Voter's Pipeline; 40th & 42nd Congressional District Races.

Welcome to elect next to one of a series of special election programs on channel 50. Today's program presents all the candidates for the 40th and the forty second congressional district races in Orange County. The 40th congressional district following reapportionment encompasses a wide area of central Orange County extending from the coast eastward to the Riverside County line. It is now fully contained within Orange County the cities and areas within the district include Fountain Valley Costa Mesa Irvine Tustin Newport Beach Laguna Beach Laguna and Gale and portions of Santana orange Huntington Beach Collin heights and lemon Heights. There are a total of three hundred eight thousand registered voters in the 14th Congressional District of these 160 5000 are Republicans and 100 and 4000 are Democrats. There are 18000 more women than there are men registered in this 40th district. In past years the 40 second congressional district was known as the thirty fourth district. The new Forty-Second congressional district includes sections of North West Orange County and runs into an irregular pattern along the coast into Los Angeles County as far north as Palla's Verdi's But since you live in

Orange County. The district includes the cities of Huntington Beach Seal Beach Seal Beach Leisure World and 40 percent of Westminster in Los Angeles County the district includes the cities of Torrance Signal Hill rolling hills rolling hills estates parts of San Pedro and about half of Long Beach. The Forty-Second congressional district has 300 4000 registered voters including those in both orange and Los Angeles counties. These voters 46 percent of Republican 43 percent are Democrat and 11 percent are in the other parties and are unaffiliated right now in this district about 60 percent of the district lives in Los Angeles County and about 40 percent in Orange County. In the 40th congressional race the Republican incumbent is being challenged by a Democrat. A peace and freedom candidate and a write in candidate the Republican incumbent of the forty second congressional race is has both a Democrat and a candidate from the Peace and Freedom Party challenging him him. And now let's meet all of our guests today Congressman Robert Batum Republican is

the incumbent from the 14th Congressional District. He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee. House Administration Committee and also vice president of the Tourism Caucus chairman of the Republican Study Committee member of the Republican Policy Committee and Secretary of the California Republican delegation. Paul he's been Democrats a division counsel for the Ford aerospace and communications corporation in Newport Beach and an instructor for the University of California Irvine extension. He is a West Point graduate and a former Army officer who serves as president of the lagoon in the Gallup community council and on the board of trustees for the Capistrano Unified School District. He's also on the Aliso Viejo public advisory council. Maxine Belcourt is a peace and freedom candidate from Santana. She's an apartment owner and has resided in Orange County for 53 years at the party's recent convention. This quirk was named southern state chairwoman. She's currently active on the Selective Service Law panel as a draft counselor. Jim Fronto is a write in candidate in the 14th district. Currently he's a self-employed homebuilder and resides in Santa Ana heights. He formerly worked for nine years with a fire

department in Newport Beach. And while there was active in local politics and now let's meet the candidates from the Forty-Second district Dan Lungren Republican is the incumbent from the Forty-Second district now seeking his third term in Congress. He serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Aging. He also is chairman of the House Republican task force on crime within the House Judiciary Committee. He's a member of the subcommittee on immigration refugees and international law. James Feldman Democrat of Long Beach is an attorney with the Orange County Public Defender's Office. He's a member of the Democratic Central Committee in both the state and local levels and he's on the party's state finance committee. Mr. Spelman is also a past president of the Longreach Democratic Club. John Donohue of the Peace and Freedom Party lives in Long Beach and works in a cleaning and repair business. He describes himself as a socialist and peace activist and worked with an alliance for survival in the Seal Beach nuclear action group. Dani was also a member of the state and county central committee of the Peace and Freedom Party. An elected congressman or congresswoman receives a salary of sixteen thousand six hundred sixty two dollars a year in the four year term for the two year

term rather two year term and now each candidate will make a one minute statement about his or her candidacy after which we'll be asking them some questions. So let's start with Congressman Batum. Thank you Joe. Hi. I'm Congressman Bob bet. It has been my pleasure and privilege to represent the constituency of the 40th congressional district for the past six years in Washington. Prior to that I was a member of the state assembly representing the same area in Sacramento. It has been my pleasure to represent this area and try to bring to Sacramento and to Washington the philosophy that we cannot go on and ending Lee spending more than we take in for the first time in my long career in politics I see light at the end of the tunnel under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. I see progress prosperity new employment new jobs around the corner. I think that the first 19 months of the Reagan administration have demonstrated this. And I seek returned to Washington to work with our president

to make sure that prosperity comes and comes soon. Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Jim. I always mean I live with my wife Vivian and our three children in Laguna Niguel and I'm very concerned about the state of the economy that we have before us now. Many presidents are able to take office and point the finger backward toward those that preceded them as the responsibility for hard times that they face. This president has pointed that finger backward but he is going to have to realize at some point whether it's tomorrow or next week that he is responsible for the economy. I believe that the economy must improve. We do need to tighten our belts. But in doing so we must tighten our belts in a caring and in an objective way. This has not been evident so far under this administration. There are other issues facing this district. I think that the district needs a strong effective hard working leadership in Washington.

