busing, school prayer, abortion, gun control--which of those would you really work hard to support if you were President? MR. CARTER. I would not work hard to support any of those. We have always had, I think, a lot of constitutional amendments proposed but the passage of them has been fairly slow and few and far between. In the 200-year history, there has been a very cautious approach to this. Quite often we have a transient problem. I am strongly against abortion. I think abortion is wrong. I don't think the Government ought to do anything to encourage abortion, but I don't favor a constitutional amendment on the subject. But short of a constitutional amendment, and within the confines of a Supreme Court ruling, I will do everything I can to minimize the need for abortions with better sex education, family planning, with better adoptive procedures. I personally don't believe that the Federal Government ought to finance abortions, but I draw the line and don't support a constitutional amendment. However, I honor the right of people to seek the constitutional amendments on school busing, on prayer in the schools, and on abortion, but among those you named, I won't actively work for the passage of any of them. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, your response, please. THE PRESIDENT. I support the Republican platform which calls for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortions. I favor the particular constitutional amendment that would turn over to the States the individual right of the voters in those States the chance to make a decision by public referendum. I call that the peoples' amendment. I think if you really believe that the people of a State ought to make a decision on a matter of this kind, that we ought to have a Federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice. I think this is a reasonable and proper way to proceed. I believe also that there is some merit to an amendment that Senator Everett Dirksen proposed very frequently, an amendment that would change the Court decision as far as voluntary prayer in public schools. It seems to me that there should be an opportunity, as long as it's voluntary, as long as there is no compulsion whatsoever, that an individual ought to have that right. So, in those two cases I think such a constitutional amendment would be proper. And I really don't think in either case they are trivial matters. I think they are matters of very deep conviction as far as many, many people in this country believe, and therefore they shouldn't be treated lightly, but they are matters that are important. And in those two cases I would favor them. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Maynard, to President Ford. MR. MAYNARD. Mr. President, twice you have been the intended victim of would-be assassins using handguns, yet you remain a steadfast opponent of substantive handgun control. There are now some 40 million handguns in this country, going up at the rate of 2.5 million a year, and tragically those handguns are frequently purchased for self-protection and wind up being used against a relative or a friend. In light of that, why do you remain so adamant in your opposition to substantive gun control in this country? THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Maynard, the record of gun control, whether it's in one city or another or in some States does not show that the registration of a gun, handgun, or the registration of the gun owner has in any way whatsoever decreased the crime rate or the use of that gun in the committing of a crime. The record just doesn't prove that such legislation or action by a local city council is effective. What we have to do--and this is the crux of the matter--is to make it very, very difficult for a person who uses a gun in the commission of a crime to stay out of jail. If we make the use of a gun in the commission of a crime a serious criminal offense and that person is prosecuted, then in my opinion we are going after the person who uses the gun for the wrong reason. I don't believe in the registration of handguns or the registration of the handgun owner. That has not proven to be effective. And, therefore, I think the better way is to go after the criminal, the individual who commits a crime in the possession of a gun and uses that gun for a part of his criminal activity. Those are the people who ought to be in jail. And the only way to do it is to pass strong legislation so that once apprehended, indicted, convicted, they will be in jail and off the streets and not using guns in the commission of a crime. MR. MAYNARD. But, Mr. President, don't you think that the proliferation of the availability of handguns contributes to the possibility of those crimes being committed? And there is a second part to my follow-up. Very quickly, there are, as you know and as you've said, jurisdictions around the country with strong gun control laws. The police officials in those cities contend that if there were a national law to prevent other jurisdictions from providing the weapons that then come into places like New York, that they might have a better handle on the problem. Have you considered that in your analysis of the handgun proliferation problem? THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have, and the individuals with whom I have consulted have not convinced me that a national registration of handguns or handgun owners will solve the problem you are talking about. The person who wants to use a gun for an illegal purpose can get it whether it's registered or outlawed-they will be obtained--and they are the people who ought to go behind bars. You should not, in the process, penalize the legitimate handgun owner. And when you go through the process of registration, you, in effect, are penalizing that individual who uses his gun for a very legitimate purpose. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. I think it's accurate to say that Mr. Ford's position on gun control has changed. Earlier, Mr. Levi, his Attorney General, put forward a gun control proposal which Mr. Ford later, I believe, espoused that called for the prohibition against the sale of the so-called "Saturday night specials." It would have put very strict control over who owned a handgun. I have been a hunter all my life and happen to own both shotguns, rifles, and a handgun. And the only purpose that I would see in registering handguns and not long guns of any kind would be to prohibit the ownership of those guns by those who have used them in the commission of a crime or who have been proven to be mentally incompetent to own a gun. I believe that limited approach to the question would be advisable, and I think adequate, but that's as far as I would go with it. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Nelson, to Governor Carter. MR. NELSON. Governor, you've said the Supreme Court today is, as you put it, moving back in the proper direction in rulings that have limited the rights of criminal defendants, and you've compared the present Supreme Court under Chief Justice Burger very favorably with the more liberal Court that we had under Chief Justice Warren. So, exactly what are you getting at, and can you elaborate on the kind of Court you think this country should have? And can you tell us the kind of qualifications and philosophy you would look for as President in making Supreme Court appointments? MR. CARTER. While I was Governor of Georgia, although I am not a lawyer, we had complete reform of the Georgia court system. We streamlined the structure of the courts, put in administrative offices, put a unified court system in, and required that all severe sentences be reviewed for uniformity; and, in addition to that, put forward a proposal that was adopted and used throughout my own term of office--selection of all judges and district attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, on the basis of merit. Every time I had a vacancy on the Georgia Supreme Court--and I filled five of those vacancies out of seven total, and about half of the Court of Appeals judges, about 35 percent of the trial judges--I was given from an objective panel the five most highly qualified persons in Georgia, and from those five I always chose the first or second one. So, merit selection of judges is the most important single criterion. And I would institute the same kind of procedure as President, not only in judicial appointments but also in diplomatic appointments. Secondly, I think that the Burger Court has fairly well confirmed the major and most far-reaching and most controversial decisions of the Warren Court. Civil rights has been confirmed by the Burger Court. It hasn't been reversed. And I don't think there is any inclination to reverse those basic decisions--of the one man-one vote rule, which is a very important one that struck down the unwarranted influence in the legislature of sparsely populated areas of the States. The right of indigent or very poor accused persons to legal counsel--I think the Burger Court has confirmed that basic and very controversial decision of the Warren Court. Also, the protection of an arrested person against unwarranted persecution in trying to get a false confession. But now, I think there have been a couple of instances where the Burger Court has made technical rulings where an obviously guilty person was later found to be guilty. And I think that in that case some of the more liberal members of the so-called Warren Court agreed with those decisions. But the only thing that I have pointed out was what I've just said, and that there was a need to clarify the technicalities so that you couldn't be forced to release a person who is obviously guilty just because of a small technicality in the law. And that's a reversal of position by the Burger Court with which I do agree. MR. NELSON. Governor, I don't believe you answered my question, though, about the kinds of people you would be looking for for the Court, the type of philosophy you would be looking for if you were making appointments to the Supreme Court as President. MR. CARTER. Okay, I thought I answered it by saying that it would be on the basis of merit. Once the search and analysis procedure had been completed, and once I am given a list of the 5 or 7 or 10 best qualified persons in the country, I would make a selection from among those persons. If the list was in my opinion fairly uniform, if there was no outstanding person, then I would undoubtedly choose someone who would most accurately reflect my own basic political philosophy, as best as I could determine it, which would be to continue the progress that has been made under the last two Courts--the Warren Court and the Burger Court. I would also like to completely revise our criminal justice system to do some of the things at the Federal level and court reform that I just described, as has been done in Georgia and other States. And I would like to appoint people who would be interested in helping with that. I know Chief Justice Burger is. He hasn't had help yet from the administration and from the Congress to carry this out. The emphasis, I think, of the court system should be to interpret the Constitution and the laws equally between property protection and personal protection. But when there is a very narrow decision--which quite often is one that reaches the Supreme Court--I think the choice should be with human rights, and that would be another factor that I would follow. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE. PRESIDENT. I think the answer as to the kind of person that I would select is obvious. I had one opportunity to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court, and I selected the Circuit Court of Appeals judge from Illinois, John Paul Stevens. I selected him because of his outstanding record as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge. And I was very pleased that an overwhelmingly Democratic United States Senate, after going into his background, came to the conclusion that he was fit and should serve, and the vote in his behalf was overwhelming. So, I would say somebody in the format of Justice Stevens would be the kind of an individual that I would select in the future, as I did him in the past. I believe, however, a comment ought to be made about the direction of the Burger Court vis-a-vis the Court that preceded it. It seems to me that the Miranda case was a case that really made it very, very difficult for the police, the law enforcement people in this country, to do what they could to make certain that the victim of a crime was protected and that those that commit crimes were properly handled and sent to jail. The Miranda case, the Burger Court is gradually changing. And I am pleased to see that there are some steps being made by the Burger Court to modify the so-called Miranda decision. I might make a correction of what Governor Carter said, speaking of gun control. Yes, it is true, I believe that the sale of Saturday night specials should be cut out, but he wants the registration of handguns. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Kraft. MR. KRAFT. Mr. President, the country is now in something that your advisers call an economic pause. I think to most Americans that sounds like an antiseptic term for low growth, unemployment, standstill at a high, high level, decline in take-home pay, lower factory earnings, more layoffs. Isn't that really a rotten record, and doesn't your administration bear most of the blame for it? THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Kraft, I violently disagree with your assessment, and I don't think the record justifies the conclusion that you come to. Let me talk about the economic announcements that were made just this past week. Yes, it was announced that the GNP real growth in the third quarter was at 4 percent. But do you realize that over the last 10 years that's a higher figure than the average growth during the 10-year period. Now, it's lower than the 9.2-percent growth in the first quarter and it's lower than the 5-percent growth in the second quarter. But, every economist--liberal, conservative--that I am familiar with, recognizes that in the fourth quarter of this year and in the first quarter of next year that we will have an increase in real GNP. But now let's talk about the pluses that came out this week. We had an 18-percent increase in housing starts. We had a substantial increase in new permits for housing. As a matter of fact, based on the announcement this week, there will be at an annual rate, 1 million 800-some thousand new houses built, which is a tremendous increase over last year and a substantial increase over the earlier part of this year. Now, in addition, we had some very good news in the reduction in the rate of inflation, and inflation hits everybody--those who are working and those who are on welfare. The rate of inflation, as announced just the other day, is under 5 percent, and the 4.4 percent that was indicated at the time of the 4 percent GNP, was less than the 5.4 percent. It means that the American buyer is getting a better bargain today because inflation is less. MR. KRAFT. Mr. President, let me ask you this: There has been an increase in layoffs, and that's something that bothers everybody because even people that have a job are afraid they are going to be fired. Did you predict that increase in layoffs? Didn't that take you by surprise? Hasn't your administration been surprised by this pause? In fact, haven't you been so obsessed with saving money that you didn't even push the Government to spend funds that were allocated? THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kraft, I think the record can be put in this way, which is the way that I think satisfies most Americans: Since the depths of the recession, we have added 4 million jobs. Most importantly, consumer confidence, as surveyed by the reputable organization at the University of Michigan, is at the highest since 1972. In other words, there is a growing public confidence in the strength of this economy. And that means that there will be more industrial activity; it means that there will be a reduction in the unemployment; it means that there will be increased hires; it means that there will be increased employment. Now, we've had this pause but most economists, regardless of their political philosophy, indicate that this pause for a month or two was healthy because we could not have honestly sustained a 9.2 percent rate of growth, which we had in the first quarter of this year. Now, I'd like to point out as well that the United States economic recovery from the recession of a year ago, is well ahead of the economic recovery of any major free industrial nation in the world today. We are ahead of all of the Western European countries. We are ahead of Japan. The United States is leading the free world out of the recession that was serious a year and a half ago. We are going to see unemployment going down, more jobs available, and the rate of inflation going down. And I think this is a record that the American people understand and will appreciate. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, with all due respect to President Ford, I think he ought to be ashamed of making that statement because we have the highest unemployment rate now than we had at any time between the Great Depression, caused by Herbert Hoover, and the time President Ford took office. We have got 7 1/2 million people out of jobs. Since he has been in office, 2? million more American people have lost their jobs. In the last 4 months alone, 500,000 Americans have gone on the unemployment rolls. In the last month, we've had a net loss of 163,000 jobs. Anybody who says that the inflation rate is in good shape now ought to talk to the housewives. One of the overwhelming results that I have seen in places is people feel that you can't plan any more, there is no way to make a prediction that my family might be able to own a home or to put my kids through college. Saving accounts are losing money instead of gaining money. Inflation is robbing us. Under the present administrations--Nixon's and Ford's--we have had three times the inflation rate that we experienced under President Johnson and President Kennedy. The economic growth is less than half today what it was at the beginning of this year. And housing starts--he compares the housing starts with last year, I don't blame him because in 1975 we had fewer housing starts in this country, fewer homes built than any year since 1940. That's 35 years. And we've got a 35-percent unemployment rate in many areas of this country among construction workers. And Mr. Ford hasn't done anything about it. And I think this shows a callous indifference to the families that have suffered so much. He has vetoed bills passed by Congress within the congressional budget guidelines--job opportunities for 2 million Americans. We will never have a balanced budget, we will never meet the needs of our people, we will never control the inflationary spiral as long as we have 7? or 8 million people out of work who are looking for jobs. And we have probably got 2? more million people who are not looking for jobs any more because they've given up hope. That is a very serious indictment of this administration. It's probably the worst one of all. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Maynard. MR. MAYNARD. Governor Carter, you entered this race against President Ford with a 20-point lead or better in the polls and now it appears that this campaign is headed for a photo finish. You have said how difficult it is to run against a sitting President, but Mr. Ford was just as much an incumbent in July when you were 20 points ahead as he is now. Can you tell us what caused the evaporation of that lead, in your opinion? MR. CARTER. Well, that's not exactly an accurate description of what happened. When I was that far ahead it was immediately following the Democratic Convention and before the Republican Convention. At that time 25 or 30 percent of the Reagan supporters said that they would not support President Ford, but as occurred at the end of the Democratic Convention, the Republican Party unified itself, and I think immediately following the Republican Convention there was about a 10-point spread. I believe that to be accurate. I had 49 percent; President Ford had 39 percent. The polls are good indications of fluctuations, but they vary widely one from another, and the only poll I've ever followed is the one that, you know, is taken on Election Day. I was in 30 primaries in the spring and at first it was obvious that I didn't have any standing in the polls. As a matter of fact, I think when Gallup ran their first poll in December 1975, they didn't even put my name on the list. They had 35 people on the list--my name wasn't even there. At the beginning of the year, I had about 2 percent. So the polls, to me, are interesting, but they don't determine my hopes or my despair. I campaign among people. I have never depended on powerful political figures to put me in office. I have a direct relationship with hundreds of thousands of people around the country who actively campaign for me. In Georgia alone, for instance, I got 84 percent of the vote, and I think there were 14 people in addition to myself on the ballot, and Governor Wallace had been very strong in Georgia. That is an overwhelming support from my own people who know me best. And today we have about 500 Georgians at their own expense, just working people who believe in me, spread around the country involved in the political campaign. So the polls are interesting, but I don't know how to explain the fluctuations. I think a lot of it depends on current events--sometimes foreign affairs, sometimes domestic affairs. But I think our core of support among those who are crucial to the election has been fairly steady. And my success in the primary season was, I think, notable for a newcomer, from someone who's outside of Washington, who never has been a part of the Washington establishment. And I think that we will have a good result on November 2 for myself and I hope for the country. