Voter's Pipeline; Propositions 12 and 15

I get. To hot issues to be decided by California voters in November propositions 12 and 15 dealing with handgun and nuclear weapons on the subject of today's special program for public television the format for this program will be to half hour segments during which these highly contested propositions will be debated for the first half of this special will discuss the proposition 15 the handgun initiative. Under current law all Californians with the exception of convicted felons narcotic addict and mental patients can purchase handguns without permits. There was a 15 day waiting

period before delivery during which time law enforcement officials determine whether a purchaser is prohibited from possessing a gun. Now let's take a look at prop 15 wording and you'll find it when you walk into the ballot on Election Day November 2nd. Proposition 15 guns requires registration of handguns. Limits the number of handguns allowed in the state prohibits absolute legislative ban on possession of firearms. Fiscal impact indeterminable impact would increase administrative costs reimbursed in whole or in part by fees and the impact on cost of maintaining criminal justice system could impact sales and income tax revenues. What we have with us today two special guests who will discuss both sides of this important issue. Victor Palmieri is state campaign chairman of Californians Against street crime favoring the Nixon initiative. He's chairman of Victor Palmieri and Company a law firm organized to assist business and government in 1980. He served as ambassador at large and U.S. coordinator of refugee affairs. He's a

trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation the Center for Law and the public interest and the Committee on Economic Development. He's a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School. Sheila Allen is president of We the People for truth and common sense. A new nonprofit educational corporation to educate the public on constitutional matters. She's a novelist and TV script writer and a graduate of Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. Her group is not a member of citizens against the gun initiative but is philosophically in agreement with this group. And she's a volunteer spokesperson against the gun initiative without We're going to ask each of our guests to make a special one minute opening statement after which we will take a look at how both sides are trying to influence you and to get your vote. Let's start first with Mr. Palmeiras turn to Proposition 15 responds directly to the epidemic of street crime that's taking over in our streets in California here today 30000 handgun crimes last year in California. It's supported by the police chiefs of three of our four big cities and

13 other police chiefs representing more than half the population of California by the chambers of commerce of three of our biggest cities by the state bar and the California Medical Association. All of them look to carefully. All of them supported after a careful study. Prop 15 will save lives. It will make our streets safer. How harsh mandatory penalties for those who would carry illegal handguns on the street at the same time while citizens to keep home guns that is to say guns they keep in their home for their own protection. This is a new approach. It's a balanced approach. It's a moderate approach. It will save lives. Thank you very much. Thank you. We are opposed to Prop 15 because it won't work. Mandatory sentencing doesn't work according to the Department of Justice in a recent. Report that they just put out and that has to do with the Massachusetts state law which has been brought up here a lot of criminals are never going to register their handguns. And this proposed law weakens parts of the second the

fourth the fifth the eighth and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And in these days we feel that that's a very very dangerous. All right thank you. Now before we get into our discussion we're going to look at a phenomenon that is going on now all over the state of California and that phenomenon is high powered advertising to convince you if you're one of 11 of the 11 million voters in the state of California to convince you to vote the way that does each side want you to vote. Let's take a look at what the people who are saying vote yes are saying right now let's look at their commercial. Handguns killed all these Californians this year you have these big Eastern handgun gun makers are now bankrolling the desperate ad campaign against Prop 15. Here's the truth from the chief of police of San Jose. Prop 15 will make handgun registration work. It protects home guns goes out to street guns and cost next to nothing.

The eastern gun makers can vote in California and these Californians can never vote again. But you can vote yes on 15. Remember if you're one of the 11 million voters in California that you'll be getting pressure from the other side too. Now let's take a look at the commercial that you're going to be seeing asking you to vote no on the same initiative Prop 15. These laws already regulate gun. Twenty thousand of them across the nation. Criminals ignore them. We need to enforce the laws against the criminal who uses a gun. We don't need prop. 15 which will hurt the peaceful honest citizens. Criminals have no right to have handguns but they do anyway. It's not fair to deny that right to the majority of law abiding citizens. I'm voting no on Proposition 15. It won't stop the criminal. Now we're going to ask you to respond to some questions and should there be a need for rebuttal. We will certainly see if they get them. Let's start with you Mr. Camilleri if you had to

summarize in one or two arguments the biggest reason why someone should vote yes on Prop 15 what would you do. What would you say. Well I would say that is the only way the only possible way that we're going to have of controlling the epidemic of street crime and street guns that are now terrorizing our California community is what we have are thousands literally thousands of individuals roaming our streets for whom a handgun is a real incentive to crime. They say guns don't kill people but people die and they die because that little lethal instrument that you can pull a trigger and kill somebody at 20 feet or 30 feet without knowing and without talking to them gives you the power to dominate to give you the power to take their property take their lives. And people are doing that now as a way of sustaining themselves psychologically. They're doing it as a way of earning a living will and it's becoming an epidemic. How can we stop that we can stop that by putting it we're simply putting a lid

on the number of hand guns. We have five to six million handguns in California and half a million more in this state each year. All prop 15 says that's enough. Enough is enough. Let's let's have one handgun for every household. Let them keep handguns in the household if they like. But let's attach strong penalties to those who would carry unregistered handguns on the street. If you had to buttonhole someone and give them your most strenuous one or two arguments on why someone should vote no one asked how would you answer the same question. Well Jim a lot of it has to do with the exact opposite of what Mr. Panerai just said. First of all there are in in the United States there are roughly about 40 million handguns there about 200 million guns of all kinds. There are according to the FBI less than four tenths of one percent of them that are ever used in a crime anywhere when there were half that many guns there were still four tenths of one percent of those guns used in crimes because the criminal element has remained fairly constant in their usage of weapons. They're going to use them to going to get them no matter