And I intend to provide that leadership when elected. Mr. Quirke thank you for inviting me. The two party system has served monolithic capitalism very well together. They have brought a poverty line that admitted 10 percent unemployed. Twenty million Americans go to bed hungry every night. They have brought us the poverty draft an admitted hundred non non-registered and an immoral draft registration they have brought us an abundance of nuclear toys for the Pentagon playpen while raping and polluting our water soil and air. They have ascended to new heights in foreign diplomacy and earned our undying gratitude. Stamping out emerging democracy through a red smokescreen with the help of the CIA and 16 an oppressive military dictatorship. Is this the

alternative we offer a troubled world. The number one consumer accepting world hunger and starvation aren't think habitual Fronto. Yes money and Jim will follow. I live in San Angelo heights with my boy Joe and I believe that we have to cut down on the amount of money the government's been spending it can't live on a credit card forever. Whether you are a family or a nation the question is Where do you spend the funds that are available. I would cut out foreign aid which we spend $7 billion a year on which other countries use to wage war on other countries with and provide only food. Farm machinery and medicine as foreign aid. The rest of that money I would reappropriate to our sick our poor and our elderly and to replenish our dying Social Security system. I would keep persion to in the gutka missiles that we plan to put in Western Europe only in the United States where we can control them instead of forcing the Soviet Union to go to a launch on warning system. I would vote for the Soviet pipeline. I don't see any better

revenge that a business man could have on his adversary than to charge him the highest possible prices on equipment. And I have other stands to thank you. Thank you Congressman Lungren. Thank you Jim. I have served this very area for the last four years. When it was the third and fourth congressional district when I ran and previously talked about trying to work for reducing taxes reducing government spending attempting to bring about regulatory reform trying to lead the country towards a stable monetary policy and strengthening our national defense. As such I have been consistent with the Reagan policy and it worked with the president to try and bring about some changes in Washington. I think we've begun changes but we still have to do a lot more. What I would say is that I have been faithful to the pledges that I made in the past and I seek your support for re-election based on my record of the past. Thank you Mr. Spelman. Good evening. My name is Jim Spellman. And I think that the issues in this congressional race are clear cut and London occupying the far right spectrum of the political field. And

John Dunhill of my peace and freedom candidate occupying the left Reaganomics certainly is going to be the issue in this congressional race. But there are other side issues as well. My opponent is a strong supporter of James Watt and I believe that James Watts policies and practices are not well-regarded in this district. I'm a strong supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and I support the pro-choice Amendment and the pro-choice decisions of our Califf of California and United States Supreme Courts. I ask for your vote on November 2nd. Mr. Donohue I know you do. As we approach the November 82 election we find our nation poised on the brink of nuclear disaster on the one hand an economic ruin and the other. Once again we fight. We see the the Democratic Party the the present administration and it's handmade in the Democratic Party pointing fingers at one another trying to

fix blame for their misdeeds and miscalculations the victims of their misdeeds are the poor women the minorities and all people of the Third World. We ask for a reordering of our priorities and a change a complete transformation of our political system as well as a change in our economic system. One of the most important responsibilities of any candidate in any race is to define the issues and then to articulate those issues. So let's answer ask each of you to answer this question. What do you regard as the top one or two issues on which voters will be making up their minds making their decisions on November 2nd and let's start with Congressman Lungren come right around this way. Well I don't think there's any doubt Jim that most people are considering the economic situation is the number one issue in any campaign. I think that I found with most of the people in this district as I moved around the district realized that we had a choice when the president was

elected that he is we could try those policies similar to what Prime Minister Trudeau has followed in Canada assuming he would Jimmy Carter was trying here or we could try something new. And I think most people recognize that when you're in a mess and that's where we were when the president took over. And many of us were trying to help him. You have to get a little messy to get out of that mess. And that's what we're going through right now. There is hope. The economy is in no doubt about it it's the economy. All right. How would you answer that question. I join with Mr. Lundgren I think that the economy is the major issue in this congressional race. But there are other issues aside from that there are the social issues pro-choice parents the public schools national security issues and environmental issues and they're all important to the voters in our district. And I don't think we can just factor in on the economic aspect we have to develop a theory and a campaign that deals with all issues that Congress deals with. And that's what I'm focusing on during this

campaign. All right. And what are you what would you say the top issues that are on people's minds as the top issues are one the threat of nuclear holocaust. I feel that this is particularly poignant in this district where we have the Seal Beach Nuclear Weapons Station where nuclear weapons are stored. And naturally the the economy where we have 32 million people living below the poverty level and it's very interesting the solution seemed to be just around the corner just as they were in in the first depression that we had the major depression. And I feel that this is what we're seeing here is a crisis in world capitalism. I think it's a fair question to ask you then if you could have your way. Would you do away with all of our nuclear weapons unilaterally even regardless of whether the other superpower like Russia does away with ours. If I had my way I would do it that way yes. And I think that the Russian people would respond. I've spoken to many people who have been reciting the Soviet Union and they are scared to death of us. And I