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, your response. THE PRESIDENT. I think the increase in the prospects as far as I am concerned and the less favorable prospects for Governor Carter reflect that Governor Carter is inconsistent in many of the positions that he takes. He tends to distort on a number of occasions. Just a moment ago, for example, he was indicating that in the 1950's, for example, unemployment was very low. He fails to point out that in the 1950's we were engaged in the war in Vietnam--I mean in Korea. We had 3,500,000 young men in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. That's not the way to end unemployment or to reduce unemployment. At the present time, we are at peace. We have reduced the number of people in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines from 3,500,000 to 2,100,000. We are not at war. We have reduced the military manpower by 1,400,000. If we had that many more people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Marines, our unemployment figure would be considerably less. But this administration doesn't believe the way to reduce unemployment is to go to war or to increase the number of people in the military. So, you cannot compare unemployment, as you sought to, at the present time, with the 1950's, because the then administration had people in the military. They were at war. They were fighting overseas. And this administration has reduced the size of the military by 1,400,000. They are in the civilian labor market, and they are not fighting anywhere around the world today. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, gentlemen. This will complete our questioning for this debate. We don't have time for more questions and full answers. So, now each candidate will be allowed up to 4 minutes for a closing statement. And, at the original coin toss in Philadelphia a month ago, it was determined that President Ford would make the first closing statement tonight. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. For 25 years, I served in the Congress under five Presidents. I saw them work, I saw them make very hard decisions. I didn't always agree with their decisions, whether they were Democratic or Republican Presidents. For the last 2 years, I've been the President, and I have found from experience that it's much more difficult to make those decisions than it is to second guess them. I became President at the time that the United States was in a very troubled time. We had inflation of over 12 percent; we were on the brink of the worst recession in the last 40 years; we were still deeply involved in the problems of Vietnam; the American people had lost faith and trust and confidence in the Presidency itself. That situation called for me to first put the United States on a steady course and to keep our keel well-balanced, because we had to face the difficult problems that had all of a sudden hit America. I think most people know that I did not seek the Presidency, but I am asking for your help and assistance to be President for the next 4 years. During this campaign, we've seen a lot of television shows, a lot of bumper stickers, and a great many slogans of one kind or another, but those are not the things that count. What counts is that the United States celebrated its 200th birthday on July 4. As a result of that wonderful experience all over the United States, there is a new spirit in America. The American people are healed, are working together. The American people are moving again and moving in the right direction. We have cut inflation by better than half. We have come out of the recession, and we are well on the road to real prosperity in this country again. There has been a restoration of faith and confidence and trust in the Presidency because I've been open, candid, and forthright. I have never promised more than I could produce and I have produced everything that I promised. We are at peace--not a single young American is fighting or dying on any foreign soil tonight. We have peace with freedom. I've been proud to be President of the United States during these very troubled times. I love America just as all of you love America. It would be the highest honor for me to have your support on November 2 and for you to say, "Jerry Ford, you've done a good job; keep on doing it." Thank you, and good night. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, President Ford. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. The major purpose of an election for President is to choose a leader, someone who can analyze the depths of feeling in our country, to set a standard for our people to follow, to inspire people to reach for greatness, to correct our defects, to answer difficulties, to bind ourselves together in a spirit of unity. I don't believe the present administration has done that. We have been discouraged and we've been alienated, sometimes we've been embarrassed, sometimes we've been ashamed. Our people are out of work, and there is a sense of withdrawal. But our country is innately very strong. Mr. Ford is a good and decent man, but he has been in office now more than 800 days, approaching almost as long as John Kennedy was in office. I would like to ask the American people what has been accomplished. A lot remains to be done. My own background is different from his. I was a school board member and a library board member, I served on a hospital authority, and I was in the State senate, and I was Governor and I am an engineer, a naval officer, a farmer, a businessman. I believe we require someone who can work harmoniously with the Congress and can work closely with the people of this country, and who can bring a new image and a new spirit to Washington. Our tax structure is a disgrace and needs to be reformed, I was Governor of Georgia for 4 years. We never increased sales taxes or income tax or property taxes. As a matter of fact, the year before we went out of office we gave a $50 million refund to the property taxpayers of Georgia. We spend $600 per person in this country--every man, woman, and child-for health care. We still rank 15th among all of the nations in the world in infant mortality, and our cancer rate is higher than any country in the world. We don't have good health care. We could have it. Employment ought to be restored to our people. We have become almost a welfare state. We spend now 700 percent more on unemployment compensation than we did 8 years ago when the Republicans took over the White House. Our people want to go back to work. Our education system can be improved. Secrecy ought to be stripped away from government, and a maximum of personal privacy ought to be maintained. Our housing programs have gone bad. It used to be that the average family could own a house, but now less than a third of our people can afford to buy their own homes. The budget was more grossly out of balance last year than ever before in the history of our country--$65 billion--primarily because our people are not at work. Inflation is robbing us, as we've already discussed, and the Government bureaucracy is just a horrible mess. This doesn't have to be. I don't know all of the answers. Nobody could. But I do know that if the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States said, "I believe our Nation is greater than what we are now," I believe that if we are inspired, if we can achieve a degree of unity, if we can set our goals high enough and work toward recognized goals with industry and labor and agriculture along with Government at all levels, we can achieve great things. We might have to do it slowly. There are no magic answers to it, but I believe together we can make great progress, we can correct our difficult mistakes and answer those very tough questions. I believe in the greatness of our country, and I believe the American people are ready for a change in Washington. We have been drifting too long. We have been dormant too long. We have been discouraged too long. And we have not set an example for our own people, but I believe that we can now establish in the White House a good relationship with Congress, a good relationship with our people, set very high goals for our country, and with inspiration and hard work we can achieve great things and let the world know--that's very important, but more importantly, let the people in our own country realize--that we still live in the greatest Nation on Earth. Thank you very much. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, Governor Carter, and thank you, President Ford. I also would like to thank the audience and my three colleagues--Mr. Kraft, Mr. Maynard, and Mr. Nelson, who have been our questioners. This debate has, of course, been seen by millions of Americans, and in addition tonight is being broadcast to 113 nations throughout the world. This concludes the 1976 Presidential debates, a truly remarkable exercise in democracy, for this is the first time in 16 years that the Presidential candidates have debated. It is the first time ever that an incumbent President has debated his challenger, and the debate included the first between the two Vice-Presidential candidates. President Ford and Governor Carter, we not only want to thank you but we commend you for agreeing to come together to discuss the issues before the American people. And our special thanks to the League of Women Voters for making these events possible. In sponsoring these events, the League of Women Voters Education Fund has tried to provide you with the information that you will need to choose wisely. The election is now only 11 days off. The candidates have participated in presenting their views in three 90-minute debates, and now it's up. to the voters, and now it is up to you to participate. The League urges all registered voters to vote on November 2 for the candidate of your choice. And now, from Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall on the campus of the College of William and Mary, this is Barbara Walters wishing you all a good evening. Note: The debate began at 9:30 p.m. at the Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall on the campus of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. It was broadcast live on radio and television. Gerald R. Ford, Presidential Campaign Debate Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217074

October 06, 1976 THE MODERATOR. Good evening. I am Pauline Frederick of NPR [National Public Radio], moderator of the second of the historic debates of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for President, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for President. Thank you, President Ford, and thank you, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight. The debate takes place before an audience in the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in San Francisco. An estimated 100 million Americans are watching on television as well. San Francisco was the site of the signing of the United Nations Charter 31 years ago. Thus, it is an appropriate place to hold this debate, the subject of which is foreign and defense issues. The questioners tonight are Max Frankel, associate editor of the New York Times, Henry L. Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, and Richard Valeriani, diplomatic correspondent of NBC News. The ground rules tonight are basically the same as they were for the first debate 2 weeks ago. The questions will be alternated between candidates. By the toss of a coin, Governor Carter will take the first question. Each question sequence will be as follows: The question will be asked, and the candidate will have up to 3 minutes to answer. His opponent will have up to 2 minutes to respond. And prior to the response, the questioner may ask a follow-up question to clarify the candidate's answer, when necessary, with up to 2 minutes to reply. Each candidate will have 3 minutes for a closing statement at the end. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have notes or prepared remarks with them this evening, but they may take notes during the debate and refer to them. Mr. Frankel, you have the first question for Governor Carter. MR. FRANKEL. Governor, since the Democrats last ran our foreign policy, including many of the men who are advising you, the country has been relieved of the Vietnam agony and the military draft; we've started arms control negotiations with the Russians; we've opened relations with China; we've arranged the disengagement in the Middle East; we've regained influence with the Arabs without deserting Israel. Now, maybe, we've even begun a process of peaceful change in Africa. Now, you've objected in this campaign to the style with which much of this was done, and you've mentioned some other things that you think ought to have been done. But do you really have a quarrel with this Republican record? Would you not have done any of those things? MR. CARTER. Well, I think this Republican administration has been almost all style and spectacular and not substance. We've got a chance tonight to talk about, first of all, leadership, the character of our country, and a vision of the future. In every one of these instances, the Ford administration has failed. And I hope tonight that I and Mr. Ford will have a chance to discuss the reason for those failures. Our country is not strong any more; we're not respected any more. We can only be strong overseas if we're strong at home, and when I become President, we'll not only be strong in those areas but also in defense--a defense capability second to none. We've lost, in our foreign policy, the character of the American people. We've ignored or excluded the American people and the Congress from participation in the shaping of our foreign policy. It's been one of secrecy and exclusion. In addition to that, we've had a chance to become now, contrary to our long-standing beliefs and principles, the arms merchant of the whole world. We've tried to buy success from our enemies, and at the same time we've excluded from the process the normal friendship of our allies. In addition to that, we've become fearful to compete with the Soviet Union on an equal basis. We talk about detente. The Soviet Union knows what they want in detente, and they've been getting it. We have not known what we've wanted, and we've been out-traded in almost every instance. The other point I want to make is about our defense. We've got to be a nation blessed with the defense capability that's efficient, tough, capable, well organized, narrowly focused fighting capability. The ability to fight if necessary is the best way to avoid the chance for or the requirement to fight. And the last point I want to make is this: Mr. Ford, Mr. Kissinger have continued on with the policies and failures of Richard Nixon. Even the Republican platform has criticized the lack of leadership in Mr. Ford, and they've criticized the foreign policy of this administration. This is one instance where I agree with the Republican platform. I might say this in closing, and that is, that as far as foreign policy goes, Mr. Kissinger has been the President of this country. Mr. Ford has shown an absence of leadership and an absence of a grasp of what this country is and what it ought to be. That's got to be changed, and that is one of the major issues in this campaign of 1976. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, would you like to respond? THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter again is talking in broad generalities. Let me take just one question that he raises--the military strength and capability of the United States. Governor Carter, in November of 1975, indicated that he wanted to cut the defense budget by $15 billion. A few months later he said he wanted to cut the defense budget by $8 billion or $9 billion. And more recently he talks about cutting the defense budget by $5 billion to $7 billion. There is no way you can be strong militarily and have those kinds of reductions in our military appropriations. Now let me just tell you a little story. About late October of 1975, I asked the then Secretary of Defense, Mr. Schlesinger, to tell me what had to be done if we were going to reduce the defense budget by $3 to $5 billion. A few days later Mr. Schlesinger came back and said if we cut the defense budget by $3 to $5 billion, we will have to cut military personnel by 250,000, civilian personnel by 100,000, jobs in America by 100,000. We would have to stretch out our aircraft procurement. We would have to reduce our naval construction program. We would have to reduce the research and development for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Marines by 8 percent. We would have to close 20 military bases in the United States immediately. That's the kind of a defense program that Mr. Carter wants. Let me tell you this straight from the shoulder: You don't negotiate with Mr. Brezhnev from weakness. And the kind of a defense program that Mr. Carter wants will mean a weaker defense and a poorer negotiating position. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Trewhitt, a question for President Ford. MR. TREWHITT. Mr. President, my question really is the other side of the coin from Mr. Frankel's. For a generation the United States has had a foreign policy based on containment of communism; yet we have lost the first war in Vietnam, we lost a shoving match in Angola, Communists threaten to come to power by peaceful means in Italy, and relations generally have cooled with the Soviet Union in the last few months. So, let me ask you, first, what do you do about such cases as Italy, and, secondly, does this general drift mean that we're moving back toward something like an old cold war relationship with the Soviet Union? THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe we should move to a cold war relationship. I think it's in the best interest of the United States and the world as a whole that the United States negotiate rather than go back to the cold war relationship with the Soviet Union. I don't look at the picture as bleakly as you have indicated in your question, Mr. Trewhitt. I believe that the United States has had many successes in recent years and recent months as far as the Communist movement is concerned. We have been successful in Portugal where, a year ago, it looked like there was a very great possibility that the Communists would take over in Portugal. It didn't happen. We have a democracy in Portugal today. A few months ago--or I should say maybe 2 years ago--the Soviet Union looked like they had continued strength in the Middle East. Today, according to Prime Minister Rabin, the Soviet Union is weaker in the Middle East than they have been in many, many years. The facts are the Soviet Union relationship with Egypt is at a low level; the Soviet Union relationship with Syria is at a very low point. The United States today, according to Prime Minister Rabin of Israel, is at a peak in its influence and power in the Middle East. But let's turn for a minute to the southern African operations that are now going on. The United States of America took the initiative in southern Africa. We wanted to end the bloodshed in southern Africa. We wanted to have the right of self-determination in southern Africa. We wanted to have majority rule with the full protection of the rights of the minority. We wanted to preserve human dignity in southern Africa. We have taken initiative, and in southern Africa today the United States is trusted by the black frontline nations and black Africa. The United States is trusted by the other elements in southern Africa. The United States foreign policy under this administration has been one of progress and success. And I believe that instead of talking about Soviet progress, we can talk about American successes. And may I make an observation--part of the question you asked, Mr. Trewhitt--I don't believe that it's in the best interests of the United States and the NATO nations to have a Communist government in NATO. Mr. Carter has indicated he would look with sympathy to a Communist government in NATO. I think that would destroy the integrity and the strength of NATO, and I am totally opposed to it. MR. CARTER. Well, Mr. Ford, unfortunately, has just made a statement that's not true. I have never advocated a Communist government for Italy; that would, obviously, be a ridiculous thing for anyone to do who wanted to be President of the country. I think that this is an instance for deliberate distortion, and this has occurred also in the question about defense. As a matter of fact, I've never advocated any cut of $15 billion in our defense budget. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ford has made a political football out of the defense budget. About a year ago, he cut the Pentagon budget $6.8 billion. After he fired James Schlesinger the political heat got so great that he added back about $3 billion. When Ronald Reagan won the Texas primary election, Mr. Ford added back another $1 1/2 billion. Immediately before the Kansas City convention he added back another $1.8 billion in the defense budget. And his own Office of Management and Budget testified that he had a $3 billion cut insurance added to the defense budget under the pressure from the Pentagon. Obviously, this is another indication of trying to use the defense budget for political purposes, which he's trying to do tonight. Now, we went into South Africa late, after Great Britain, Rhodesia, the black nations had been trying to solve this problem for many, many years. We didn't go in until right before the election, similar to what was taking place in 1972, when Mr. Kissinger announced peace is at hand just before the election at that time. And we have weakened our position in NATO, because the other countries in Europe supported the democratic forces in Portugal long before we did. We stuck to the Portugal dictatorships much longer than other democracies did in this world. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Valeriani, a question for Governor Carter. MR. VALERIANI. Governor Carter, much of what the United States does abroad is done in the name of the national interest. What is your concept of the national interest? What should the role of the United States in the world be? And in that connection, considering your limited experience in foreign affairs and the fact that you take some pride in being a Washington outsider, don't you think it would be appropriate for you to tell the American voters, before the election, the people that you would like to have in key positions such as Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, national security affairs adviser at the White House? MR. CARTER. Well, I'm not going to name my Cabinet before I get elected; I've got a little ways to go before I start doing that. But I have an adequate background, I believe. I am a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, the first military graduate since Eisenhower. I've served as Governor of Georgia and have traveled extensively in foreign countries--in South America, Central America, Europe, the Middle East, and in Japan. I've traveled the last 21 months among the people of this country. I've talked to them, and I've listened. And I've seen at firsthand, in a very vivid way, the deep hurt that's come to this country in the aftermath of Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile and Pakistan and Angola and Watergate, CIA revelations. What we were formerly so proud of--the strength of our country, its moral integrity, the representation in foreign affairs of what our people are, what our Constitution stands for--has been gone. And in the secrecy that has surrounded our foreign policy in the last few years, the American people and the Congress have been excluded. I believe I know what this country ought to be. I've been one who's loved my Nation, as many Americans do. And I believe that there is no limit placed on what we can be in the future if we can harness the tremendous resources-militarily, economically--and the stature of our people, the meaning of our Constitution in the future. Every time we've made a serious mistake in foreign affairs, it's been because the American people have been excluded from the process. If we can just tap the intelligence and ability, the sound commonsense, and the good judgment of the American people, we can once again have a foreign policy to make us proud instead of ashamed. And I'm not going to exclude the American people from that process in the future, as Mr. Ford and Kissinger have done. This is what it takes to have a sound foreign policy: strong at home, strong defense, permanent commitments, not betray the principles of our country, and involve the American people and the Congress in the shaping of our foreign policy. Every time Mr. Ford speaks from a position of secrecy--in negotiations and secret treaties that have been pursued and achieved, in supporting dictatorships, in ignoring human rights--we are weak and the rest of the world knows it. So these are the ways that we can restore the strength of our country. And they don't require long experience in foreign policy--nobody has that except a President who served a long time or a Secretary of State. But my background, my experience, my knowledge of the people of this country, my commitment to our principles that don't change--those are the best bases to correct the horrible mistakes of this administration and restore our own country to a position of leadership in the world. MR. VALERIANI. How, specifically, Governor, are you going to bring the American people into the decisionmaking process in foreign policy? What does that mean? MR. CARTER. First of all, I would quit conducting the decisionmaking process in secret, as has been a characteristic of Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Ford. In many instances we've made agreements, like in Vietnam, that have been revealed later on to our embarrassment. Recently, Ian Smith, the President of Rhodesia, announced that he had unequivocal commitments from Mr. Kissinger that he could not reveal. The American people don't know what those commitments are. We've seen in the past a destruction of elected governments, like in Chile, and the strong support of military dictatorship there. These kinds of things have hurt us very much. I would restore the concept of the fireside chat, which was an integral part of the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. And I would also restore the involvement of the Congress. When Harry Truman was President, he was not afraid to have a strong Secretary of Defense--Dean Acheson, George Marshall were strong Secretaries of State--excuse me, State. But he also made sure that there was a bipartisan support. The Members of Congress, Arthur Vandenburg, Walter George, were part of the process. And before our Nation made a secret agreement and before we made a bluffing statement, we were sure that we had the backing not only of the President and the Secretary of State but also of the Congress and the people. This is a responsibility of the President, and I think it's very damaging to our country for Mr. Ford to have turned over this responsibility to the Secretary of State. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, do you have a response? THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter again contradicts himself. He complains about secrecy, and yet he is quoted as saying that in the attempt to find a solution in the Middle East, that he would hold unpublicized meetings with the Soviet Union--I presume for the purpose of imposing a settlement on Israel and the Arab nations. But let me talk just a minute about what we've done to avoid secrecy in the Ford administration. After the United States took the initiative in working with Israel and with Egypt and achieving the Sinai II agreement--and I am proud to say that not a single Egyptian or Israeli soldier has lost his life since the signing of the Sinai agreement--but at the time that I submitted the Sinai agreement to the Congress of the United States, I submitted every single document that was applicable to the Sinai II agreement. It was the most complete documentation by any President of any agreement signed by a President on behalf of the United States. Now, as far as meeting with the Congress is concerned, during the 24 months that I've been the President of the United States, I have averaged better than one meeting a month with responsible groups or committees of the Congress, both House and Senate. The Secretary of State has appeared, in the several years that he's been the Secretary, before 80 different committee hearings in the House and in the Senate. The Secretary of State has made better than 50 speeches all over the United States explaining American foreign policy. I have made, myself, at least 10 speeches in various parts of the country, where I have discussed with the American people defense and foreign policy. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Frankel, a question for President Ford. MR. FRANKEL. Mr. President, I'd like to explore a little more deeply our relationship with the Russians. They used to brag, back in Khrushchev's day, that because of their greater patience and because of our greed for business deals, that they would sooner or later get the better of us. Is it possible that, despite some setbacks in the Middle East, they've proved their point? Our allies in France and Italy are now flirting with communism; we've recognized a permanent Communist regime in East Germany; we virtually signed, in Helsinki, an agreement that the Russians have dominance in Eastern Europe; we bailed out Soviet agriculture with our huge grain sales, we've given them large loans, access to our best technology, and if the Senate hadn't interfered with the Jackson Amendment, maybe you would have given them even larger loans. Is that what you call a two-way street of traffic in Europe? THE PRESIDENT. I believe that we have negotiated with the Soviet Union since I've been President from a position of strength. And let me cite several examples. Shortly after I became President, in December of 1974, I met with General Secretary Brezhnev in Vladivostok. And we agreed to a mutual cap on the ballistic missile launchers at a ceiling of 2,400, which means that the Soviet Union, if that becomes a permanent agreement, will have to make a reduction in their launchers that they now have or plan to have. I negotiated at Vladivostok with Mr. Brezhnev a limitation on the MIRVing of their ballistic missiles at a figure of 1,320, which is the first time that any President has achieved a cap either on launchers or on MIRV's. It seems to me that we can go from there to the grain sales. The grain sales have been a benefit to American agriculture. We have achieved a 5 3/4-year sale of a minimum of 6 million metric tons, which means that they have already bought about 4 million metric tons this year and are bound to buy another 2 million metric tons, to take the grain and corn and wheat that the American farmers have produced in order to have full production. And these grain sales to the Soviet Union have helped us tremendously in meeting the cost of the additional oil and the oil that we have bought from overseas. If we turn to Helsinki--I am glad you raised it, Mr. Frankel--in the case of Helsinki, 35 nations signed an agreement, including the Secretary of State for the Vatican. I can't under any circumstances believe that His Holiness the Pope would agree, by signing that agreement, that the 35 nations have turned over to the Warsaw Pact nations the domination of Eastern Europe. It just isn't true. And if Mr. Carter alleges that His Holiness, by signing that, has done it, he is totally inaccurate. Now, what has been accomplished by the Helsinki agreement? Number one, we have an agreement where they notify us and we notify them of any military maneuvers that are to be undertaken. They have done it in both cases where they've done so. There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration. MR. FRANKEL. I'm sorry, could I just follow--did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it's a Communist zone, whereas on our side of the line the Italians and the French are still flirting with the possibility of communism? THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe, Mr. Frankel, that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous; it has its own territorial integrity. And the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania, to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the President of the United States and the people of the United States are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy, and their freedom. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter, have you a response? MR. CARTER. Well, in the first place, I am not criticizing His Holiness the Pope. I was talking about Mr. Ford. The fact is that secrecy has surrounded the decisions made by the Ford administration. In the case of the Helsinki agreement, it may have been a good agreement at the beginning, but we have failed to enforce the so-called Basket 3 part, which ensures the right of people to migrate, to join their families, to be free to speak out. The Soviet Union is still jamming Radio Free Europe. Radio Free Europe is being jammed. We've also seen a very serious problem with the so-called Sonnenfeldt document which, apparently, Mr. Ford has just endorsed, which said that there is an organic linkage between the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. And I would like to see Mr. Ford convince the Polish Americans and the Czech Americans and the Hungarian Americans in this county that those countries don't live under the domination and supervision of the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain. We also have seen Mr. Ford exclude himself from access to the public. He hasn't had a tough, cross-examination-type press conference in over 30 days. One press conference he had without sound. He's also shown a weakness in yielding to pressure. The Soviet Union, for instance, put pressure on Mr. Ford, and he refused to see a symbol of human freedom recognized around the world--Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Arabs have put pressure on Mr. Ford, and he's yielded, and he has permitted a boycott by the Arab countries of American businesses who trade with Israel, who have American Jews owning or taking part in the management of American companies. His own Secretary of Commerce had to be subpenaed by the Congress to reveal the names of businesses who were subject to this boycott. They didn't volunteer the information; he had to be subpenaed. And the last thing I'd like to say is this: This grain deal with the Soviet Union in '72 was terrible, and Mr. Ford made up for it with three embargoes--one against our own ally in Japan. That's not the way to run our foreign policy, including international trade. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Trewhitt, a question for Governor Carter. MR. TREWHITT. Governor, I'd like to pick up on that point, actually, and on your appeal for a greater measure of American idealism in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs come home to the American public pretty much in such issues as oil embargoes and grain sales, that sort of thing. Would you be willing to risk an oil embargo in order to promote human rights in Iran, Saudi Arabia--withhold arms from Saudi Arabia for the same purpose? As a matter of fact, I think you have perhaps answered this final part, but would you withhold grain from the Soviet Union in order to promote civil rights in the Soviet Union? MR. CARTER. I would never single out food as a trade embargo item. If I ever decided to impose an embargo because of a crisis in international relationships, it would include all shipments of all equipment. For instance, if the Arab countries ever again declare an embargo against our Nation on oil, I would consider that not a military but an economic declaration of war. And I would respond instantly and in kind. I would not ship that Arab country anything--no weapons, no spare parts for weapons, no oil-drilling rigs, no oil pipe, no nothing. I wouldn't single out just food. Another thing I'd like to say is this: In our international trade, as I said in my opening statement, we have become the arms merchant of the world. When this Republican administration came into office, we were shipping about $1 billion worth of arms overseas; now $10 to $12 billion worth of arms overseas to countries that quite often use these weapons to fight each other. The shift in emphasis has been very disturbing to me, speaking about the Middle East. Under the last Democratic administration 60 percent of all weapons that went into the Middle East were for Israel. Nowadays--75 percent were for Israel before--now 60 percent go to the Arab countries, and this does not include Iran. If you include Iran, our present shipment of weapons to the Middle East--only 20 percent goes to Israel. This is a deviation from idealism; it's a deviation from a commitment to our major ally in the Middle East, which is Israel; it's a yielding to economic pressure on the part of the Arabs on the oil issue; and it's also a tremendous indication that under the Ford administration, we have not addressed the energy policy adequately. We still have no comprehensive energy policy in this country, and it's an overall sign of weakness. When we are weak at home economically--high unemployment, high inflation, a confused Government, a wasteful Defense Establishment-this encourages the kind of pressure that's been put on us successfully. It would have been inconceivable 10, 15 years ago for us to be brought to our knees with an Arab oil embargo. But it was done 3 years ago and they're still putting pressure on us from the Arab countries to our discredit around the world. These are the weaknesses that I see, and I believe it's not just a matter of idealism. It's a matter of being tough. It's a matter of being strong. It's a matter of being consistent. Our priorities ought to be, first of all, to meet our own military needs; secondly, to meet the needs of our allies and friends, and only then should we ship military equipment to foreign countries. As a matter of fact, Iran is going to get 80 F-14's before we even meet our own Air Force orders for F-14's, and the shipment of Spruance Class Destroyers to Iran are much more highly sophisticated than the Spruance Class Destroyers that are presently being delivered to our own Navy. This is ridiculous, and it ought to be changed. MR. TREWHITT. Governor, let me pursue that, if I may. If I understand you correctly, you would, in fact, to use my examples, withhold arms from Iran and Saudi Arabia even if the risk was an oil embargo and if they should be securing those arms from somewhere else. And then, if the embargo came, then you would respond in kind. Do I have it correctly? MR. CARTER. If--Iran is not an Arab country, as you know, it's a Moslem country. But if Saudi Arabia should declare an oil embargo against us, then I would consider that an economic declaration of war. And I would make sure that the Saudis understood this ahead of time, so there would be no doubt in their mind. I think under those circumstances, they would refrain from pushing us to our knees as they did in 1973 with the previous oil embargo. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter apparently doesn't realize that since I've been President, we have sold to the Israelis over $4 billion in military hardware. We have made available to the Israelis over 45 percent of the total economic and military aid since the establishment of Israel 27 years ago. So, the Ford administration has done a good job in helping our good ally, Israel, and we're dedicated to the survival and security of Israel. I believe that Governor Carter doesn't realize the need and necessity for arms sales to Iran. He indicates he would not make those. Iran is bordered very extensively by the Soviet Union. Iran has Iraq as one of its neighbors. The Soviet Union and the Communist-dominated government of Iraq are neighbors of Iran, and Iran is an ally of the United States. It's my strong feeling that we ought to sell arms to Iran for its own national security and as an ally, a strong ally, of the United States. The history of our relationship with Iran goes back to the days of President Truman, when he decided that it was vitally necessary for our own security, as well as that of Iran, that we should help that country. And Iran has been a good ally. In 1973 when there was an oil embargo, Iran did not participate; Iran continued to sell oil to the United States. I believe that it's in our interest and in the interest of Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia for the United States to sell arms to those countries. It's for their security as well as ours. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Valeriani, a question for President Ford. MR. VALERIANI. Mr. President, the policy of your administration is to normalize relations with mainland China. That means establishing, at some point, full diplomatic relations and, obviously, doing something about the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. If you are elected, will you move to establish full diplomatic relations with Peking, and will you abrogate the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan? And, as a corollary, would you provide mainland China with military equipment if the Chinese were to ask for it? THE PRESIDENT. Our relationship with the People's Republic of China is based upon the Shanghai communiqué ¯f 1972. That communiqué £alls for the normalization of relations between the United States and the People's Republic. It doesn't set a time schedule; it doesn't make a determination as to how that relationship should be achieved in relationship to our current diplomatic recognition and obligations to the Taiwanese Government. The Shanghai communiqué ¤oes say that the differences between the People's Republic on the one hand and Taiwan on the other shall be settled by peaceful means. The net result is this administration--and during my time as the President for the next 4 years--we will continue to move for normalization of relations in the traditional sense. And we will insist that the disputes between Taiwan and the People's Republic be settled peacefully, as was agreed in the Shanghai communiqué ¯f 1972. The Ford administration will not let down, will not eliminate or forget our obligation to the people of Taiwan. We feel that there must be a continued obligation to the people, the some 19 or 20 million people in Taiwan, and as we move during the next 4 years, those will be the policies of this administration. MR. VALERIANI. Sir, the military equipment for the mainland Chinese? THE PRESIDENT. There is no policy of this Government to give to the People's Republic, or to sell to the People's Republic of China, military equipment. I do not believe that we, the United States, should sell, give, or otherwise transfer military hardware to the People's Republic of China or any other Communist nations, such as the Soviet Union and the like. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. I'd like to go back just one moment to the previous question, where Mr. Ford, I think, confused the issue by trying to say that we're shipping Israel 40 percent of our aid. As a matter of fact, during this current year, we are shipping Iran--or have contracted to ship to Iran--about $7? billion worth of arms and also to Saudi Arabia about $7? billion worth of arms. Also, in 1975 we almost brought Israel to their knees after the Yom Kippur war by the so-called reassessment of our relationship to Israel. We, in effect, tried to make Israel the scapegoat for the problems in the Middle East. And this weakened our relationship with Israel a great deal and put a cloud on the total commitment that our people feel toward the Israelis. There ought to be a clear, unequivocal commitment without change to Israel. In the Far East I think we need to continue to be strong, and I would certainly pursue the normalization of relationships with the People's Republic of China. We opened up a great opportunity in 1972--which has pretty well been frittered away under Mr. Ford--that ought to be a constant inclination toward friendship. But I would never let that friendship with the People's Republic of China stand in the way of the preservation of the independence and freedom of the people on Taiwan. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Frankel, a question for Governor Carter. MR. FRANKEL. Governor, we always seem, in our elections, and maybe in between, too, to argue about who can be tougher in the world. Give or take a few billion dollars, give or take one weapons systems, our leading politicians, and I think you two gentlemen, seem to settle roughly on the same strategy in the world at roughly the same Pentagon budget cost. How bad do things have to get in our own economy, or how much backwardness and hunger would it take in the world to persuade you that our national security and our survival required very drastic cutbacks in arms spending and dramatic new efforts in other directions? MR. CARTER. Well, always in the past we have had an ability to have a strong defense and also to have a strong domestic economy and also to be strong in our reputation and influence within the community of nations. These characteristics of our country have been endangered under Mr. Ford. We are no longer respected. In a showdown vote in the United Nations or in any other international council we are lucky to get 20 percent of the other nations to vote with us. Our allies feel that we've neglected them. The so-called Nixon shocks against Japan have weakened our relationships there. Under this administration we have also had an inclination to keep separate the European countries, thinking that if they are separate, then we can dominate them and proceed with our secret Lone Ranger-type diplomatic efforts. I would also like to point out that we in this country have let our economy go down the drain--the worst inflation since the Great Depression, the highest unemployment of any developed nation of the world. We have a higher unemployment rate in this country than Great Britain, than West Germany; our unemployment rate is twice as high as it is in Italy; it's three or four times as high as it is in Japan. And that terrible circumstance in this country is exported overseas. We comprise about 30 percent of the world's economic trade power influence. And when we are weak at home, weaker than all our allies, that weakness weakens the whole free world. So, strong economy is very important. Another thing that we need to do is to reestablish the good relationships that we ought to have between the United States and our natural allies and friends-they have felt neglected. And using that base of strength, and using the idealism, the honesty, the predictability, the commitment, the integrity of our own country--that's where our strength lies. And that would permit us to deal with the developing nations in a position of strength. Under this administration, we've bad a continuation of a so-called "balance of power politics" where everything is looked on as a struggle between us on the one side and the Soviet Union on the other. Our allies, the smaller countries, get trampled in the rush. What we need is to try to seek individualized, bilateral relationships with countries regardless of their size and to establish world order politics, which means we want to preserve peace through strength. We also want to revert back to the stature and the respect that our country had in previous administrations. Now, I can't say when this can come, but I can guarantee it will not come if Gerald Ford is reelected and this present policy is continued. It will come if I am elected. MR. FRANKEL. If I hear you right, sir, you are saying guns and butter both, but President Johnson also had trouble keeping up both Vietnam and his domestic programs. I was really asking, when do the needs of the cities and our own needs and those of other backward and even more needy countries and societies around the world take precedence over some of our military spending? Ever? MR. CARTER. Let me say very quickly that under President Johnson, in spite of the massive investment in the Vietnam war, he turned over a balanced budget to Mr. Nixon. The unemployment rate was less than 4 percent. The inflation rate under Kennedy and Johnson was about 2 percent--out-third what it is under this administration. So, we did have at that time, with good management, the ability to do both. I don't think anybody can say that Johnson and Kennedy neglected the poor and the destitute people in this country or around the world. But I can say this: The number one responsibility of any President, above all else, is to guarantee the security of our Nation, an ability to be free of the threat of attack or blackmail and to carry out our obligations to our allies and friends and to carry out a legitimate foreign policy. They must go hand in hand. But the security of this Nation has got to come first. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Let me say very categorically, you cannot maintain the security and the strength of the United States with the kind of defense budget cuts that Governor Carter has indicated. In 1975 he wanted to cut the budget $15 billion. He is now down to a figure of $5 billion to $7 billion. Reductions of that kind will not permit the United States to be strong enough to deter aggression and maintain the peace. Governor Carter apparently does not know the facts. As soon as I became President, I initiated meetings with the NATO heads of state and met with them in Brussels to discuss how we could improve the defense relationship in Western Europe. In November of 1975, I met with the leaders of the five industrial nations in France for the purpose of seeing what we could do, acting together, to meet the problems of the coming recession. In Puerto Rico this year, I met with six of the leading industrial nations' heads of state to meet the problem of inflation so we would be able to solve it before it got out of hand. I have met with the heads of government, bilaterally as well as multilaterally. Our relations with Japan have never been better. I was the first United States President to visit Japan. And we had the Emperor of Japan here this past year. And the net result is Japan and the United States are working more closely together now than at any time in the history of our relationship. You can go around the world--and let me take Israel, for example. Just recently, President [Prime Minister] Rabin said that our relations were never better. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Trewhitt, a question for President Ford. MR. TREWHITT. Mr. President, you referred earlier to your meeting with Mr. Brezhnev at Vladivostok in 1974. You agreed on that occasion to try to achieve another strategic arms limitation--SALT--agreement within the year. Nothing happened in 1975 or not very much publicly, at least, and those talks are still dragging, and things got quieter as the current season approached. Is there a bit of politics involved there, perhaps on both sides? Or, perhaps more important, are interim weapons developments--and I am thinking of such things as the cruise missile and the Soviet SS-20 intermediate range rocket--making SALT irrelevant, bypassing the SALT negotiations? THE PRESIDENT. First, we have to understand that SALT I expires October 3, 1977. Mr. Brezhnev and I met in Vladivostok in December of 1974 for the purpose of trying to take the initial steps so we could have a SALT II agreement that would go to 1985. As I indicated earlier, we did agree on a 2,400 limitation on launchers of ballistic missiles. That would mean a cutback in the Soviet program. It would not interfere with our .own program. At the same time we put a limitation of 1,320 on MIRV's. Our technicians have been working since that time in Geneva trying to put into technical language an agreement that can be verified by both parties. In the meantime there has developed the problem of the Soviet Backfire, their high performance aircraft, which they say is not a long-range aircraft and which some of our people say is an intercontinental aircraft. In the interim there has been the development on our part primarily, the cruise missiles--cruise missiles that could be launched from land-based mobile installations; cruise missiles that could be launched from high performance aircraft like the B-52's or the B-l's, which I hope we proceed with; cruise missiles which could be launched from either surface or submarine naval vessels. Those gray area weapons systems are creating some problems in the agreement for a SALT II negotiation. But I can say that I am dedicated to proceeding. And I met just last week with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, and he indicated to me that the Soviet Union was interested in narrowing the differences and making a realistic and a sound compromise. I hope and trust in the best interests of both countries and in the best interests of all peoples throughout this globe that the Soviet Union and the United States can make a mutually beneficial agreement because, if we do not and SALT I expires on October 3, 1977, you will unleash again an all-out nuclear arms race with the potential of a nuclear holocaust of unbelievable dimensions. So, it is the obligation of the President to do just that, and I intend to do so. MR. TREWHITT. Mr. President, let me follow that up. I'll submit that the cruise missile adds a whole new dimension to the arms competition, and then cite a statement by your office to the arms control association a few days ago in which you said that the cruise missile might eventually be included in a comprehensive arms limitation agreement, but that in the meantime it was an essential part of the American strategic arsenal. Now, may I assume from that that you are tending to exclude the cruise missile from the next SALT agreement, or is it still negotiable in that context? THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the cruise missiles which we are now developing in research and development across the spectrum--from air, from the sea, or from the land--can be included within a SALT II agreement. They are a new weapons system that has a great potential, both conventional and nuclear armed. At the same time we have to make certain that the Soviet Union's Backfire, which they claim is not an intercontinental aircraft and which some of our people contend is, must also be included if we are to get the kind of an agreement which is in the best interests of both countries. And I really believe that it's far better for us and for the Soviet Union and, more importantly, for the people around the world that these two super powers find an answer for a SALT II agreement before October 3, 1977. I think good will on both parts, hard bargaining by both parties, and a reasonable compromise will be in the best interests of all parties. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, Mr. Ford acts like he is running for President for the first time. He has been in office 2 years, and there has been absolutely no progress made toward a new SALT agreement. He has learned the date of the expiration of SALT I, apparently. We have seen in this world a development of a tremendous threat to us. As a nuclear engineer myself, I know the limitations and capabilities of atomic power. I also know that as far as the human beings on this Earth are concerned, that the nonproliferation of atomic weapons is number one. Only in the last few days, with the election approaching, has Mr. Ford taken any interest in a nonproliferation movement. I advocated last May, in a speech at the United Nations, that we move immediately as a nation to declare a complete moratorium on the testing of all nuclear devices, both weapons and peaceful devices, that we not ship any more atomic fuel to a country that refuses to comply with strict controls over the waste which can be reprocessed into explosives. I've also advocated that we stop the sale by Germany and France of reprocessing plants to Pakistan and Brazil. Mr. Ford hasn't moved on this. We also need to provide an adequate supply of enriched uranium. Mr. Ford again, under pressure from the atomic energy lobby, has insisted that this reprocessing or rather reenrichment be done by private industry and not by the existing government plants. This kind of confusion and absence of leadership has let us drift now for 2 years with the constantly increasing threat of atomic weapons throughout the world. We now have five nations that have atomic bombs that we know about. If we continue under Mr. Ford's policy, by 1985 or '90 we will have 20 nations that have the capability of exploding atomic weapons. This has got to be stopped. That is one of the major challenges and major undertakings that I will assume as the next President. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Valeriani, a question for Governor Carter. MR. VALERIANI. Governor Carter, earlier tonight you said America is not strong anymore, America is not respected anymore. And I feel I must ask you, do you really believe that the United States is not the strongest country in the world? Do you really believe that the United States is not the most respected country in the world, or is that just campaign rhetoric? MR. CARTER. No, it's not just campaign rhetoric. I think that militarily we are as strong as any nation on Earth. I think we've got to stay that way and continue to increase our capabilities to meet any potential threat. But as far as strength derived from commitment to principles; as far as strength derived from the unity within our country; as far as strength derived from the people, the Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, sharing in the evolution and carrying out of a foreign policy; as far as strength derived from the respect of our own allies and friends, their assurance that we will be staunch in our commitment, that we will not deviate, and we will give them adequate attention; as far as strength derived from doing what is right, caring for the poor, providing food, becoming the breadbasket of the world instead of the arms merchant of the world--in those respects we are not strong. Also, we will never be strong again overseas unless we are strong at home. And with our economy in such terrible disarray, and getting worse by the month--we have got 500,000 more Americans unemployed today than we had 3 months ago; we have got 2 1/2 million more Americans out of work now than we had when Mr. Ford took office--this kind of deterioration in our economic strength is bound to weaken us around the world. And we not only have problems at home but we export those problems overseas. So, as far as the respect of our own people toward our own Government, as far as participation in the shaping of concepts and commitments, as far as a trust of our country among the nations of the world, as far as dependence of our country in meeting the needs and obligations that we've expressed to our allies, as far as the respect of our country, even among our potential adversaries, we are weak. Potentially, we are strong. Under this administration that strength has not been realized. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter brags about the unemployment during Democratic administrations and condemns the unemployment at the present time. I must remind him that we are at peace, and during the period that he brags about unemployment being low, the United States was at war. Now let me correct one other comment that Governor Carter has made. I have recommended to the Congress that we develop the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, which is a publicly owned US. Government facility, and have indicated that the private program which would follow on in Alabama is one that may or may not be constructed, but I committed to the one at Portsmouth, Ohio. The Governor also talks about morality in foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States meets the highest standards of morality. What is more moral than peace? And the United States is at peace today. What is more moral in foreign policy than for the administration to take the lead in the World Food Conference in Rome in 1974, when the United States committed 6 million metric tons of food, over 60 percent of the food committed for the disadvantaged and underdeveloped nations of the world? The Ford administration wants to eradicate hunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries throughout the world. What is more moral than for the United States under the Ford administration to take the lead in southern Africa, in the Middle East? Those are initiatives in foreign policy which are of the highest moral standards. And that is indicative of the foreign policy of this country. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Frankel, a question for President Ford. MR. FRANKEL. Mr. President, can we stick with morality? For a lot of people it seems to cover a bunch of sins. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger used to tell us that instead of morality we had to worry in the world about living with and letting live all kinds of governments that we really didn't like--North and South Korean dictators, Chilean fascists, Chinese Communists, Iranian emperors, and so on. They said the only way to get by in a wicked world was to treat others on the basis of how they treated us and not how they treated their own people. But more recently we seem to have taken a different tack. We seem to have decided that it is part of our business to tell the Rhodesians, for instance, that the way they are treating their own black people is wrong and they've got to change their government. And we put pressure on them. We were rather liberal in our advice to the Italians as to how to vote. Is this a new Ford foreign policy in the making? Can we expect that you are now going to turn to South Africa and force them to change their government, to intervene in similar ways to end the bloodshed, as you called it, say in Chile or Chilean prisons, and to throw our weight around for the values that we hold dear in the world? THE PRESIDENT. I believe that our foreign policy must express the highest standards of morality, and the initiatives that we took in southern Africa are the best examples of what this administration is doing and will continue to do in the next 4 years. If the United States had not moved when we did in southern Africa, there is no doubt there would have been an acceleration of bloodshed in that tragic part of the world. If we had not taken our initiative, it's very, very possible that the Government of Rhodesia would have been overrun and that the Soviet Union and the Cubans would have dominated southern Africa. So, the United States, seeking to preserve the principle of self-determination, to eliminate the possibility of bloodshed, to protect the rights of the minority as we insisted upon the rights of the majority, I believe followed the good conscience of the American people in foreign policy, and I believe that we have used our skill. Secretary of State Kissinger has done a superb job in working with the black African nations, the so-called frontline nations. He has done a superb job in getting the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Vorster, to agree that the time had come for a solution to the problem of Rhodesia. Secretary Kissinger, in his meeting with Prime Minister Smith of Rhodesia, was able to convince him that it was in the best interests of whites as well as blacks in Rhodesia to find an answer for a transitional government and then a majority government. This is a perfect example of the kind of leadership that the United States, under this administration, has taken. And I can assure you that this administration will follow that high moral principle in our future efforts in foreign policy, including our efforts in the Middle East, where it is vitally important because the Middle East is the crossroads of the world. There have been more disputes, and it's an area where there is more volatility than any other place in the world. But because Arab nations and the Israelis trust the United States, we were able to take the lead in the Sinai II agreement. And I can assure you that the United States will have the leadership role in moving toward a comprehensive settlement of the Middle Eastern problems-I hope and trust as soon as possible--and we will do it with the highest moral principles. Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. President, just clarify one point. There are lots of majorities in the world that feel they are being pushed around by minority governments. And are you saying they can now expect to look to us for not just good cheer but throwing our weight on their side in South Africa or on Taiwan or in Chile, to help change their governments as in Rhodesia? THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that as we move to one area of the world from another--and the United States must not spread itself too thinly; that was one of the problems that helped to create the circumstances in Vietnam--but as we as a nation find that we are asked by the various parties, either one nation against another or individuals within a nation, that the United States will take the leadership and try to resolve the differences. Let me take South Korea as an example. I have personally told President Park that the United States does not condone the kind of repressive measures that he has taken in that country. But I think in all fairness and equity, we have to recognize the problem that South Korea has. On the north they have North Korea with 500,000 well-trained, well-equipped troops. They are supported by the People's Republic of China. They are supported by the Soviet Union. South Korea faces a very delicate situation. Now, the United States in this case, this administration has recommended a year ago--and we have reiterated it again this year--that the United States, South Korea, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China sit down at a conference table to resolve the problems of the Korean peninsula. This is a leadership role that the United States, under this administration, is carrying out. And if we do it--and I think the opportunities and the possibilities are getting better--we will have solved many of the internal domestic problems that exist in South Korea at the present time. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter? MR. CARTER. I noticed that Mr. Ford didn't comment on the prisons in Chile. This is a typical example, maybe of many others, where this administration overthrew an elected government and helped to establish a military dictatorship. This has not been an ancient history story. Last year, under Mr. Ford, of all the Food for Peace that went to South America, 85 percent went to the military dictatorship in Chile. Another point I want to make is this: He says we have to move from one area of the world to another. That is one of the problems with this administration's so-called shuttle diplomacy. While the Secretary of State is in one country, there are almost 150 others that are wondering what we are going to do next, what will be the next secret agreement. We don't have a comprehensive, understandable foreign policy that deals with world problems or even regional problems. Another thing that concerned me was what Mr. Ford said about unemployment, that insinuating that under Johnson and Kennedy that unemployment could only be held down when this country is at war. Karl Marx said that the free enterprise system in a democracy can only continue to exist when they are at war or preparing for war. Karl Marx was the grandfather of communism. I don't agree with that statement; I hope Mr. Ford doesn't, either. He has put pressure on the Congress--and I don't believe Mr. Ford would even deny this--to hold up on nonproliferation legislation until the Congress agreed for an $8 billion program for private industry to start producing enriched uranium. And the last thing I want to make is this: He talks about peace, and I am thankful for peace. We were peaceful when Mr. Ford went into office, but he and Mr. Kissinger and others tried to start a new Vietnam in Angola. And it was only the outcry of the American people and the Congress when this secret deal was discovered that prevented our renewed involvement in that conflagration which was taking place there. THE MODERATOR. Gentlemen, I am sorry to say we do not have time enough for two complete sequences of questions. We now have only 12 minutes left. Therefore, I would like to ask for shorter questions and shorter answers. And we also will drop the follow-up question. Each candidate may still respond, of course, to the other's answer. Mr. Trewhitt, a question for Governor Carter. MR. TREWHITT. Governor Carter, before this event the most communication I received concerned Panama. Would you, as President, be prepared to sign a treaty which at a fixed date yielded administrative and economic control of the Canal Zone and shared defense which, as I understand it, is the position the United States took in 1974? MR. CARTER. Well, here again, the Panamanian question is one that has been confused by Mr. Ford. He had directed his diplomatic representative to yield to the Panamanians full sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the end of a certain period of time. When Mr. Reagan raised this question in Florida, Mr. Ford not only disavowed his instructions but he also even dropped, parenthetically, the use of the word "detente." I would never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone, but I would continue to negotiate with the Panamanians. When the original treaty was signed back in the early 1900's, when Theodore Roosevelt was President, Panama retained sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. We retained control as though we had sovereignty. Now, I would be willing to go ahead with negotiations. I believe that we could share more fully responsibilities for the Panama Canal Zone with Panama. I would be willing to continue to raise the payment for shipment of goods through the Panama Canal Zone. I might even be willing to reduce to some degree our military emplacements in the Panama Canal Zone, but I would not relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zone any time in the foreseeable future. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. The United States must and will maintain complete access to the Panama Canal. The United States must maintain a defense capability of the Panama Canal, and the United States will maintain our national security interests in the Panama Canal. The negotiations for the Panama Canal started under President Johnson and have continued up to the present time. I believe those negotiations should continue. But there are certain guidelines that must be followed, and I've just defined them. Let me take just a minute to comment on something that Governor Carter said on nonproliferation. In May of 1975, I called for a conference of nuclear suppliers. That conference has met six times. In May of this year, Governor Carter took the first initiative, approximately 12 months after I had taken my initiative a year ago. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Valeriani, a question for President Ford. MR. VALERIANI. Mr. President, the Government [General] Accounting Office has just put out a report suggesting that you shot from the hip in the Mayaguez rescue mission and that you ignored diplomatic messages saying that a peaceful solution was in prospect. Why didn't you do more diplomatically at the time? And a related question: Did the White I--House try to prevent the release of that report? THE PRESIDENT. The White House did not prevent the release of that report. On July 12 of this year, we gave full permission for the release of that report. I was very disappointed in the fact that the GAO released that report because I think it interjected political, partisan politics at the present time. But let me comment on the report. Somebody who sits in Washington, D.C., 18 months after the Mayaguez incident can be a very good grandstand quarterback. And let me make another observation. This morning I got a call from the skipper of the Mayaguez. He was furious, because he told me that it was the action of me, President Ford, that saved the lives of the crew of the Mayaguez. And I can assure you that if we had not taken the strong and forceful action that we did, we would have been criticized very, very severely for sitting back and not moving. Captain Miller is thankful, the crew is thankful. We did the right thing. It seems to me that those who sit in Washington 18 months after the incident are not the best judges of the decisionmaking process that had to be made by the National Security Council and by myself at the time the incident was developing in the Pacific. Let me assure you that we made every possible overture to the People's Republic of China and, through them, to the Cambodian Government; we made diplomatic protest to the Cambodian Government through the United Nations. Every possible diplomatic means was utilized. But at the same time I had a responsibility, and so did the National Security Council, to meet the problem at hand, and we handled it responsibly. And I think Captain Miller's testimony to that effect is the best evidence. THE. MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, I am reluctant to comment on the recent report. I haven't read it. I think the American people have only one requirement--that the facts about Mayaguez be given to them accurately and completely. Mr. Ford has been there for 18 months. He had the facts that were released today immediately after the Mayaguez incident. I understand that the report today is accurate. Mr. Ford has said, I believe, that it was accurate and that the White House made no attempt to block the issuing of that report. I don't know if that is exactly accurate or not. I understand that both the Department of State and the Defense Department have approved the accuracy of today's report, or yesterday's report, and also the National Security Agency. I don't know what was right or what was wrong or what was done. The only thing I believe is that whatever the knowledge was that Mr. Ford had should have been given to the American people 18 months ago, immediately after the Mayaguez incident occurred. This is what the American people want. When something happens that endangers our security, or when something happens that threatens our stature in the world, or when American people are endangered by the actions of a foreign country, just 40 sailors on the Mayaguez, we obviously have to move aggressively and quickly to rescue them. But then, after the immediate action is taken, I believe the President has an obligation to tell the American people the truth and not wait 18 months later for the report to be issued. THE MODERATOR. Gentlemen, at this time we have time for only two very short questions. Mr. Frankel, a question for Governor Carter. MR. FRANKEL. Governor Carter, if the price of gaining influence among the Arabs is closing our eyes a little bit to their boycott against Israel, how would you handle that? MR. CARTER. I believe that the boycott of American businesses by the Arab countries, because those businesses trade with Israel or because they have American Jews who are owners or directors in the company, is an absolute disgrace. This is the first time that I remember in the history of our country when we've let a foreign country circumvent or change our Bill of Rights. I will do everything I can as President to stop the boycott of American businesses by the Arab countries. It's not a matter of diplomacy or trade with me; it's a matter of morality. And I don't believe that the Arab countries will pursue it when we have a strong President who will protect the integrity of our country, the commitment of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and protect people in this country who happen to be Jews--it may later be Catholics, it may later be Baptists--who are threatened by some foreign country. But we ought to stand staunch. And I think it is a disgrace that so far Mr. Ford's administration has blocked the passage of legislation that would have revealed by law every instance of the boycott, and it would have prevented the boycott from continuing. THE MODERATOR. President Ford? THE PRESIDENT. Again, Governor Carter is inaccurate. The Arab boycott action was first taken in 1952. And in November of 1975, I was the first President to order the executive branch to take action--affirmative action through the Department of Commerce and other Cabinet Departments--to make certain that no American businessman or business organization should discriminate against Jews because of an Arab boycott. And I might add that my administration--and I am very proud of it--is the first administration that has taken an antitrust action against companies in this country that have allegedly cooperated with the Arab boycott. Just on Monday of this week, I signed a tax bill that included an amendment that would prevent companies in the United States from taking a tax deduction if they have, in any way whatsoever, cooperated with the Arab boycott. And last week, when we were trying to get the Export Administration Act through the Congress--necessary legislation--my administration went to Capitol Hill and tried to convince the House and the Senate that we should have an amendment on that legislation which would take strong and effective action against those who participate or cooperate with the Arab boycott. One other point: Because the Congress failed to act I am going to announce tomorrow that the Department of Commerce will disclose those companies that have participated in the Arab boycott. This is something that we can do. The Congress failed to do it, and we intend to do it. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Trewhitt, a very brief question for President Ford. MR. TREWHITT. Mr. President, if you get the accounting of missing in action you want from North Vietnam--or from Vietnam, I am sorry, now--would you then be prepared to reopen negotiations for restoration of relations with that country? THE PRESIDENT. Let me restate our policy. As long as Vietnam, North Vietnam, does not give us a full and complete accounting of our missing in action, I will never go along with the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations. If they do give us a bona fide, complete accounting of the 800 MIA's, then I believe that the United States should begin negotiations for the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations, but not until they have given us the full accounting of our MIA's. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter? MR. CARTER. One of the most embarrassing failures of the Ford administration, and one that touches specifically on human rights, is his refusal to appoint a Presidential commission to go to Vietnam, to go to Laos, to go to Cambodia and try to trade for the release of information about those who are missing in action in those wars. This is what the families of MIA's want. So far, Mr. Ford has not done it. We have had several fragmentary efforts by Members of the Congress and by private citizens. Several months ago the Vietnam Government said we are ready to sit down and negotiate for release of information on MIA's. So far, Mr. Ford has not responded. I also would never formalize relationships with Vietnam nor permit them to join the United Nations until they have taken this action. But that is not enough. We need to have an active and aggressive action on the part of the President, the leader of this country, to seek out every possible way to get that information which has kept the MIA families in despair and doubt, and Mr. Ford has just not done it. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, Governor Carter. That completes the questioning for this evening. Each candidate now has up to 3 minutes for a closing statement. It was determined by the toss of a coin that Governor Carter would take the first question, and he now goes first with his closing remarks. Governor Carter. MR. CATER. The purpose of this debate and the outcome of the election will determine three basic things--leadership, upholding the principles of our country, and proper priorities and commitments for the future. This election will also determine what kind of world we leave our children. Will it be a nightmare world, threatened with the proliferation of atomic bombs, not just in five major countries, but dozens of smaller countries that have been permitted to develop atomic weapons because of a failure of our top leadership to stop proliferation? Will we have a world of hunger and barred, and will we be living in an armed camp, stripped of our friendships and allies, hiding behind a tight defense that has been drawn in around us because we are fearful of the outside world? Will we have a government of secrecy that excludes the American people from participation in making basic decisions and therefore covers up mistakes and makes it possible for our Government--our Government--to depart from the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or will we have a world of peace with the threat of atomic weapons eliminated, with full trade, with our people at work, inflation controlled, openness in government, our people proud once again; Congress, citizens, President, Secretary of State, working in harmony and unity toward a common future, a world where people have enough to cat, arid a world where we care about those who don't? Can we become a breadbasket of the world, instead of the arms merchant of the world? I believe we can and we ought to. Now, we have been hurt in recent years in this country, in the aftermath of Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Pakistan, Angola, Watergate, CIA. We have been hurt. Our people feel that we have lost something precious. That's not necessary. I want to see our Nation return to a posture and an image and a standard to make us proud once again. I remember the world of NATO and the world of point four and the world of the Marshall plan and a world of the Peace Corps. Why can't we have that once again? We ought to be a beacon for nations who search for peace and who search for freedom, who search for individual liberty, who search for basic human rights. We haven't been lately. We can be once again. We will never have that world leadership until we are strong at home, and we can have that strength if we return to the basic principles. It ought not to be a strength of bombast and threats. It ought to be a quiet strength based on the integrity of our people, the vision of the Constitution, and an innate strong will and purpose that God has given us in the greatest nation on Earth, the United States. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. As we have seen tonight, foreign policy and defense policy are difficult and complex issues. We can debate methods; we can debate one decision or another. But there are two things which cannot be debated---experience and results. In the last 2 years I have made policy decisions involving long-range difficulties and policies and made day-to-day judgments, not only as President of the United States but as the leader of the free world. What is the result of that leadership? America is strong, America is free, America is respected. Not a single young American today is fighting or dying on any foreign battlefield. America is at peace, with freedom. Thank you, and good night. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, President Ford. Thank you, Governor Carter. I also want to thank our questioners and the audience here this evening. The third and final debate between President Ford and Governor Carter will take place on October the 22d at 9:30 p.m., eastern daylight time, on the campus of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The subject matter will cover all issues. These debates are sponsored by the League of Women Voters Education Fund to help voters become better informed on the issues and to generate greater voter turnout in the November election. Now from the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in San Francisco, good night. Note: The debate began at 6:30 p.m. at the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in San Francisco, Calif. It was broadcast live on radio and television. Gerald R. Ford, Presidential Campaign Debate Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217064

September 23, 1976 THE MODERATOR. I am Edwin Newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for President, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for President. We thank you, President Ford, and we thank you, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight. There are to be three debates between the Presidential candidates and one between the Vice-Presidential candidates. All are being arranged by the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Tonight's debate, the first between Presidential candidates in 16 years and the first ever in which an incumbent President has participated, is taking place before an audience in the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, just 3 blocks from Independence Hall. The television audience may reach 100 million in the United States and many millions overseas. Tonight's debate focuses on domestic 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 3 minutes to answer. One follow-up question will be permitted with up to 2 minutes to reply. President Ford will then have 2 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 3-minute statement at the end, Governor Carter to go first. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening. Mr. Reynolds, your question for Governor Carter. MR. REYNOLDS. Mr. President, Governor Carter. Governor, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, you said you believed these debates would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have about you. Well, one of those concerns-not an uncommon one about candidates in any year-is that many voters say they don't really know where you stand. Now, you have made jobs your number one priority, and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction in unemployment. Can you say now, Governor, in specific terms what your first step would be next January, if you are elected, to achieve that? MR. CARTER. Yes. First of all it's to recognize the tremendous economic strength of 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 on this project. We will never have an end to the inflationary spiral, and we will 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 taxpayers' money in the housing field can bring large numbers of extra jobs, in the guarantee of mortgage loans, in the putting forward of 202 programs for housing for older people and so forth, to cut down the roughly 20-percent 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, those who don't speak English or who are black or young people-a 40-percent unemployment. Here, a CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps]-type program would be appropriate, to channel money into the sharing with 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 on to those who have avoided paying taxes in the past. These kinds of specific things, none of which are being done now, would be a great help in reducing unemployment. There is an additional factor that needs to be done and covered very succinctly, and that is to make sure that we have a good relationship between management, business on the one hand and labor on the other. In a lot of places where unemployment is very high, we might channel specific, targeted job opportunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed people and also sharing with local governments the payment of salaries, which would let us cut down the unemployment rate much lower before we hit the inflationary level. But I believe that by the end of the first 4 years of the next term, we could have the unemployment rate down to 3 percent-adult unemployment-which is about 4 to 4½ percent overall, a controlled inflation rate, and have a balanced growth of about 4 to 6 percent, around 5 percent, which would give us a balanced budget. MR. REYNOLDS. 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? MR. CARTER. Well, we now have such a low utilization of our productive capacity, about 73 percent-I think it's about the lowest since the Great Depression years-and such a high unemployment rate now-7.9 percent-that we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. And I think this would be easy to accomplish, to get jobs now without having the strong inflationary pressures that would be necessary. I would not favor the payment of a given fixed income to people unless they are not able to work. But with tax incentives for the low-income groups, we could build up their income levels above the poverty level and not make welfare more profitable than work. THE MODERATOR. Mr. President, your response? THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that Mr. Carter has been any more specific in this case than he has been on many other instances. I notice particularly that he didn't endorse the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, which he has on occasions and which is included as a part of the Democratic platform. That legislation allegedly would help our unemployment, but we all know that it would have controlled our economy. It would have added $10 to $30 billion each year in additional expenditures by the Federal Government. It would have called for export controls on agricultural products. In my judgment the best way to get jobs is to expand the private sector, where five out of six jobs today exist in our economy. We can do that by reducing Federal taxes, as I proposed about a year ago when I called for a tax reduction of $28 billion, three-quarters of it to go to private taxpayers and one-quarter to the business sector. We could add to jobs in the major metropolitan areas by a proposal that I recommended that would give tax incentives to business to move into the inner city and to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a plant or expand a plant where people are and people are currently unemployed. We could also help our youth with some of the proposals that would give to young people an opportunity to work and learn at the same time, just like we give money to young people who are going to college. Those are the kind of specifics that I think we have to discuss on these debates, and these are the kind of programs that I will talk about on my time. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Gannon, your question to President Ford. MR. GANNON. Mr. President, I would like to continue for a moment on this question of taxes which you have just raised. You have said that you favor more tax cuts for middle-income Americans, even those earning up to $30,000 a year. That presumably would cost the Treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue. In view of the very large budget deficits that you have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your goal of balancing the budget? THE PRESIDENT. At the time, Mr. Gannon, that I made the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut-three-quarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25 percent to American business-I said at the same time that we had to hold the lid on 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 tax reduction. In my tax reduction program for middle-income taxpayers, I recommended that the Congress increase personal exemptions from $750 per person to $1,000 per person. That would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have $1,000 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 of this year, I recommended a 50-percent cutback in the rate of growth of Federal spending. For the last 10 years the budget of the United States has grown from about 11 percent per year. We can't afford that kind of growth in Federal spending. And in the budget that I recommended, we cut it in half-a growth rate of 5 to 5 1/2 percent. 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 taxpayer and with more money in the hands of business to expand, to modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy will be stimulated so that we will get more revenue, and we will have a more prosperous economy. MR. GANNON. Mr. President, to follow up a moment, the Congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now which did not meet exactly the sort of outline that you requested. What is your intention on that bill since it doesn't meet your requirements? Do you plan to sign that bill? THE PRESIDENT. That tax bill does not entirely meet the criteria that I established. I think the Congress should have added another $10 billion reduction in personal income taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions from $750 to $1,000. And Congress could have done that if the budget committees of the Congress and the Congress as a whole had not increased the spending that I recommended in the budget. I am sure you know that in the resolutions passed by the Congress, they have added about $17 billion in more spending by the Congress over the budget that I recommended. So, I would prefer in that tax bill to have an additional tax cut and a further limitation on Federal spending. Now, this tax bill that hasn't reached the White House yet-but is expected in a day or two-it's about 1,500 pages. It has some good provisions in it; it has left out some that I have recommended, unfortunately. On the other hand, when you have a bill of that magnitude, with those many provisions, a President has to sit and decide if there is more good than bad. And from the analysis that I have made so far, it seems to me that that tax bill does justify my signature and my approval. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter, your response. MR. CARTER. Well, Mr. Ford is changing considerably his previous philosophy. The present tax structure is a disgrace to this country. It's just a welfare program for the rich. As a matter of fact, 25 percent of the total tax deductions go for only 1 percent of the richest people in this country, and over 50 percent of the tax credits go for the 14 percent of the richest people in this country. When Mr. Ford first became President in August of 1974, the first thing he did in October was to ask for a $4.7 billion increase in taxes on our people in the midst of the heaviest recession since the Great Depression of the 1940's. In January of 1975, he asked for a tax change, a $5.6 billion increase on low and middle-income private individuals, a $6 1/2 billion decrease on the corporations and the special interests. In December of 1975, he vetoed the roughly $18 to $20 billion tax reduction bill that had been passed by the Congress. And then he came back later on in January of this year, and he did advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would be offset by a $6 billion increase this coming January in deductions for social security payments and for unemployment compensation. The whole philosophy of the Republican Party, including my opponent, has been to pile on taxes on low-income people, to take them off on the corporations. As a matter of fact, since the late sixties when Mr. Nixon took office, we've had a reduction in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30 percent down to about 20 percent. We've had an increase in taxes paid by individuals, payroll taxes, from 14 percent up to 20 percent. This is what the Republicans have done to us. This is why tax reform is so important. THE MODERATOR. Mrs. Drew, your question to Governor Carter. MS. DREW. Governor Carter, you've proposed a number of new or enlarged programs, including jobs and health, welfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to cities, changes in social security and housing subsidies. You've also said that you want to 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 priced them conservatively, and we count for full employment by the end of your first term, and we count for the economic growth that would occur during that period, there still isn't enough money to pay for those programs and balance the budget by any estimates that I've been able to see. So, in that case, what would give? MR. CARTER. Well, as a matter of fact, there is. If we assume a rate of growth of our economy equivalent to what it was during President Johnson and President Kennedy, even before the Vietnamese war, and if we assume that, at the end of the 4-year period we can cut our unemployment rate down to 4 to 4½ percent. Under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase in the allotment of money to finance programs increasing as the inflation rate does, my economic projects, I think confirmed by the House and the Senate committees, have been, with a $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year '81-which would 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 are 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 will phase in the programs that we've advocated more slowly. Ms. DREW. Governor, according to the budget committees of the Congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment, what they project at a 4-percent 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. Conservative estimates of your programs would be that they'd be about $85 to $100 billion. So, how do you say that you are going to be able to do these things and balance the budget? MR. CARTER. Well, the assumption that you have described that's 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 the committees to whom you refer, with the employment rate that you state and with the 5 to 5 1/2 percent growth rate in our economy, that the projections would be a $60 billion increase in the amount of money that we have to spend in 1981 compared to now. And in that framework would be fit 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 will 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 am elected President, that's going to 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 am going to institute zero-base budgeting, which I used 4 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 am 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. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. 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 has since 1969, during a Republican administration, we have had 10 million people taken off of the tax rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area. And at the same time, assuming that I sign the tax bill that was mentioned by Mr. Gannon, we will, in the last two tax bills, have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy taxpayers. And I believe that by eliminating 10 million taxpayers in the last 8 years and by putting a heavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets, plus the other actions that have been taken, we can give taxpayers adequate tax relief. Now, it seems to me that as we look at the recommendations of the budget committees and our own projections, there isn't going to be any $60 billion dividend. I've heard of those dividends in the past. It always happens. We expected one at the time of the Vietnam war, but it was used up before we ever ended the war, and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they deserved. THE MODERATOR. 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 the young men who resisted in Vietnam and many of them still in exile abroad? THE PRESIDENT. The amnesty program that I recommended in Chicago in September of 1974 would give to all draft evaders and military deserters the opportunity to earn their good record back. About 14 to 15,000 did take advantage of that program. We gave them ample time. I am against an across-the-board pardon of draft evaders or military deserters. Now, in the case of Mr. Nixon, the reason the 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 100 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 you are going to reconsider and think about those 90,000 who are still abroad? Have they not been penalized enough? Many of them have been there for years. THE PRESIDENT. 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. THE MODERATOR.. 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 now, I don't advocate amnesty; I advocate pardon. There is a difference, in my opinion, and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court and in 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 are forgiven for it. And I do advocate a pardon for draft evaders. I think it's accurate to say that 2 years ago, when Mr. Ford put in this amnesty, that three times as many deserters were 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 have got a sharp distinction drawn between white collar crime. The big shots who are rich, who are influential, very seldom go to jail. Those who are poor and who have no influence quite often are the ones who are punished. And the whole subject of crime is one that concerns our people very much. And I believe that the fairness of it is what is the 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. THE MODERATOR. 