what lives we put on. If you have a machine shop you can make a gun. That make guns in maximum security prisons right now there isn't any way of stopping the manufacture of those guns or the black market on them or putting a lid on them as far as criminals are concerned. As far as citizens are concerned yes you can put a lid on it if I am if I am on a fixed budget if I am a woman living alone or an elderly person on a retirement benefit whatever by the time this law goes through if you have six million guns in a state of 5 million to 4 million to 6 million and first person that decides they want one for their protection because you live you live in downtown L.A. that say you're not going to be able to buy it because there will only be 6 million. Now three to five million nine hundred ninety nine. Person and you want to buy it. You can if you can afford it. We feel that it is discriminating against people that are not rich and are not criminals. Do you have another remedy for the situation then. Your Side. Has it evolved any other remedy outside of prop 15 as a remedy then.

Yes I think that for us the remedy first of all the laws that we have should be enforced. Laws that are capable of working should be enacted. One of our biggest problems of this is that we feel that it's it's an emotional reaction to a definite real problem and the problem is that if we put something like this on the books people are going to assume it's been taken care of it will do nothing to stop crime but people will say oh well it's on there already. Let's let me advise everyone that they can go down at your nearest registrar's office and get this book it's a very important book. If you're one of the 11 million voters who are going to decide these issues and I should say also that this issue is important not only because of California but it's important because it's going to have a strategic bellwether effect for voters throughout the entire United States because it's the expression of a sentiment either way. This book has some salient arguments on both sides and I'm going to test our guests on some of those arguments. Let's start this question for this when for a victory. This is taken from the argument against Prop 15 signed by Carol Ruth silver supervisor city and county of San Francisco Richard Reny

sheriff of Contra Costa County and Robert Fusco president of California wildlife federation. It says in part all for something that won't work because everyone knows that animals are going to ignore this initiative. This initiative is falsely directed toward the lawful use of guns by law abiding citizens not the criminal misuse of guns. A recent study commissioned by the United States Department of Justice found that there is little. Or no conclusive or even suggestive evidence to show that gun ownership among the population as a whole is per se an important cause of criminal violence. How would you respond to that argument. First of all it's really an argument for doing nothing as your question has just has just shown. For my opponent they have no answer to it. They really have no answer except let's have everybody in the community have a gun. So they're in their view of the right kind of society is one where not only everyone has access to guns everyone has to have a gun. It's interesting that they're worrying about the poor because the leaders of this initiative include the

leaders of the poor community the black community Chicano community and so forth. In fact this kind of legislation worked in Massachusetts. The law there has been carefully studied and it resulted even that resulted in a 55 percent reduction in gun homicides as 35 percent reduction in gun assaults all the while that general violence was rising in the Boston Massachusetts community because of racial tensions there so that it will work. This is at the same time this is a very rational way to approach it because for citizens who want to keep a gun in their home it allows them to do it. To say that it's aimed at citizens and not of criminals is just exactly false. I mean it's just a 180 degrees from the truth. It is aimed at criminals for the first time. Police will have a real tool to arrest criminals before they pull the trigger on somebody rather than after. Let's clear up one though Wolf one the allegation that have been made repeatedly by people who are saying vote

no. They are saying that the people on Prop 15 are. Misleading the people in that it's trying to do some doing trying to do one thing while pretending to do another. Let me quote this quote the gun initiative is deceptive. It is totally mis directed promising to somehow reduce crime by restricting rights of peaceable law abiding citizens. This initiative won't stop criminals from getting guns or using guns in violent crime munition that will deprive the honest citizen of most basic right of self protection. Now again that taken from the same argument from the official secretary of state. What is since essentially echoes 20 years of gun lobby propaganda. The fact is that this does not take guns from law abiding citizens that permits them to keep them in their homes. It puts a heavy penalty for the first time. Did you know that it's it's a misdemeanor under present laws to carry a concealed handgun on the street. It's a felony to carry brass knuckles or a black jacket. That's how much sense the existing laws make. They talked about the existing registration laws existing registration laws

cover about one third of the handgun transactions and they have no effective penalties. So that's a fraud. That kind of statement that you just heard is pure NRA propaganda. Let me come to you want to respond to that first Sheila. Well yes there's a couple of things in here. First of all when we're talking about what he was saying originally about the poor and that the leaders the community we do feel that they have been misled because when when we when our organization we the people have talked to me when and explained that yes the idea is wonderful. No this particular law won't work because of the various ramifications that this particular law has. Normally we get them to come around to realizing that it is against their best interest is against their civil rights issue interests if they're involved with civil rights. Now the rest of it as far as. The wording of the law itself when you have a law which says the mere fact that you have no criminal record and you haven't attempted a crime or you're not committing a crime is no excuse. And to me that doesn't sound as if it's against criminals. The mere fact that you have no criminal record is peppered throughout

this entire thing. I think it's not a mere fact if you have a criminal record. I think it's very important to respond to that because in fact only about 5 percent of violent crime arrests go to conviction. So. So it's very important to give the police a tool for arresting those who carry concealed handguns on the street before they kill them before they rob this initiative and does that. Let me read another quote and this is for Sheila. Let's get some statistics on the table here. This is again from the. This is from this side that are in favor of Proposition 15. Peter pitches John Norton Peter pitches sheriff emeritus of L.A. County John Norton chief of police of foster city and Cornelius Murphy chief of police of San Francisco. In California alone two thousand people were killed with handguns last year. Enough is enough. Today there are four to six million handguns in California. Enough is enough. The experts say that without this initiative there will be 10 million handguns in California in 10 years.