think if we make some kind of a move in the direction of peace that they would respond unilaterally as people. All right Congressman Batum. I think that the issue number one is the economy. I agree wholeheartedly with what my friend and colleague Dan Lungren says. He talked about the mess. Let me describe the mess the mess simply was that when President Reagan came into office and we had a change in the direction of our government economy 21 and a half percent interest rate that's down to 11 and a half a reduction of almost half a reduction of 10 points. We had double digit inflation between 13 and 14 percent. That's between five and six. Now we had several things that were going on that were just absolutely intolerable with unbridled spending by the Congress of the United States and the spending cuts have started to go in. We have had tax rate cuts and our economy is getting moving. Unemployment remains high. And that is a result of previous actions and we are working on it. Housing starts are now up. Consumer spending is

up and right behind that. We'll follow the reduction in unemployment. The issue is the economy and what do we do with it. I say we give better rein to President Reagan and this administration to carry on with the program that is working now. Many people have made this statement that this election that we're coming into is really nothing more than a popularity contest for Reaganomics. How do you feel about this team required. Or I wish that it were because there are too many other factors into it. One it's a midterm election where traditionally the president's party does poorly. I don't think that will happen this year which if that's a referendum that works in favor of the Reagan administration. The second thing is that we've had a reapportionment of all the congressional districts in the United States as a result of that done by basically in the majority Democratic legislatures throughout the country doing it to their advantage. There would be a natural great Laius disease and attrition in the Republican Party. I don't see that. So I think this will be a demonstrative demonstration of a counter cyclical

trend. No lost seats because it's mid-term and very few lost seats because of reapportionment. So if they want to make it a reapportionment on Reaganomics I'm willing to take that stand. All right Mr. Hagemann Jim Bob is talking about it. A lot of nice countercyclical arguments and how the economy is going to do on the total sphere but the real issue in this election down here in Orange County is what well it's going to be the economy what how is it in Orange County we have layoffs in the housing industry which are just overwhelming. We have layoffs at the floor Corporation the largest employer in Orange County. These things are hitting hard right here at home. It's not a question of Reagonomics in the overall scope it's a question of what's happening right here in Orange County. Small business can't get that 11 and a half percent loan that's a prime rate. You try to find a small business that's got it and I'll be very surprised that that rate for small business is still very high and small business is hurting. We have big bankruptcies here in Orange County and those are the issue of the economy here in Orange County not the economy on the national scale. All right.

I consider that unemployment is the number one issue in my district. Plus the riots have been documented. What about the rights of the undocumented. There is a bill that is presently before the House called the Senate and there's only bill which is in a very repressive legislation. Congressman Lungren is on that committee that's dealing with that. It would require all workers to have an ID card and would be racist in nature because only people with a dark complexion would be asked to show their cards. So. So you think the undocumented workers. Is it an issue. That is a major issue in this race in Orange County. OK. Mr. Le Fano by the way do you think the issue that I think they're probably right that the economy is probably the major issue. I've been unemployed myself in fact I'm being in the construction business. I'm still unemployed and I don't like it but it's better than the high interest rates and the inflation that we had under Carter. I think if Reagan had said he says it said he had a plan and we elected him to

try that plan instead of modifying it we ought to do like Arthur lapper says and go ahead and implement the plan in total if it doesn't work. In four years we can get rid of him too just like we got rid of Carter but we'll never know unless we try. In this. I think of a fair question for you is why did you come in this way. The route of being a write in candidate. Many people thought that if you would like to run for office that you'd file in the primary and make make a race of it and then go with the primary election and come the general like the other candidates. What make what prompted you to take your unilateral action to come this way. Well I think the I think the catalyst as far as I'm concerned was Israel's invasion into Lebanon and that was something we get $3 billion a year in foreign aid to Israel not to not to feed and house or people but to wage war against Lebanon. Then after they've slaughtered 18000 people in Lebanon we turn around and give $60 billion in aid to Lebanon to aid what we just paid to have blown up. Then we get $2 billion in foreign aid to Egypt so they won't attack Israel while Israel is attacking Lebanon. At the same time they tell us that there's not enough food here for our

for our hungry and our sick and our elderly and our Social Security is going broke and I say hey let's take that six billion dollars that we're wasting over 10000 miles away and use it right here at home for our own people. What would you say the reason why. Why the candidate the incumbent who are now in your district is not doing your job right as it relates to this. Well he voted yes on foreign appropriations. I don't say he's been very responsive to my concerns in this area and I don't say that he's done it totally poor job that we did. The group that's backing me which are just friends did want to emphasize some of the views that we had on some of the issues that we feel are important. And that's one of them. OK so if he were back in Congress let's assume you one of the 435 members of Congress are you saying you vote no then and all the all foreign appropriation all foreign appropriations except for food farm machinery and medicine. Congressman Batum you've had something said if I could. That's why I think we ought to give you a rebuttal on it. Sure. Thank you Joe. I can't recall very many foreign aid bills for which I have voted in the first place there's foreign