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 would go down to about 200 from some 1,900. That sounds indeed like a very deep cut in the Federal Government. But isn't it a fact that you are 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, as the Governor of Georgia. When I took over 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 understand and control our Government. I intend to do the same thing if I am 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 had $3 1/2 million spent on the White House and its staff. That has escalated now to $16½ 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. Sixty other advisory commissions are responsible for this. Medicaid is in one agency; Medicare is in a different one; the check on the quality of health care is in a different one. None of them are responsible for health care itself. This makes it almost impossible for us to have a good health program. We have just advocated this past week a consolidation of the responsibilities for energy. Our country now has no comprehensive energy program or policy. We have 20 different agencies in the Federal Government responsible for the production, the regulation, the information about energy, the conservation of energy spread all over Government. This is a gross waste of money. So, tough, competent management of Government, giving us a simple, efficient, purposeful, and manageable Government will be a great step forward. And if I am elected-and I intend to be-then it's going to be done. MR. GANNON. 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? MR. CARTER. 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 3 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 improvement. Also, we had a 2-percent 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 percent 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 this at the Federal Government level. If we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to continue. There is no way for our people now to understand what their Government is; there is no way to get the answer to a question. When you come to Washington to try to-as a Governor-to try to begin a new program for your people, like the treatment of drug addicts, I found there were 13 different Federal agencies that I had to go to to manage the drug treatment program. In the Georgia government we only had one agency responsible for drug treatment. This is the kind of change that would be made. And it would be of tremendous benefit in long-range planning, in tight budgeting, saving the taxpayers' money, making the Government more efficient, cutting down on bureaucratic waste, having a clear delineation of authority and responsibility of employees, and giving our people a better chance to understand and control their Government. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. I think the record should show, Mr. Newman, that the Bureau of Census-we checked it just yesterday-indicates that in the 4 years that Governor Carter was Governor of the State of Georgia, expenditures by the government went up over 50 percent. Employees of the government in Georgia during his term of office went up over 25 percent. And the figures also show that the bonded indebtedness of the State of Georgia during his Governorship went up over 20 percent. And there was some very interesting testimony given by Governor Carter's successor, Governor Busbee, before a Senate committee a few months ago, on how he found the Medicaid program when he came into office following Governor Carter. He testified, and these are his words, the present Governor of Georgia, he says he found the Medicaid program in Georgia in shambles. Now, let me talk about what we've done in the White House as far as Federal employees are concerned. The first order that I issued after I became President was to cut or eliminate the prospective 40,000 increase in Federal employees that had been scheduled by my predecessor. And in the term that I have been President-some 2 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 program to actually save employment in Georgia, shows which is the better plan. THE MODERATOR. Mrs. Drew. Ms. DREW. Mr. President, at Vail, after the Republican convention, you announced that you would now emphasize five new areas. Among those were jobs and housing and health, improved recreational facilities for Americans, and you also added crime. You also mentioned education. For 2 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? THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the last 2 years, as I indicated before, we had a very tough time. We were faced with heavy inflation-over 12 percent; 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 percent. And 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 will 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 10 years a new parks program that would cost a billion and a half dollars, doubling our national park system. We have recommended that in the housing program we can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments. But that doesn't cost any more as far as the Federal Treasury is concerned. We believe that we can do a better job in the area of crime, but that requires 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 are spending roughly $3,500 million. 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 costs that will be required. Ms. DREW. But, sir, in the next few years would you try to reduce the deficit, would you spend money for 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? THE PRESIDENT. 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 1 year or 2 years longer, as Governor Carter indicates. As the economy improves, and it is improving-our gross national product this year will average about 6-percent increase over last year-we will have a lower rate of inflation for the calendar year this year, something slightly under 6 percent; employment will be up; revenues will be up. We will 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 programs that Governor Carter recommends. He endorses the Democratic platform which, as I read it, calls for approximately 60 additional programs. We estimate that those programs would add $100 billion minimum and probably $200 billion maximum each year to the Federal budget. Those programs you cannot afford and give tax relief. We feel that you can hold the line and restrain Federal spending, give a tax reduction, and still have a balanced budget by 1978. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, Mr. Ford takes the same attitude that the Republicans always take. In the last 3 months before an election, they are always for the programs that they fight the other 3 1/2 years. I remember when Herbert Hoover was against jobs for people. I remember when All 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 8-year period under President Johnson and President Kennedy. We've got 500,000 more Americans out of jobs today than were out of work 3 months ago. And since Mr. Ford has been in office, in 2 years we've had a 50-percent increase in unemployment, from 5 million people out of work to 2 1/2 million more people out of work, or a total of 7 1/2 million. We've also got a comparison between himself and Mr. Nixon. He's got four times the size of the deficits that Mr. Nixon even had himself. This talking about more people at work is distorted because with the 14-percent increase in the cost of living in the last 2 years, it means that women and young people have had to go to work when they didn't want to because their fathers couldn't make enough to pay the increased cost of food and housing and clothing. We have, in this last 2 years alone, $120 billion total deficits under President Ford, and at the same time we've had in the last 8 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, measured in real dollars. This is the kind of record that is there, and talk about the future and a drastic change or conversion on the part of Mr. Ford at the last minute is one that just doesn't go. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Reynolds. 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? MR. CARTER. Well, among my other experiences in the past I've been a nuclear engineer, and I did graduate work in this field. I think I know the capabilities and limitations of atomic power. But the energy policy of our Nation is one that has not yet been established under this administration. I think almost every other developed nation in the world has an energy policy except us. We have seen the Federal Energy Agency [Administration] established, for instance, in the crisis of 1973. It was supposed to be a temporary agency; now it's permanent. It's enormous; it's growing every day. And I think the Wall Street Journal reported not too long ago they have 112 public relations experts working for the Federal Energy Agency [Administration] 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've put forward is one first step. In addition to that, we need to have a realization that we've got about 35 years worth of oil left in the whole world. We are going to run out of oil. When Mr. Nixon made his famous speech on operation independence, we were importing about 35 percent of our oil. Now we've increased that amount 25 percent. We now import about 44 percent of our oil. We need a shift from oil to coal. We need to concentrate our research and development effort on coal-burning and extraction that's safe for miners, that also is 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 powerplant that uses atomic power tightly sealed, and a heavy vacuum maintained. There ought to be a standardized design. There ought to be a full-time atomic energy specialist, independent of the power company, in the control room full-time, 24 hours a day, to shut down a plant if an abnormality develops. These kinds of procedures, along with evacuation procedures, adequate insurance, ought to be initiated. So, shift from oil to coal; emphasize research and development on coal use and also on solar power; strict conservation measures-not yield every time 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. MR. REYNOLDS. Well, Governor, on the same subject, would you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to conserve fuel? MR. CARTER. 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 by giving 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 limits that the Congress has put forward, this Republican administration has delayed the implementation dates. In addition to that, we ought to have a shift to the use of coal, particularly in the Appalachian regions where the coal is located-a lot of very high-quality, low-carbon coal-I mean 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 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 mechanisms, cut down the use of energy by as much as 40 percent with the same out-product. These kind of things ought to be done; they ought to be encouraged and supported and even required by the Government, yes. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter skims over a very serious and a very broad subject. In January of 1975, I submitted to the Congress and to the American people the first comprehensive energy program recommended by any President. It called for an increase in the production of energy in the United States. It called for conservation measures so that we would save the energy that we have. If you are going to increase domestic oil and gas production-and we have to-you have to give to those producers an opportunity to develop their land or their wells. I recommended to the Congress that we should increase coal production in this country from 600 million tons a year to 1,200 million tons by 1985. In order to do that, we have to improve our extraction of coal from the ground; we have to improve our utilization of coal, make it more efficient, make it cleaner. In addition, we have to expand our research and development. In my program for energy independence, we have increased, for example, solar energy research from about $84 million a year to about $120 million a year. We are 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 [Administration] very substantially to ensure that our nuclear power plants are safer, that they are more efficient, and that we have adequate safeguards. I think you have to have greater oil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear production, and in addition, you have to have energy conservation. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Gannon. MR. GANNON. Mr. President, I'd like to return for a moment to this problem of unemployment. You have vetoed or threatened to veto a number of jobs bills passed or in development in the Democratic-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 PRESIDENT. The bills that I've vetoed, the one for an additional $6 billion was not a bill that would have solved our unemployment problems. Even the proponents of it admitted that no more than 400,000 jobs would be made available. Our analysis indicates that something in the magnitude of about 150 to 200,000 jobs would be made available. Each one of those jobs would have cost the taxpayer $25,000. In addition, the jobs would not be available right now; they would not have materialized for about 9 to 18 months. The immediate problem we have is to stimulate our economy now so that we can get rid of unemployment. What we have done is to hold the lid on spending in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation. And we have proven, I think very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate of inflation and increase jobs. For example, as I have said, we have added some 4 million jobs in the last 17 months. We have now employed 88 million people in America-the largest number in the history of the United States. We've added 500,000 jobs in the last 2 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 the six jobs are, where you have permanent jobs with the opportunity for advancement, is a better place than make-work jobs under the program recommended by the Congress. MR. GANNON. Just to follow up, Mr. President, the Congress has just passed a $3.7 billion appropriation bill which would provide money for the public works jobs program that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the authorization legislation. In light of the fact that unemployment again is rising or has in the past 3 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? THE PRESIDENT. 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 $4 billion that would add to the deficit, which would add to the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy jobs in the private sector, not make jobs where the jobs really are. 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 2 years that I've been President, I've vetoed 56 bills. Congress has sustained 42 vetoes. As a result we have saved over $9 billion in Federal expenditures. And the Congress-by overriding the bills that I did veto-the Congress has added some $13 billion to the Federal expenditures and to the Federal deficit. Now, Governor Carter complains about the deficits that this administration has had, and yet he condemns the vetoes that I have made that have saved the taxpayer $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. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, Mr. Ford doesn't seem to put into perspective the fact that when 500,000 more people are out of work then there were 3 months ago, where we have 2½ 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 4,000 or 5,000 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 nonfarm jobs than when he took office, and still he talks about a success; 7.9 percent unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country. He says he has learned how to match unemployment with inflation. That's right. We've got the highest inflation we've had in 25 years right now-except under this administration-and that was 50 years ago-and we've got the highest unemployment 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. It has only been a net saving of $4 billion. And the cost in unemployment compensation, welfare compensation, and lost revenues has increased $23 billion in the last 2 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-percent unemployment rate or 7-percent unemployment rate and a 6-percent 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 has vetoed four 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. So, this shows a breakdown in leadership. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter, under the rules I must stop you. Mrs. DREW. MS. DREW. 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 groups. MR. CARTER. Right. MS. DREW. But unless you are 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 going to provide that tax relief that you are talking about? MR. CARTER. Now we have such a grossly unbalanced tax system, as I said earlier, that it is a disgrace. Of all the tax benefits now, 25 percent of them go to the 1 percent of the richest people in this country. Over 50 percent-53 to be exact-percent of the tax benefits go to the 14 percent richest people in this country. We've had a 50-percent increase in payroll deductions since Mr. Nixon went in office 8 years ago. Mr. Ford has advocated, since he has been in office, over $5 billion in reductions for corporations, special interest groups, and the very, very wealthy, who derive their income not from labor, but from investments. That has got to be changed. A few things that can be done: We have now a deferral system so that the multinational corporations, who invest overseas, if they make $1 million in profits overseas, they don't have to pay any of their taxes unless they bring their money back into this country. Where they don't pay their taxes, the average American pays their taxes for them. Not only that but it robs this country of jobs because instead of coming back with that million dollars and creating a shoe factory, say, in New Hampshire or Vermont, if the company takes the money down to Italy and builds a shoe factory, they don't have to pay any taxes on the money. Another thing is a system called DISC [Domestic International Sales Corporation[, which was originally designed and proposed by Mr. Nixon, to encourage exports. This permits a company to create a dummy corporation to export their products and then not to pay the full amount of taxes on them. This costs our Government about $1.4 billion a year, and when those rich corporations don't pay that tax, the average American taxpayer pays it for them. Another one that is very important is the business deductions. Jet airplanes, first-class travel, the $50 martini 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 in $100,000 of his own money, borrow $900,000-$900,000, that makes a million-and mark off a great amount of loss through that procedure. There was one example, for instance, where somebody produced pornographic movies. They put in $30,000 of their own money and got $120,000 in tax savings. These special kinds of programs have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefited those who are powerful and who can employ lobbyists and who can have their C.P.A.'s and their lawyers to help them benefit from the roughly 8,000 pages of the tax code. The average American person can't do it. You can't hire a lobbyist out of unemployment compensation checks. MS. DREW. Governor, to follow up on your answer, in order for any kind of tax relief to really be felt by the middle- and lower-income people, according to congressional committees on this, you need about $10 billion. Now, you listed some things. The deferral on foreign income is estimated it would save about $500 million. DISC, you said, was $1.4 billion. The estimate of the outside, if you eliminated all tax shelters, is $5 billion. So, where else would you raise the revenue to provide this tax relief? Would you, in fact, do away with all business deductions, and what other kinds of preferences would you do away with? MR. CARTER. No, I wouldn't do away with all business deductions. I think that would be a very serious mistake. But if you could just do away with the ones that are unfair, you could lower taxes for everyone. I would never do anything that would increase the taxes for those who work for a living or who are presently required to list all their income. What I want to do is not to raise taxes, but to eliminate loopholes. And this is the point of my first statistic that I gave you, that the present tax benefits that have been carved out over a long period of years-50 years-by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists, have benefited just the rich. These programs that I described to you earlier-the tax deferrals for overseas, the DISC, and the tax shelters-they only apply to people in the $50,000-a-year bracket or up. And I think this is the best way to approach it, is to make sure that everybody pays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure that you take whatever savings there is from the higher income levels and give it to the lower and middle-income families. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. Governor Carter's answer tonight does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an interview to the Associated Press a week or so ago. In that interview Governor Carter indicated that he would raise the taxes on those in the medium- or middle-income brackets or higher. Now, if you take the medium- or middle-income taxpayer-that's about $14,000 per person-Governor Carter has indicated, publicly, in an interview, that he would increase the taxes on about 50 percent of the working people of this country. I think the way to get tax equity in this country is to give tax relief to the middle-income people who have an income from roughly $8,000 up to $25 or $30,000. They have been shortchanged as we have taken 10 million taxpayers off the tax rolls in the last 8 years and as we have added to the minimum tax provision to make all people pay more taxes. I believe in tax equity for the middle-income taxpayer-increasing the personal exemption. Mr. Carter wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the taxpayers of this country. Now, the Governor has also played a little fast and loose with the facts about vetoes. The records show that President Roosevelt vetoed on an average of 55 bills a year. President Truman vetoed on the average, while he was President, about 38 bills a year. I understand that Governor Carter, when he was Governor of Georgia, vetoed between 35 and 40 bills a year. My average in 2 years is 26, but in the process of that, we have saved $9 billion. And one final comment. Governor Carter talks about the tax bills and all of the inequities that exist in the present law. I must remind him the Democrats have controlled the Congress for the last 22 years, and they wrote all the tax bills. THE MODERATOR. Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS. I suspect that we could continue on this tax argument for some time, but I'd like to move on to another area. Mr. President, everybody seems to be running against Washington this year, and I'd like to raise two coincidental events, then ask you whether you think perhaps this may have a bearing on the attitude throughout the country. The House Ethics Committee has just now ended its investigation of Daniel Schorr, after several months and many thousands of dollars, trying to find out how he obtained and caused to be published a report of the Congress that probably is the property of the American people. At the same time the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct has voted not really to begin an investigation of a United States Senator because of allegations against him that he may have been receiving corporate funds illegally over a period of years. Do you suppose, sir, that events like this contribute to the feeling in the country that maybe there is something wrong in Washington, and I don't mean just in the executive branch, but throughout the whole Government? THE PRESIDENT. There is a considerable anti-Washington feeling throughout the country but I think the feeling is misplaced. In the 2 years we have restored integrity in the White House and we have 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 housekeeping, its salaries, its expenses, and the like. The next Congress will probably be the first billion dollar Congress in the history of the United States. I don't think the American people are getting their money's worth from the majority party that runs this Congress. . We, in addition, see that in the last 4 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 throughout our society. Congress is hiring people by the droves, and the cost, as a result, has gone up. And I don't see any improvement in the performance of the Congress under the present leadership. So, it seems to me, instead of the anti-Washington feeling being aimed at everybody in Washington, it seems to me that the focus should be where the problem is, which is the Congress of the United States, and particularly the majority in the Congress. They spend too much money on themselves. They have too many employees. There is some question about their morality. It seems to me that in this election the focus should not be on the executive branch, but the correction should come as the voters for their Members of the House of Representatives or for their United States Senator. That's where the problem is. And I hope there will be some corrective action taken, so we can get some new leadership in the Congress of the United States. MR. REYNOLDS. Mr. President, if I may follow up, I think you have made it plain that you take a dim view of the majority in the Congress. Isn't it quite likely, sir, that you will have a Democratic Congress in the next session if you are elected President, and hasn't the country a right to ask whether you can get along with that Congress or whether we will have continued confrontation? THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me that we have a chance, the Republicans, to get a majority in the House of Representatives. We will make some gains in the United States Senate. So there will be different ratios in the House as well as in the Senate, and as President I will be able to work with that Congress. But let me take the other side of the coin, if I might. Supposing we had had a Democratic Congress for the last 2 years and we had had Governor Carter as President. He has, in effect, said that he would agree with all of-he would disapprove of the vetoes that I have made and would have added significantly to expenditures and the deficit in the Federal Government. I think it would be contrary to one of the basic concepts in our system of government, a system of checks and balances. We have a Democratic Congress today, and fortunately, we've had a Republican President to check their excesses with my vetoes. If we have a Democratic Congress next year and a President who wants to spend an additional $100 billion a year or maybe $200 billion a year, with more programs, we will have, in my judgment, greater deficits with more spending, more dangers of inflation. I think the American people want a Republican President to check on any excesses that come out of the next Congress if it is a Democratic Congress. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, it's not a matter of Republican and Democrat; it's a matter of leadership or no leadership. President Eisenhower worked with a Democratic Congress very well. Even President Nixon, because he was a strong leader, at least, worked with a Democratic Congress very well. Mr. Ford has vetoed, as I said earlier, four times as many bills per year as Mr. Nixon. Mr. Ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public relations stunt and never tries to put it through the Congress by working with the Congress. I think under President Nixon and Eisenhower-they passed about 60 to 75 percent of their legislation. This year Mr. Ford will not pass more than 26 percent of all the legislative proposals he puts forward. This is government by stalemate. And we've seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper relationship between the President, who represents this country, and the Congress, who, collectively, also represent this country. We've had Republican Presidents before who have tried to run against a Democratic Congress. And I don't think it's-the Congress is Mr. Ford's opponent. But if he insists that I be responsible for the Democratic Congress, of which I have not been a part, then I think it's only fair that he be responsible for the Nixon administration in its entirety, of which he was a part. That, I think, is a good balance. But the point is that a President ought to lead this country. Mr. Ford, so far as I know, except for avoiding another Watergate, has not accomplished one single major program for his country. And there has been a constant squabbling between the President and the Congress, and that's not the way this country ought to be run. I might go back to one other thing. Mr. Ford has misquoted an AP news story that was in error to begin with. That story reported several times that I would lower taxes for lower- and middle-income families, and that correction was delivered to the White House. And I am sure that the President knows about this correction, but he still insists on repeating an erroneous statement. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, Governor Carter, we no longer have enough time for two complete sequences of questions. We have only about 6 minutes left for questions and answers. For that reason we will drop the follow-up questions at this point, but each candidate will still be able to respond to the other's 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 would like to ask you something about what you have said, and that is that you believe that a President ought to have a Chairman of the 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 Arthur Burns, and if not, would you seek his resignation if you are elected? MR. CARTER. What I have said is that the President ought to have a chance to appoint the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board to have a coterminus term; in other words, both of them serve the same 4 years. The Congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income tax laws. The President can modify the economic structure of the country by public statements and general attitudes and the budget that he proposes. The Federal Reserve has an independent status that ought to be preserved. I think that Mr. Burns did take a typical erroneous Republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so high. He assumed that the inflation rate was because of excessive demand and, therefore, put into effect tight constraint on the economy, very high interest rates-which is typical, also, of a Republican administration-tried to increase the tax payments by individuals, cut the tax payments by corporations. I would have done it opposite. I think the problem should have been addressed by increasing productivity, by having put people back to work so they could purchase more goods, lower income taxes on individuals, perhaps raise them if necessary on corporations in comparison. But Mr. Burns in that respect made a very serious mistake. I would not want to destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. But I do think we ought to have a cohesive economic policy with at least the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the President's terms being the same and letting the Congress of course be the third entity with independence, subject only to the President's veto. THE MODERATOR. President Ford, your response. THE PRESIDENT. The 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 2 years we have had a responsible monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Board indicated that the supply of money would be held between 4 to 4 1/2 and 7 and 7 1/2. They have done a good job in integrating the money supply with the fiscal policy of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. It would be catastrophic if the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board became the tool of the political party that was in power. It's important for our future economic security that that job be nonpolitical and separate from the executive and the legislative branches. THE MODERATOR. Mrs. Drew. Ms. DREW. Mr. President, the real problem with the FBI-in fact, all of the intelligence agencies-is there are no real laws governing them. Such laws as there are tend to be vague and open-ended. Now, you have issued some Executive orders, but we have learned that leaving these agencies to executive discretion and direction can get them and in fact the country in a great deal of trouble. One President may be a decent man, the next one might not be. So, what do you think about trying to write in some more protection by getting some laws governing these agencies? THE PRESIDENT. You are familiar, of course, with the fact that I am the first President in 30 years who has reorganized the intelligence agencies in the Federal Government-the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and 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 are familiar with this-legislation that would make it very proper and in the right way that the Attorney General could go in and get the right for wiretapping under security cases. This was an effort that was made by the Attorney General and myself working with the Congress. But even in this area where I think new legislation would be justified, the Congress has not responded. So, I feel in that case as well as in the reorganization of the intelligence agencies-as I've done-we have to do it by Executive order. And I'm glad that we have a good Director in George Bush; we have good Executive orders. And the CIA and the DIA and NSA are now doing a good job under proper supervision. THE MODERATOR. Governor Carter. MR. CARTER. Well, one of the very serious things that's happened in our Government in recent years and has continued up until now is a breakdown in the trust among our people in the [ At this point, there was an audio failure which caused a delay in the debate until 11:18 p.m.] THE MODERATOR. Ladies and gentlemen, probably it is not necessary for me to say that we had a technical failure during the debates. It was not a failure in the debate; it was a failure in the broadcasting of the debate. It occurred 27 minutes ago. The fault has been dealt with, and we want to thank President Ford and Governor Carter for being so patient and understanding while this delay went on. We very much regret the technical failure that lost the sound as it was leaving the theatre. It occurred during Governor Carter's response to what would have been and what was the last question put to the candidates. That question went to President Ford. It dealt with the control of Government intelligence agencies. Governor Carter was making his response and had very nearly finished it. He will conclude that response now, after which President Ford and Governor Carter will make their closing statements. MR. CARTER. There has been too much Government secrecy and not enough respect for the personal privacy of American citizens. THE MODERATOR. It is now time for the closing statements which are to be up to 4 minutes long. Governor Carter, by the same toss of the coin that directed the first question to you, you are to go first now. MR. CARTER. Well, tonight, we've bad a chance to talk a lot about the past, but I think it is time to talk about the future. Our Nation in the last 8 years has been divided as never before. It's a time for unity. It is time to draw ourselves together, to have a President and a Congress that can work together with mutual respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the open for a change, so the people can understand their own Government. It is time for Government, industry and labor, manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in our society to cooperate. And it's a time for Government to understand and to cooperate with our people. For a long time our American citizens have been excluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to. This is not compatible with the purpose of our Nation. I believe in our country. It needs to be competent, the Government needs to be well managed, efficient, economical. We need to have a Government that's sensitive to our people's needs, to those who are poor, who don't have adequate health care, who have been cheated too long by our tax programs, who've been out of jobs, whose families have been torn apart. We need to restore the faith and the trust of the American people in their own Government. In addition to that, we've suffered because we haven't had leadership in this administration. We have got a Government of stalemate. We've lost the vision of what our country can and ought to be. This is not the America that we've known in the past. It's not the America that we have to have in the future. I don't claim to know all the answers, but I've got confidence in my country. Our economic strength is still there. Our system of government, in spite of Vietnam, Cambodia, CIA, Watergate, is still the best system of government on Earth. And the greatest resource of all are the 215 million Americans who still have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, the patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood on which we can rely in the future to restore the greatness to our country. We ought not to be excluded from our Government anymore. We need a President that can go in who derives his strength from the people. I owe the special interests nothing. I owe everything to you, the people of this country. And I believe that we can bind our wounds. I believe that we can work together. And I believe that if we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country, that we can once again have a Government as good as our people and let the world know what we still know and hope for-that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on Earth. THE MODERATOR. President Ford. THE PRESIDENT. On November 2 all of you will make a very, very important decision. One of the major issues in this campaign is trust. A President should never promise more than he can deliver, and a President should always deliver everything that he has promised. A President can't be all things to all people. A President should be the same thing to all people. Another issue in this campaign: Governor Carter has endorsed the Democratic platform, which calls for more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation, or more taxes. Governor Carter has embraced the record of the present Congress, dominated by his political party. It calls for more of the same. Governor Carter in his acceptance speech called for more and more programs, which means more and more Government. I think the real issue in this campaign-and that which you must decide on November 2-is whether you should vote for his promises or my performance in 2 years in the White House. On the Fourth of July, we had a wonderful 200th birthday for our great country. It was a superb occasion. It was a glorious day. In the first century of our Nation's history, our forefathers gave us the finest form of government in the history of mankind. In the second century of our Nation's history, our forefathers developed the most productive industrial nation in the history of the globe. Our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our 215 million Americans today and all that join us. In the last few years government has gotten bigger and bigger; industry has gotten larger and larger; labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger; and our children have been the victims of mass education. We must make this next century the century of the individual. We should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. The individual worker in the plants throughout the United States should not be a small cog in a big machine. The member of a labor union must have his rights strengthened and broadened, and our children in their education should have an opportunity to improve themselves based on their talents and their abilities. My mother and father, during the Depression, worked very hard to give me an opportunity to do better in our great country. Your mothers and fathers did the same thing for you and others. Betty and I have worked very hard to give our children a brighter future in the United States, our beloved country. You and others in this great country have worked hard and done a great deal to give your children and your grandchildren the blessings of a better America. I believe we can all work together to make the individuals in the future have more, and all of us working together can build a better America. THE MODERATOR. Thank you, President Ford. Thank you, Governor Carter. Our thanks also to the questioners and to the audience in this theatre. We much regret the technical failure that caused a 28-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. We believe, however, that everyone will agree that it did not detract from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness. The next Presidential debate is to take place on Wednesday, October 6, in San Francisco, at 9:30 p.m., eastern daylight time. The topics are to be foreign and defense issues. As with all three debates between the Presidential candidates and the one between the Vice-Presidential candidates, it is being arranged by the League of Women Voters Education Fund in the hope of promoting a wider and better informed participation by the American people in the election in November. Now, from the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, good night. NOTE: The debate began at 9:31 p.m. at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, Pa. It was broadcast live on radio and television. Gerald R. Ford, Presidential Campaign Debate Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217110