Enough is enough. Again I'm quoting from the argument. California has had its fill of street crime and street gangs and street guns. Enough is enough. How do you respond to that then. It seems to me that's a pretty tough figure. How do you respond to that figure. Two thousand people killed. First of all first of all the figure to the best of my knowledge in the I. No no no. First of all the biggest and best to my knowledge is accurate according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Through the last 10 years we've been doing a study on it through the last 10 years that we've been averaging roughly from ten to fifteen thousand. Deaths by handguns murders by handguns in a year and I would imagine that possibly 2000 of those are in California. The point is that in those years in those 10 years time and with all of the proliferation as they would like to say of handguns It has not changed this is the statistics that to stay the same I can't say the word is when they stay the same no matter whether you've got 5 million in the state or 10 million state if you've got 20 million in a country of 40 million a country because it's criminals that are using.

Criminals normally. All of the murders I shouldn't say all the murders. 70 percent of the murders according to the FBI are perpetrated by people with prior criminal records. According to the attorney general of the state of California. And this is the attorney general's summary. While conceal well concealable handguns constitute only 20 percent of the number of all firearms. They account for 90 percent of the incidents of firearm violence. Would you both comment on that. Yes that's I think that the figure is accurate. They they account for 90 percent of the. Of the two tenths of one percent of the handguns that are used in murders. Yes. You know say that only a small fraction of the handguns cause are involved in crime. This is like saying only a small fraction of the Tylenol results in deaths by cyanide. I mean the fact is it's that small fraction that. Has to be controlled in the way you control it is by getting some rational

control on the total number of hand guns in the state because those largely are stolen. That's the way they get to criminals. That's the way they get to juveniles. That's the way they get to the people who have mental illness. They're stolen. The law says ballistics. She reports 60 handgun stolen handgun reports every morning except on Mondays when there were a hundred and eighty. That's just in Los Angeles. So to say a small percentage is involved is to miss the point. We've got to get to the street criminals before they pull the trigger. It's like drunk drivers. Would you want to wait for drunk drivers to kill someone before you punish them if they caught driving while drunk. I don't think so. Today the laws on the books do not give police the tools to do that. No. Did you want to comment on that. Well first of all the guns and the Tylenol are two separate issues. The tylenol Eylan in and of itself can kill you according to what you're telling us to go out and jail you also not unless someone pulls the trigger not in and of itself is not lethal in and of

itself it has to have someone behind it using it. The rest of it the rest of these arguments that are involved with this. Are are are all emotional arguments John because what it comes down to is it doesn't work in Massachusetts which Victor brought up. They have done it according to August 9th and the L.A. Times it says the Department of Justice report says that although that intent has been to reduce crime by increasing uncertainty and severity of punishment. It is fundamentally impossible to substantiate the popular claim that mandatory sentencing is an effective tool for reducing crime. It isn't working. It hasn't worked. Boston New York. Washington all of the cities that have the hardest the hardest laws against this are the ones that are creating the most problems in this country. Rentals don't stop. I keep coming back to it I think says one of the questions that a voter might say well maybe we maybe we will defeat prop 50 maybe 15 go down to defeat then the next question is what that will do it better. What vehicle to do better. And it seems that there is incumbent upon those who are saying vote no vote no some kind of a moral responsibility to say but we've got a better

way. We suggest a better way. Again I come back that I can suggest one better way. But if you take some parts of prop 15 if this was rework so that it did not have a mandatory sentencing it did not say that the mere fact that if no criminal record is no excuse. If you took away the rebuttable presumption of guilt if you took away the concept that you are automatically guilty even though you haven't attempted a crime or haven't committed anything just because you happen to own something if you take those elements out of it and you go back to what they were talking about originally which is registration and which is ensuring that street crime goes down by enforcing the laws that we have by making stricter penalties. Fine. Let me ask you why would why would a person like you who is obviously an intelligent person be so concerned about people who carry concealed handguns on the street they're the only people at risk. You don't want that. Why is that when you want them to do. I'll tell you why. I have my common sense tells me that I live in Venice California. We have one of the highest crime rates in the city. Worse than watts. And I

live alone. I have a feeling that if I walk out in the street and any criminal gets there nose for an absolute fact that if I looked like an average citizen that I am totally defenseless. That is not going to help stop crime. Let me read this let me come back to another claim because it's been voiced many times against your group and I'm quoting now from a document put out by Senator Richardson who is one of the leaders on the other side of your position. Quoting from his letter. They meaning people who are advocating this prop 15 they claim it is an anti-crime measure and even call their group Californians Against street crime. But it is really an extremely tough anti gun measure backed by the usual crowd of ultra liberal bleeding hearts social activists lawyers and every anti-gun group in the state. You want to respond to that. I see it to be a high visibility. I think he also calls the social slugs. And scumbags. I think those are two of his favorite. And I'm a liberal Democrat. Well we're not talking politics. We're talking gun. Yes.