aid and assistance and then there's foreign military aid the foreign military aid to Israel has been $1.8 billion not 3 billion. The other is sustenance and regular foreign aid to promote stability in the region with the in the subject of Israel. It's indeed a tough subject but we have to remember as Americans that in the late 40s in 1949 the state of Israel came into being really as a creature through the United Nations of the United States of America to promote a permanent homeland for Jewish people in the area and also to promote stability in the Middle East of which there had been none. And we are moving toward that goal. One thing I can commend President Carter for is his efforts at Camp David the Camp David situation does go on. We have difficulties to be sure but the Israelis need a peaceful border. And among the moderate Arab states they can have it with Syria which was the basic problem

in Lebanon. The Israelis waited as long as they could and then took steps that were too far. We have tried to sort that out. We will sort that out. But to hang a whole campaign on that one issue I think neglects the fact that we have great and grave responsibilities in this world which we must handle. Let's jump to another issue. And when the people of California were asked in a poll what do you regard as the top issues in this camp. The people on the poll conducted in the L.A. Times just a few weeks ago came back with four answers. The number one by far the number one issue they said by the rank and file voters by far was unemployment 42 percent of those said that the number one problem to be addressed. Let's take a look at unemployment as we see it at the day that we're taping this television program Orange County unemployment is now seven point nine percent which translates into 100000 Orange County is walking the streets out of work. California's unemployment as we take this program ten point three percent or one million 250000 Californians out of work in the USA is ten point eight percent

unemployment the worst in 40 years or 11 million Americans out of work. Let's start with Mr. Stillman you mentioned the economy. You come back to that a couple of times saying the economy is the issue. Let's start with you and then we'll have anyone else who want to join in this one. What would you do specifically as a U.S. congressman to address this terrible statistic. Thank you. First of all the article that we purchased in the Los Angeles Times of September 26 1982 and in that editorial in that article rather the there was a poll that was taken as of September 16th of this year and it predicted that the 10 percent joblessness rate was threatening to GOP in the election and the polls did show that 42 percent of California's thought unemployment was the state's number one problem. The file and the newspaper article also stated that there were a number of discouraged workers. All this is prefatory to the statement that I'm going to make regarding unemployment. With unemployment rising and Orange County sharing in the general

malaise throughout the United States and in California we've got to have some impact through jobs oriented programs. The housing industry. Exports and home consumption all must be dealt with in terms of employment. We have to offer people jobs so that we can get America working again. I think we Democrats offer opportunities through the jobs program that was to be oriented towards the homebuilding industry. Congressman Paterson introduced in the House of Representatives. That's one step that we can take towards creating employment. Let me offer it here. Second you Federal you're talking about the federal a federal jobs program. I love to talk about that because your colleague as it has had a chance to vote on that issue and other ones. Well I think that we talk about jobs. We have to look at the record of Dan Lungren. We have to look at the record of Bob Batten and see how they are. Well what are they doing about jobs. We have this high unemployment in May

of this year the housing assistance bill that Jim referred to came up 55 people voted against it 349 voted for it. My opponent voted against it. There's a jobs bill for housing right here in California. The American conservation corps bill came up that was to give him the minimum wage like the California Conservation Corps a minimum wage to two young people between 16 and 25 to work in our national parks and national forests. That was passed but my opponent voted against it. Another jobs bill will go down and look at the jobs bill in July. Bob you had a chance to vote for for a bill that would require that the copyright books that are going to get the copyright coverage in America be printed in America. That's 367 thousand jobs were placed in jeopardy and you voted against it. There were 86 324 to 86. You voted against that job bill the job training corps the job training partnership act to take the place of Seeta to give minimum wage jobs to put workers back to work to try to retrain workers with new technology. Fifty two people in Congress voted against it 356 voted for it. Another jobs bill and high unemployment. You voted against it. All right look that. That's the that's the

problem we have got job bills. And you vote against them. Let's go back and give Congressman a chance to come back for the old army out. That's all we are not going to make again. I was wondering about the jobs federal jobs program was extremely complicated subject and it's awfully tough to talk about it within a two minute or 30 second time frame. One of the reasons I mentioned Prime Minister Trudeau a minute ago is because he has done many of the things that my Democratic opponent and Bob's Democratic opponent suggested we do the expanded domestic spending they have very little defense spending. They've done higher taxes they've nationalized some industries. You know what the unemployment rate in Canada right now is which has a very similar industry based on the weak points higher than ours. Twelve point one percent inflation is twice as hard as high as ours. Their overall per capita deficit is twice as high as ours. We want to go the opposite way. It's just not going to work. What you have to do is Milton Friedman pointed out just this last week in a radio interview is you've got to look at what's happened in the past. We've had periods of good times then we go into recession good times recession good

times recession good times recession over the last 15 years. The one thing that has happened as we've come out of every subsequent recession and gone into a good relative good time is the unemployment rate has been higher and the the inflation rate the foundation inflation rate has been higher. You've got to absolutely break that psychology. You've got to break that spiral. You do it by fiscal policy which we've started. You do it by lowering taxes. Because you can't increase taxes on the private sector of the United States and expand the economy you have to have some regulatory reform. They talk about high unemployment. It is a problem but you can't go back to the solutions of the 30s and the 40s and the 50s. This isn't the 30s 40s and 50s. We have the highest percentage of adult population that's men and women 16 years of age and older working today in America of any country in the industrial world. Fifty seven point one. What does that mean. That means you have to do new things. You have to expand the private sector not the public sector. The job training bill that the president just signed which I supported was a departure for the Democratic