Yes sir. It is isn't old is an old theme from Mr. Richardson that who likes to fondle his guns that this is somehow aimed at good citizens and not at criminals. This is the same this same person incidentally in his trysts and who fought the restrictions on the cop killer bullet the bullet that was kind of a trade to the police officers Kevlar flak jackets that they all have to you fought that and the California legislature for a year before it passed. He thought traces of chemicals and explosives. He even thought the bill that his own Ed Davis put in to require the destruction of guns used in crimes involving the commission the death of a police officer. What about the argument that you sometimes advance that this is only the foot in the door. You heard the witnesses say they have used that even against the cop killer bullets. This initiative by its own terms for long guns and shotguns from any legislative encroachment. They are not the problem. There is no desire here

to to effect shotguns or hunting in any possible way or sportsmen or marksman. It's only that little concealed handguns on the street. I want to ask a few more questions you want to respond to really quickly to one thing he was saying that this protects the other guns and that is one of the fallacies it's one of the reasons that I have a problem with over 30 lawyers wrote this according to the people that I've talked to. And I understand Mr. Palmeri is a lawyer and I understand he helped write it. He must know. That this is going into the penal code this is not a constitutional amendment. There is no way that this can bind the hands of future legislatures. There's no way that they can tell future legislatures that they can't ban confiscate or whatever they want to do. And at the end of it it says it may never be amended. It doesn't say it may never be deleted even though I am a lawyer and you're completely wrong about that. Believe the. Legislative initiative. You cannot change but not a statutory initiative. All right let me talk about money. It's important for everyone to know when they are going to vote on this that it requires all concealable firearms to be registered by November 2nd

1983. In other words the year after election day. Now we have a big argument and a dialogue springing up this week about the money the cost of registration. A study by Duke University Professor Philip J. Cooking expert and handgun registration cost in other states agreed registration would be done for $10 a weapon without fingerprints. Another report however from the Deukmejian report. States that the registration could cost more than $33 per handgun and require the use of money from the state treasury. You want to respond about the money problems here. There again the so-called Diggnation report was an informal memo since disowned even by the person who wrote it printed up by the gun lobby which polls figures out of thin air says who makes the assumption there has to be fingerprinting and FBI checking and then says they're going to need a bureaucracy and then adds up all kinds of numbers when in fact the interesting thing is that under the existing registration laws taxpayers support pay the bill under the under Prop 15 gun

registration fees would have to pay all the bills and it will certainly be less than $10 the highest fee in the country today is $5 for registration. You want find that it. Apparently the source of iterable disparity between $33 and Deukmejian and $10 from the professor. This was in the Los Angeles Times is worth overate. Yes the source of the larger figure. The attorney general's office of the state of California. And the attorney general's office went on to say that they couldn't process more than 20 percent of the people that if everybody complied. They couldn't process more than 20 percent which would mean that 80 percent of us would be technically in violation of law. When I say ass I don't happen to own a gun but someone did say that's not true. I don't mind it. I'm holding up the engine now under the statute. Is an exemption for applications pending. No matter how long it takes in this particular And I had it with me here in this particular have it which supposedly is the full thing because that was what the initiative thinking just made on there is no such element. You can read through it. We're all reading initiative and not your gun control. And I read what you printed in the

paper. There is a complete exemption for cutting. I read it in that text. This is yours. Going to go on to another question. This gets back to money some time and the issues are decided in fact more often than not issues are decided by how big the bankroll is on one side and how big the bankroll is on the other side. So let's talk with just have a moment or two left. The last figures given are 3.2 million dollars for the opponents 3.2 million dollars sometimes called the war chest to defeat it. The war chest to get it passed is one million. What about that money. Does that have any messages or do you want to make some comments about the this is a horrifying problem because they've had over a million dollars shift into this state from weapons manufacturers around the country in the last month. You know is it going. Sure they advertise it in the current edition of of American Rifleman. They have big ads showing all that. All the gun manufacturers are in there. There's only one in California that have contributed the money. That's a fair question to ask you where is your money coming from Californians all over the state.

All right what about you what about the money thing. 3.2 million dollars to defeat it in America and 1 million to pass it. Well first of all we are not part of the NRA. So I have no knowledge of how much money that the NRA and their groups have put into it. I would assume however that there is quite a bit of money on both sides because I understand that there are media buying campaign is going on in full swing now and I understand that yes I'm 15 is buying an awful lot of time which costs an awful lot of money. Our time is now up for this portion of the program. I want to thank our special guest today Victor Palmieri and Sheila Allen for their participation in this discussion about Prop 15 the gun initiative. I recommend to everyone that you read the California ballot Pampa and if you don't have one you can get one from the registrar of voters. Remember if you want the gun initiative to pass you vote yes. If you don't want it to pass you vote no. I like to have you join us now in the next half hour when we will discuss. Proposition 12 the nuclear freeze initiative. Welcome to the second half of this election special proposition 12 the bilateral nuclear weapons

freeze has become a major ballot issue across the United States as well as in California. California voters have never been confronted with this type of a ballot measure. It implies a section of the United States Constitution which allows the people to petition their government to express their views. And now let's take a look at the proposition. Exactly as it will appear on your ballot. Proposition 12 nuclear weapons requires. Governor right. President urging proposal to Soviet's to jointly halt nuclear weapons testing production and development fiscal impact no direct fiscal effect. Two special guests are with us today and they're going to be discussing both sides of this issue. Robert Nelson is a spokesman for Californians for a bilateral nuclear freeze. He's a senior scientist for Jet Propulsion Laboratory formerly he was an instructor at Youngstown State University. He's co-chairman of the Southern California Federation of scientists and co-author of the report nuclear war and L.A. as well as numerous other scientific reports. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics holds a

master's in astronomy and obtain his doctorate in Earth and Planetary Sciences. Lawrence O'Donnell is a nuclear public policy consultant speaking against the initiative. He's president of senior policy Associates Incorporated the newly formed political issues management consulting firm. He's formerly director of advanced planning public affairs and assistant to the president for general atomic company. He served with the United States Atomic Energy Commission as senior foreign affairs officer. Mr. O'Donnell a Harvard graduate was formerly a member of the Central Intelligence Agency. Gentlemen I'm going to ask each of you to make a one minute statement about your advocacy on this on this issue after which will be asking some questions. Let's start with you sir. During the last 20 years the growth of the stockpiles of the United States and the Soviet Union has reached such a level that if at all out nuclear exchange were to occur it could well eradicate all life on the planet. Also during that same 20 years there have been attempts to limit the growth of those stockpiles through a series of salt negotiations et cetera. Those attempts were admirable have not missed or have not led

to a real term a nation of growth. It's now time for the people of the people of this state to make a new suggestion for a new direction as to how the strategic stockpiles should be limited. And there's a start in that direction. We are proposing with the voters in the state of California endorse and vote for Proposition 12 the proposition which calls for a bilateral verifiable nuclear weapons freeze between the United States and the Soviet Union. Thank you Mr. O'DONNELL. I think that. Everyone recognizes the importance of. Achieving arms limitation. I think that the proposition 12 approach is simplistic and that it calls for a mutually verifiable freeze on production. And testing and deployment now all testing and deployment maybe verified by national means production almost certainly will require intrusive inspections some of historic. They said that they're not going to

put up with this. I think that the freeze really primarily sends the message to the wrong side. It would be very nice if the broad public debate such as is taking place in California and elsewhere across the country could take place in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately it does not. I don't think the threes as a political movement helps in a sitting position in Geneva. I think the objective. In Geneva and in Vienna is to bring the Saudis to the table to effect genuine arms reduction. Thank you very much. I should tell our viewers that this is a rather unique phenomenon in the state of California. Let me read the background for the existence of this prop 12 background is that the Constitution of the United States provides that the president shall have the power to make treaties with other countries with the advice and consent of the Senate. It also provides that the people may petition the government to express their views. Since the end of World War II. There has been extensive development in production of nuclear weapons for military purposes. So that's where we are coming from on the. Beginning of this debate. Let's start right now if you are to meet someone. And unfortunately.

Most people are not going to have my background that we have on your ballot when you walk into the polling place. If you're one of California's 11 million voters. You're only going to get a chance to read with 24 words. What you should do. You vote yes or no on it. And that's. Awesomely inadequate on an issue of this complexity. So what do you say to someone to convince them to vote the way you think they should vote. I think the first important thing about the proposition 12 is it represents the first step the first step back from the brink of a possible nuclear confront nuclear holocaust. The important thing about it is that while all other attempts to negotiate and to reduce the reductions of strategic arms should continue and should go on. The important part is by making that first step by proposing that we in the United States citizens of this country make that proposal to the Soviet Union. Then it's on the Soviets to respond to that. If they should respond favorably that would be in the mutual interests of both societies and the people of the world.

All right. What do you say when you talk to someone they say tell me in a few minutes why I should vote no. I think the freeze really isn't a very good way to make foreign policy or to strike delegates in Geneva for trying to reach the summit of course with the Soviets and very difficult very complex complicated negotiations. I think also the fact that it's on the ballot on the ballot and a number of states is very good and very healthy because I think that I would welcome the American people coming to a new and better understanding of the issues that are involved in this. I just make a recommendation. Anyone watching again into this issue has far greater importance than only the 11 million voters who are eligible to vote in November in California. It's certainly being white on a national level and there's no question that it's being watched on an international level and what its impact may be. So I suggest anyone get this they get this booklet from your nearest registrar of voters which will give you a much larger digest of the arguments on both sides. But let's quote from what I meant to direct this question to Robert Nelson. This is the official ballot argument which was submitted by Admiral UMG retired.