old saw of creating programs under seat in the public sector. It's all in the private sector. You have some job expansion bills like the export trading company Act which the president signed in our new district just this last week and you have to have fundamental economic change in terms of fiscal and taxing policy. That's how you do it. You follow it through citing all these statistics about job retraining programs they haven't worked in the past. You're saying in the Reagan program of keeping the private sector healthy is the best way to create the job not by keeping it healthy. It's not at all. I mean you get you know in health and we've got to get it healthy in the long run in the long run in the short run. Trying something new with job training this new multibillion dollar bill the president just passed is a repudiation of past Democratic approaches is a new approach in the private sector. You. I think our Democratic friends here are Democratic challengers are missing the point of history entirely. The whole essence of the Reagan economic program is to say to the American people

do we want to go back to the 30s and keep on throwing money at public programs that caused a trillion dollar debt that haven't worked. Or do we want to go ahead and relieve the pressure on the private sector which is the real creator of jobs and let it move and let it function. The minute we have a half way reduction in interest rates a half or two thirds weight reduction and inflation increase in production increase in productivity but some increased unemployment our Democrat friends say oh my god we've got to spend more public money to provide jobs. We're laking raking leaves in these sorts of things. Housing starts are up simply because the interest rate is down and the interest rate would not be down unless we had the program put into effect by the Reagan administration. And so we are on the right track and to falsely encourage employment by false means as was done through the 30s and the 40s in the 50s as Dan said would put us right back in the same old trap of increased deficits increased budgets increasing government

programs that just don't work. Mr. Spelman has indicated that he would be in favor of and also our other Democrat Mr. statement that said they they would indicate they would be in favor of federal jobs program the two Republicans have said they are not in favor of federal job programs in general. Now one or two other three outside China want to have something to. Yeah I think we have more federal programs or not. Well Wolf federal programs are necessary and could be done on the short term but in the long run it's the same process as the capitalist system that is responsible for the unemployment. And what we should be doing and do away with the capital is absolutely yes. So we what will take place but it is a system where the people own and socialism the socialist system where the people own the money I would wish them all of natural resources. That is the profit system where we have jobs going out of this country but we have corporations that take jobs out of the country and send capital out of this country that are responsible for the plant

closings. There should be no plant closing workers should be able to take over those plants and operate them for themselves. If the capitalists that own them want to go out of the country and do business. That have gentlemen a question should we be able to strike. But certainly they'd be able to strike against whom so good. OK well we're not the Soviet Union. I see what Poland is a socialist believes that believe in the right to strike. I see. And if the people own the plants why then they can strike again. Absolutely that places in the coal and they can't strike. That's the problem with Poland. I'm talking about what we have here. All right. The only socialist country in the world. Well now we've got three answers federal job programs private private economy jobs or neither of the above. But go to socialism now. Mr. Quirke What do. What do you want to add. Are we talking about unemployment. Right. Our Republican friends seem to be concerned about going back to their 30s and 40s with Reaganomics we're going back to the trickle down theory in the 20s which is very undesirable.

What would you look if you were elected as a member of the 435 Congress people. What would you do about it. Well I have several solution. I would cut the record on unemployment. What would you like to see happen. Just to attack this terrible problem with unemployment cutting the defense budget would bring more jobs and turning the multinationals International bringing our business home and our armed forces home that won't help the economy help our country. I think that we should acquire the farmland matter. Now government should take over the farmland and that are now owned by agribusiness and divide them out. That would be that would be confiscation of private property wouldn't it. Well they could buy them. OK. Mr. Le Fronto you have anything to say. All in all fairness let's give you a chance to say about unemployment. OK. I think that the programs that have been introduced are ones that put an artificial peg under housing prices instead of lowering the house at the price of housing

as many of us know the price of housing today is not due to the high cost of houses as it is to the high cost of land. The government is the largest landholder in the country. And if they sold a lot of the land and gave tax incentives to businesses to locate out in San Bernardino County in counties where the land is pretty cheap and sold it or gave it to the builders assuming they don't market up when they resell it they could build houses that would fit. Financing that's available and increase the supply of housing and a lot of jobs for it for people in the construction industry. Right we could talk a lot more about that and let's move to another subject that ties directly in with our poll that poll that we have referred to with unemployment and the economy being the number one concern here is about that of the day we do with this program here is about the total of the budget the national budget as we do this program. Why 83 budget as corrected by the Congressional Budget Office is as of today 788 billion that the

FBI budget to run this country for a year which by the way stops on midnight December 15th because the appropriation bills aren't in their national deficit is f why 83 $155 billion this year. Again corrected by the Congressional Budget Office and the national debt as of this afternoon this evening is 1.3 trillion dollars and as a corollary piece of information about that 1.3 trillion national debt the interest on it alone will take $118 billion out of this year's budget will go to just to pay the interest on that. Now you've all indicated that Reaganomics is certainly one of the big things that people will be making their decisions on. So let's start over here. Mr. Donohue What would you do to address this horrendous problem of the national debt where it is and the deficit that we're facing. 955 billion this year some people estimate will be 175 billion next year even with the 98 billion dollar tax increases that were voted by the Congress will do the main thing I would do would be to cut the military budget because

that is where most of the money is going as far as I'm concerned and that is what is one of the major reasons that causes the job situation. Also would you eliminate our national budget completely for national defense. No I would I would cut it very drastically practically. All right. Jim Spellman thing we have to look at is why do we have such horrendous budget deficits and debts as a result of the fallacy that in 1981 President Reagan sold the Congress. Mr. Batum Mr. Lungren voted for it a bill of goods that they could cut taxes and increase military expenditures and still balance the budget. Bad planning that led to larger deficits higher interest rates and the present disastrous economic situation that we presently have a situation that we have to realize is that they have to be some budget cuts. Where do the cuts come from. The coming social programs military programs foreign aid programs how

those are the decisions that we have to make. Certainly taxes have to be raised as envisioned by Senator Dole. We had the loopholes closed. My opponent Dan Lundgren refused to close those loopholes. One of which was the safe harbor leasing program which was costing upwards of $20 billion a year to the American taxpayer and producing little in return. Yet my Republican opponent refused to close that loophole and I think thats a significant difference between the two of us. And one of the major reasons why we have a deficit as large as we have and one that will continue to grow unabated until we take such steps. The president of the United States has vowed to bring back before the Congress and after January another proposal to balance for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Would you vote yes or no. No I dont think a statutory requirements such as balancing the budget is in the best interest of our country the Constitution of the United States is a

statement of principle between man and his government not between the budget and what the budget should vote no. I would vote no and I joined with many a conservative in that area. I think we constitutional conservatives would reject any such constitutional amendment. I am however in favor of a balanced budget to the extent that we can balance the budget. Mr. Lungren you have gone along with the many of the program in a very ardent supporter of President Reagan. Tell us what you did about the 98 billion dollar tax increase and why I voted against the 98 billion dollar tax increase because I couldn't find an economist liberal conservative in the middle. Democrat Republican whatever stripe you want to put on them. Who believes or who will tell you. As a matter of either history or as a matter of theory and raising taxes in the midst of recession makes good economic sense. But let me just mention I was referred to here a couple of times in response. It really amazes me how people can say that it's because of our tax cut that we passed two years

ago that the interest rates were higher. In fact as Mr. Spelman well knows the interest rates were highest when President Reagan took office there were twenty one point five percent. They're now down at the prime of 11 and a half percent. Now how did the tax cut that didn't go into place until oh let's see 11 months after the high point of the interest rate cause the interest rates to go up. In fact you have to look at the total budget. You and I would look at the military as well as the other but frankly we had to undo a lot of the problems that were created by the previous administration in allowing our defenses to grow rather weak. We needed to catch up. Secondly the great expansion of spending on the federal side has not been on the military side has been on the domestic side. We have reversed the proportion of funds that go towards military versus those that go towards domestic since the years of John F. Kennedy John Kennedy's budget was almost 50 percent for the military 27 percent for domestic needs. We've reversed that and we're still reversed where the Reagan administration. You have to start to cut the

budget and we have done it. We have taken the growth of federal spending which was running at 17 and a half percent in the last two years of the Jimmy Carter administration to where they will be this year which is between 4.7 and 7.3 percent. We have brought down the rate of increase every year. I voted for a balanced budget because I think if Congress had the guts to do it we could do it. The best thing for the entire country. So you voted twice and rates now and interest rates down. But the problem is we've got to deal with Tip O'Neill and the Democratic leadership in the house and they won't do it. We're going to try to cut and if I look at for instance had a veto message of a supplemental appropriation. I supported him on his veto message. The Democratic leadership overrode him. Adding further increases to the debt if you will. I think to start it would come before the Congress again and you were given an opportunity to vote in favor of an amendment for a balanced budget you will support it. Absolutely. I've fought for it. I'm an author of it. And by the way for Mr. Solomon's knowledge the number of letters telegrams and phone calls I got in our district for the

balanced budget since the beginning of the year until the time I voted was in excess of six thousand I got zero against it. Let's go to Mr. Hayes and give him a chance. What would you do if you're a congressman. What confronted with these dreadful figures that 1.3 trillion dollar deficit this year's budget deficit 155 billion. Well again the question is could be one characterize this one to jobs. Each percentage of unemployment is equivalent to 25 billion dollars in revenue that can come into the government. That's your deficits. So what would you do with it. We've got to be working on these jobs of jobs that I pointed out a few minutes ago that the the job bills that I pointed out a few minutes ago that the congressman voted against one was a federal jobs bill but the other is when we're going to dig into the private sector. And I think we have to work hard at bringing the unemployment down. We bring it down we're going to bring that deficit down. At the same time when I see the the president offering an amendment for a balanced budget which I expect will be your next question. I notice that he's doing this when he has the highest deficits in history and I have to be you know naive or something not to