Co-chair of the committee for a varified reduction. And Robert Gericht former deputy counselor to President Reagan and co-chair of the committee for varified on production. The freeze initiative will be used to undercut the bargaining position of the United States in trying to achieve real nuclear arms reductions from the Soviets. Why would the Soviets after engaging in the largest arms buildup in history now embrace defeat. Because it must serve their interests. Because it serves their interests. I think there are several simple parts about that that are implied in that statement. The comment the Soviets after the largest buildup in history the implication of this statement and the untrue implication was that somehow the Soviets have accrued themselves some sort of an edge which now they want to freeze. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider the following when the question was put on May 11th 1982 of this year by Senator Carl Levin to General John Vessey. The question of would you exchange. Overall the nuclear capability of the United States with a nuclear capability the Soviets General Vessey

replied Not on your life. The same question was put by Senator Charles Percy to Caspar Weinberger secretary of defense. Would you exchange arsenals if you think there head. And Secretary Weinberger said quote I would not for a moment exchange anything because we have an immense edge in technology. So the first part about it is freezing in a Soviet advantage which is what's implied in that argument is true. The relative configurations of those two stockpiles are both large enough to do their intended job. In fact large enough to do their intended jump several times over. The second part about this this argument is that it raises the assumption that it undercuts our negotiators in Geneva it's our stated position by the president that we want to reduce the strategic arms stockpiles if we intend to reduce them. And they are currently growing. The first thing we have to do is stop the growth. And that's what the freeze is about in order to start to reduce. We first not to stop and freeze. Then comes the reduction.

I think anyone listening this way would like to have you be asked this question. How do we make the Soviets play good guys and how do we make the Soviets cooperate in this effort. It's not a question right now of whether the Soviets will cooperate in this effort. All that the freeze proposition suggests is that we make this proposal to the Soviets if the Soviets failed to respond to that proposal. That's the Soviets problem and they will have to take the the pressure from the world community. And then we should make it clear that what you're saying is that the Soviets are absolutely negative on this over here. Then you're saying that that there would be no free fall. The proposition 12 suggest is that we make the proposal to the Soviets that if they're willing to stop we're willing to stop. Now let's have a response from Mr Downer. Well let me. Address a couple of things. I think when General Vessey and others are quoted cap Weinberger about whether they'd like to have the Russian forces of U.S. forces. That question really isn't very informative about the subject matter at hand and this is. Taken up

with this initiative. The Russian forces and the U.S. forces are different. They have different purposes. And they respond to different. Political directions and heads. The concern with the freeze is that the Soviets have stopped for a period of rather massive and threatening buildup both. With respect to NATO Europe and with respect to the strategic balance. So it's not a. And that would not be a concern. I think if the Soviet Union. Had the kind of political society and state that the United States does it does not. And that's kind of a fact of life. I recall. Talking to a reporter from The Associated Press who interviewed me and I tried to go through some of this as a background on negotiation and some of the difficulties in dealing with the Soviets and she said I know all about the Soviets. So that's very good then you understand what the problem is because I don't think we're in need of a proposal or an inspiring idea. Our side of the table to somehow untie this Gordian knot.

These are very difficult intractable negotiations the summits have been brought to the table when they think it's in their interest to come. And I believe that one of the things that has brought them to the table is the threat. Or the prospect that the United States and its NATO allies have the will and the resources to deploy land based cruise missiles and NATO Europe and upgrade the Pershing force to counter the SS 20s that the Russians have been systematically deploying there. Further I think that they are encouraged to come into the stock talks because the United States is presumed to be one be bomb problem and that we have indicated that we're going to deploy the next missile. I hope we don't have to do it and I'm sure the president of the United States hopes we don't have to do it. But for the United States we accept the freeze now. Would make it extremely difficult for this country to carry forward those programs and the Soviets I believe would lose incentive to negotiate. That's kind of a fact of life.

Again we have the argument about the Soviet superiority coming in in this implied way the Soviets have just engaged in a major arms buildup. It doesn't answer the question of. Whether they have the edge. Duplication is that they've engaged in arms build up and we have not. The fact is the Soviets have been playing catch up with the United States and through T.G.. And the numbers on both sides now are approximately comparable in the major important areas. So the point here is that both sides are now out approximately it's time to stop in time to cut. Let me ask about the Soviets. I think many people who have written about the Soviets have said that they do have some concern with world opinion and that it's a matter of world opinion against their position that they're willing to at least consider it. Would this freeze overture from us from the USA would the freeze over to or at least have the value of forcing the Soviets to reconsider their position in the. In the light of world opinion which was grossly negative against. The times when the service of responding to world opinion have been the cases of Saffer off and

other individuals. I don't believe that the Soviets ever paid too much attention to world of pain other than trying to form it. Where they believe that they did. My reaction to it and the audience the World Peace Council and a number of the Soviet supported front organizations have supported the freeze. Leonid Brezhnev himself addressing the Congress of Soviet trade unions on March 16 said let's have a freeze where it has to have what it is willing to handle. It makes me think been on out. Let me finish. Go on with it. And he said and the implication was that he was prepared to freeze now between that time and July the Soviets deployed 45 more SS 20 missiles now we hadn't begun the incursions and we had begun deploying. Land based cruise missiles I think the difficulty. Is to assume that the Soviets behave the way we do. They don't. They're not a consensus society. They're

difficult predatory rebels. And I think that we could talk to them and I think nuclear weapons makes them worse. And what about that let's address it in all fairness then how do you address the fact that there are a recalcitrant society at least by our standards and that you're dealing with a recalcitrant controlled society as a part of our society which we like to think of as an open society. I think it's important that we have to understand that regardless of our opinions of the Soviets and regardless of our disapproval of their behavior around the world. That nuclear weapons are not a viable option for controlling that kind of situation. If we go to nuclear war with them we've lost it because both sides will lose their own or winners in a nuclear war. So the question is we get the idea of nuclear weapons and somehow can be used to coerce the Soviets into doing something that might be more acceptable to us. Doesn't seem to really work. In fact the pattern of behavior is whenever we have taken a lead