believe that this is just a political sham on his part that he's trying to put an amendment before the public to show that he's in favor of a balanced budget when at the same time he has the worst deficits in history. I would have to say that a balanced budget is certainly a laudable goal but to tie the hands of our economy when we know as Dan Lungren pointed out that we have these cycles that when we have those cycles we have to be flexible and if we have this balanced budget to live with day in and day out year in and year out it would be very difficult for our economy to survive. How would you vote on the balanced budget. And what I would vote of course for a balanced budget amendment I'm a co-sponsor of the amendment and come back again in January you'll support it again. Absolutely. And I will have to say it's reluctantly because it is a a sad for the simple reason that the Congress of the United States is the only body in this country that can balance the budget. The only body and unless lesson to tell as Dan says we have the guts to face up to that responsibility. We will not have one.

So more important than a constitutional amendment which I do and would support and will support again is the will and the determination of the Congress to do something about it. Now we have what has been installed in our congressional appropriations system a system called entitlement programs. Now I like to casually or perhaps simplistically define an entitlement program as one put forth by the federal government that if you meet certain minimal quality minimal qualifications you're entitled to stick your hand in the federal treasury and that's just what an entitlement program is. And the president cannot veto it. He cannot refuse to budget it and he must go along with it. So when we talk about the president just proposing a balanced budget he cannot do that unless he cuts the heart and soul out of the defense of our country which would really create unemployment. Cut the heart and soul out of our highway program which would cause unemployment by transportation as well as workforce and the like. So if you're going to cut the budget

you're going to have to get to entitlement programs and that's what I would do. And that's what I think to attack the entitlement program. Have to. OK. How about you two of them are you have an opinion one. I think having the defense budget would make more job not laugh. Why would it make more jobs because every billion spent on the defense. Costs 40000 job. If you cut the defense what it had what where did you get that formula. What is the source for that material. Well it was on television during the last election. OK. Do you have anything to add to this now spending military spending to protect the United States. I'm all for it but to get carried away with the spending and NATO went under de Gaulle France decided not to spend any money on needle for defense. And I don't buy that and talk about the strikes in Poland. If you remember of Packo's striking wasn't legal here either and yet Reagan wasn't outraged with

that. But he was outraged when they had they outlawed him in Poland. The Soviets had been attacked three times in recent history by Western Europe once by Napoleon once by the Kaiser and once by Hitler so naturally they would be apprehensive about Western Europe rearming and all the missiles that they do have deployed into Eastern Europe or on Soviet soil. And I think if we take care of the United States and let Western Europe take care of Western Europe we'll save a heck of a lot of money that we're spending to defend people not thousands of miles away. And one of you did make a point on that very minute I thought we learned after World War One and World War II we're not an isolationist nation. How many people in the United States were murdered in World War II as a result of us believing before World War Two we could isolate ourselves that we weren't attacked. We weren't attacked by the Japanese because we were too strong. We were attacked because we were too weak. And one of the things you've got to do is when you look back in history say you don't have the possibility of hindsight and what you've got to do is make sure the defense is strong enough we can talk about whether certain protein he's talking about history or anything is an

element of history as is getting out of hand. Now you talked about history with regard to the economy about what would happen if we were going to go back to the 30s. I'm not saying go back to the 30s. In fact history should have shown you that in the thirties if we did not implement unemployment insurance if we got enough my social security our economy would not only be in the mess it's in that would be an absolute shambles. I don't know what your country's ban is where you cut that already. But let's get the first set of the defense budget today goes to payroll and retirement. We're now paying our soldiers a living wage. Would you cut that 15 percent of the total budget goes towards nuclear weapons. That's all of the total budget that goes to nuclear weapons. If we got rid of all of that I'd have to use that for nuclear when our conventional forces. And it would cost more than what I say about nuclear weapons are you going to cut. I think the question was would you cut the 15 percent that nuclear. Not. You know one thing we're going to have if we do that we put all of our arms all our men under arms in Europe in jeopardy because right now there's a tremendous conventional advantage to the Warsaw Pact nations in Western Europe or throughout Europe. And that would put them at

jeopardy. We're going to go on from Europe where they belong. I want to I want to do too long now. The Russians lost 10 times as many men in World War II as we did. We lost 350 3000. They had 3 million dead. Don't you think they could be apprehensive about attacks in Western Europe. Look let's move on to the lame duck they are Afghanistan as a good example of that. Afghanistan is a real thing. Let's move on please. Ladies and gentlemen let's move on now to the lame duck session. The government of the United States is going to go broke as of midnight December 15th if the Congress doesn't go back and either adopt some appropriations 13 appropriations bills or have another continuing resolution. I don't think many people realize that as we sit today the government of the United States goes broke on the 15th of December because that's the only time that the money has been allocated. Now the Congress is going to go back on November 29. And one of the advocates for social security dealing with Social Security has been Senator Dole. My question is if you are a congressman and you are going back would you think it's morally wrong to