or increased our size they have reciprocated in kind. That's one thing that you can trust the Russians will do. They always say you can't trust the Russians but thing you can trust them about it if we make a lead or increase the size of the stockpiles. This history shows that they will increase their stockpiles too. Right now the stockpiles are beyond the wildest realm of imagination. I think it's a fair question to you then is it realistic to assume that the overture that you're suggesting over here for a freeze. Would coerce them to behave in any other different way than they're already behaving. I think it's important that if we made that overture that if they were if they chose not to respond to it if they chose not to agree to our suggestion for a freeze. Then this then the Soviets would be in a rather isolated situation around the world. You know that to like that question about world opinion do that. Do they react to other pain or do they not. I think they do react to world opinion I think all countries recognize at least to some level that they have to react to world opinion. They don't necessarily mean it doesn't necessarily mean that one country will

necessarily knuckle under to world opinion but countries will consider that in formulating foreign policy. Let me address this to you again from the argument this is signed by Dr. Owen Chamberlain this goes this goes to Mr. O'Donnell Dr. Owen Chamberlain professor of physics and a Nobel laureate Homer Bushay. Brigadier general U.S. Air Force and John Wrubel former assistant secretary of defense. This is the arguments in favor of Prop 12. Nuclear war can't be won everyone loses. At stake are the lives of our children and our nation's security the very survival of human life on Earth. The nuclear arms race brings total destruction ever closer. But now we can reduce the danger. A yes vote on Prop 12 the freeze is the first step. Prop 12 calls on our federal government to negotiate with the Soviet Union and immediate verifiable agreement by both countries to stop further testing production and installation of nuclear weapons. Now. How do you respond to that argument. That's just that's second. I think the answer is that nobody wants the war. I don't believe the Russians do and we don't. And I think everyone who's in any way involved with nuclear weapons

understands that the main objective of. World diplomacy has been for the last 30 years. Thirty seven years since World War Two that we avoid any form of major constant confrontation with the Soviets. The worst form being the possibility of the exchange. There is no no difference as two objectives on the part of those who favor the freeze and on the part of those like myself who don't think it's a very good way of achieving our objectives as I said I think it's simplistic. It says that it's going to be a mutually verifiable freeze on testing production and deployment deployment and testing you may be able to verify by national means what production I suggest is not going to be verifiable or even with intrusive on site inspection. Your point is again that employment. Deployment deployment and testing of new nuclear weapons is susceptible to checking but production of them is not susceptible to testing so how do you confront that dilemma.

Let us assume that both countries agreed to freeze and let us assume that one side or the other decided to cheat on such a treaty of freeze treaty and engage in research development production deployment and production testing testing production deployment of nuclear weapons in order to do that the research phase the research phase. People you know students can sit in garages and design nuclear weapons they don't but developing them requires something quite different. It requires us they will have they would have at least produced one that no research and research research kids cannot be monitored and that freeze treaty does not. The freeze proposal does not speak to the question of research. But any of the other systems that the five elements that one would have to engage the the doors to successfully produce violate the treaty not just one. One would have to produce several If we can really know that things the other stages are verifiable by the national technical means consider the following. We have spacecraft that orbit the Soviet Union the spacecraft that orbit

us to monitor compliance with with the various treaties we've already engaged in we have other types of monitoring that goes on. Also on the spacecraft for example can bring down an image from 100 miles up in space of an object the size of a basketball. Given that kind of technical capability the idea that one could seat on a 3-D to the extent of really getting an advantage becomes ludicrous. The last thing they could not say they could not successfully cheat nor could we might now know. Neither side could successfully cheat because both sides have these immense technical capabilities. There's a second point even though the treaty the treaty speak to national technical means there's another traditional means of figuring out what your opponent or potential adversaries up to which is the old cloak and dagger technique espionage and common kinds of that kind of surveillance to back that going on. Goes on both sides. There's another avenue particularly to figure out what's what what the other side is up to. For example if the two of us were to

sit down to do something in secret we might be able to keep the secret from several people for a long time. But as we get more and more people involved in our combined research project as more and more people get involved somebody sooner or later starts springing a leak. And that will happen long before production or testing phase of a new strategic weapons system. Thank you no. Yeah. The point I've made is that while national means may be adequate to assure that testing and deployments not undertaken production of nuclear weapons requires probably onsite inspection and fairly intrusive onsite inspection. I cite the 20 years of experience on the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to assure that reactor materials that nuclear equipment and technology that is being used for peaceful purposes is not diverted to any military purpose. Now the name of the game there is not satellites. The name of the game is on site inspection. And let me address the

point of cloak and dagger and. I did that at one point early on in Korea and in terms of conventional cloak and dagger. I'll tell you it's just a heck of a lot easier to do it here than it is there. And that's one of the advantages of a closed society. Now let me say one thing about this society you see I believe that if the Soviets would accept the freeze and really open up their society. To onsite inspection. We might have a totally different ballgame because one of our objectives for the last 37 years has been to get them to coax them one way or another to open up their society. That is the kind of thing which is repugnant to our political values but. More important than. That is the kind of thing that fundamentally makes Americans very nervous about our long term security. I think that's an important point that Mr. O'Donnell just made that one of our efforts for the last period of time has been to coax them to open up their society. That's the

problem. We should not be passing judgment on how they run their society. We might pass judgment on it but there's little that we can do about it. That's because you know when you're going to say that very. No the point is that coaxing them to open up their society is part of a part of a strategic plan of the United States which Mr. Dingell said. But regardless of how we disapprove of that regardless of their activities regardless of the way their domestic situation is handled That's not a concern of ours to take. That's a concern for the Soviet people to change and they will change it sooner or later because if countries really are as bad as they're made out to be. Usually those countries will change things from within. But the second point also on this question of verification let's let's assume let's assume that again the freeze is in effect and let's assume that they could secretly do the research and development and the manufacture of a warhead. Have they really accrued the advantage. And the answer to that question is No. Because as Mr. O'Donnell says we will still catch them at the Divell at the manufacturing and deployment.

Stage two are doing just fine and through testing. The warhead needs to be tested. The launch vehicle needs to be tested and at those stages such a violation of a freeze treaty would certainly be caught and they make a big point of this and the agree and I think that another fair question for you and NASA and yet the Soviets systematically suppressed any peace movement on their own soil. In other words it would be very difficult and quite an argument for there to be let's say a Russians for a bilateral nuclear freeze to exist. According to their suppression and the repression that had been reported. Again how do you answer that. Again voting yes on Proposition 12. By no means implies an acceptance of the way the Soviet system is currently set up. All it implies is that we would make a proposal to the Soviets regarding freezing of weapons. If we could continue to hold and we can continue to exert our use inappropriate readers about our opinions of how Soviet society treats both its citizens domestically and the citizens and some of its allies States you respond to that.

I think the real key in any negotiation is to understand how the people sitting at the negotiating table are wired for sound. And to whom do they respond. And I think you just simply have to take into account the difficulty in dealing with the Soviet society. This is the fundamental problem with the freeze is that if the United States accepted the phrase I think we start freezing right now. But they have said that they have said it and I put the caveat in it that the Russian might accept it too or it goes into effect. Now when Jerry Brown writes a letter if this passes and sends it to the president and the president then says to add Romney and Paul that's it. I just got a good idea from California what I'd like you to do is walk in tomorrow and say to the Russians let's freeze. Now what happens. Well the first thing is that we have made a proposal to freeze up on Capitol Hill as we're looking at the defense budget cap when it comes. And he says I want to I want to update modernize the strategic force so we

know you're all freezing in Geneva. Now the Russians can take that freeze proposal this Natalie will probably be frozen. He will be frozen there. He is already now committed himself politically. Is a good and fair is the way free societies operate. The Russians can take it to say freeze. That's an interesting idea. We've got to study it. Now we may study it for one or two or three years. We may freeze a little here a little there. The point is that the. The problem between the United States and the Soviet Union today is not a gross number. It is really whether the United States will update technologically its strategic and theater forces to match what the Soviets have done so that we can preserve the spectrum of deterrence in order to reach real arms reduction. I could never imagine that Secretary Weinberger would be so imprudent as to make a decision to stop the manufacturing of weapons prior to the signing of a treaty. The point here is that once have gone to Geneva and proposed to them that they have a treaty and laid it on the table then

waited on the table that we wait for them to sign that once both sides have signed that's the time for the freeze. Again the implication of the argument is that we would do this unilaterally. And the point of the argument that I'm making is that proposition 12 is a bilateral nuclear weapons freeze proposition. Let me give you a figure because I keep thinking about these these awesome 24 hour words upon which everyone in California when he or she goes into a polling place must make a judgment because many people will have to make their judgment on that. We hear figures like 30000 nuclear weapons that the U.S. has the Russians have 20000 nuclear weapons and yet a very prestigious group called the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London says this and this is just a report dated October 6. No single measurement can give a full representation of this strategic nuclear balance. This is at the end of a vast and very complex study. One measure may be useful for some purposes but not for others. And there is a considerable debate among and list as to what measures should be given greatest weight

and assessing the overall balance. The question gentlemen is if these experts don't know what who who has how many weapons and they don't know what the balance is. How can this for Mr. John Doe and a city in California walk into a polling place to make a judgment. Very quickly we have. How do you respond to that. I think it's very difficult and I think that the Soviets and the United States through communications in Vienna and in Geneva have to try to come to an accommodation. And he said it very well General routeing said you know the Americans like to play Pac-Man. The Russians like to play chess. I think that the prop 12 makes a lot of people feel good. I don't think 800000 people in Central Park a bumper stickers are a good way to get on with serious negotiations. It's a chess game that you've made about that study just reflects on another argument which goes on in this which is who's ahead. And then we will cite that they have more land based missiles. They say that we have more submarine base missiles. The conclusion of the group that you're referring to is just saying that. Well those are difficult

tradeoffs to assess at all. But the bottom line conclusion is that both sides have more than enough. And that's why a freeze is important. Thank you very much gentlemen. Our time is just about up and I want to thank both of you Mr. Nelson and you Mr. O'Donnell for a very engrossing study by the very important 24 words in the lives of all the 11 million California voters who are going to have to make that decision on November 2nd. Providing of course they all get out to vote as they should. Remember now that if you want to have the nuclear freeze proposal to pass you vote yes. And if you want it to fail you vote no. That's very clear. And if you wanted to vote yes if you want to fail vote no. We hope that today's program has provided a better understanding of both about nuclear question and about the gun control initiative. On prop problem by Prop 15. This is a special broadcast for public television. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. I.

I. I. I. I. Really