tamper with Social Security at this lame duck session and let's start with you. In other words after the election's over then to go back during the lame duck session and start making it I was able to preserve Social Security again and increase taxes on the corporations who are not paying taxes there are many corporations who not only have not paid taxes but get money from the government. I think that's outrageous. Should that be done at the lame duck session or should that be the new new Congress in January. It should be done in the new Congress in January. But I would certainly not cut Social Security. I deplore the calling of a lame duck Congress to act. Social Security reform by those who no longer bear the responsibility for such change. I think the Greenspan report should have been provided to us prior to the election and that we would have had a forum from which to discuss Social Security changes. Thus I do not favor a lame duck Congress. Of course the budgetary constraints now

seem to command it in so far and so far as the Social Security is concerned I want to make that clear OK. We don't have to deal with your budget. We do have to deal with before we move along. It in January would you be in favor of tampering with Social Security or leaving it as it is. Oh I think that I'd like to await the results of the Greenspan report prior to making those comments. However I am in favor of maintaining and strengthening the commitment that we have made to the elderly to the Social Security programs. All right. Lame duck session and Social Security. Well normally I don't support a lame duck sessions and bringing things up such as as controversial as the Social Security system but I would support it because we have to do something the president wanted us to do something 18 months ago. As a matter of fact Congress was moving in that direction in the Social Security Subcommittee of ways and means under both Democratic and Republican leadership. Tip O'Neill called the Democratic chairman Jack pickle into his office said stop all further action on it until after the election they start marking up the bill. He

also told them to hold no further hearings. The fact of the matter is it's been politicized by Tip O'Neill and others and that's unfortunate. That makes it even more difficult to deal with. I think we ought to deal with in the lame duck session because all we're doing is postponing the day of reckoning. You used the word tampering jam. It's not tampering. Well saving the system. Just don't do something. The system will go broke. It is now spending seventeen thousand dollars a minute every minute of every hour of every day more than it takes a fair question wouldn't it have been more honorable to have discussed it before the election. Absolutely. The president tried to do it 18 months ago and got blown out of the water for even suggesting it. Absolutely Jim. I think the whole criticism that can be most of the criticism that can be leveled at the Congress of the United States could be heaped on the leadership of the House of Representatives through its Speaker Tip O'Neill who controls the Rules Committee which allows or disallows bills coming to the floor and we have had the speaker as Dan says refuse to allow the subcommittee chairman

of the Committee on social security Jake Piccolo to get to the floor even consider any legislation on the work on the bill before the election is over. We have 13 appropriations bills that should have been passed prior to the end of the fiscal year September 30th. Not one of those 13 has passed and we have gone beyond the end of the fiscal year and we are operating on a continuing resolution. Why. Because the Democrat leadership of the House of Representatives has been sitting on our hands. All right unless and until we get it moving we will of necessity have a lame duck sessions for the simple reason that we've got to appropriate the money to run this country. And would you favor or not favor taking up Social Security during the law. I don't think it would make any difference whether we did or didn't. Because nothing would happen. All right we're going to have to spend a great deal of time because the system is going broke. What about that. That's a pretty tough indictment against the Democratic leadership. Well first of all when Dan said that they came down hard on President Reagan because of his

knee and used the word correctly at that point tampering with the Social Security system he realized then that he was going to have to be very cautious and careful about how his judgment or tampering whatever word but I'm saying that he came in there without thinking carefully about what he was going to do we have the green stamp span report which was seemed to be time to come out after the election. And now they're going to try to do something I hope careful about it. And I think that we should be looking at it during a lame duck session. I think the pressure is on the Congress to do something. And if it's going to make the congressmen have less fear then that's fine let's have them go in there and try to do something careful thoughtful but let's quit meddling with the people in America that are subject to the Social Security system. Want the thing resolved so that they don't live with anxiety. And that's what happens when we continue tampering with the system. All right. Very quickly I want to go to a couple of other issues that are meeting in Anaheim right now and they're very concerned about this lame duck session say is who is worried seniors senior citizens. They think that there will be more money taken from them. There has already been 359 million taken and given that elect Kerry and the undocumented people are concerned about this lame

duck session because they think that the Simpson-Mazzoli bill will be shot. Well then they ought to go vote now in country. I think that Social Security. I think that they've made a step in the right direction in implementing the IRAs and Keogh plans to get people to provide for their own Social Security where there was no incentive to do that before. And as far as I'm concerned that they would increase the amount a person can put in an IRA tax free and let it grow for the person himself they can keep what I've deposited. Social Security and give that to my mother. They don't come back on hers. Let's talk very briefly about a couple of issues that normally are considered state issues these are state propositions. But one of these is Prop 12 and proposition 12 is I can read it exactly is it the nuclear weapons initiative called for a nuclear weapons freeze a statement asking the president to work for a nuclear weapons freeze. Very quickly I think that since this impinges on the federal policy as well as state policy I'd like to hear what you've got to say but let's start with you very quickly how are you going to vote on

Prop 12. I was one of the organizers and the in this area of prop 12 and I urge everyone to vote for. It's one of the most sensible propositions that people have ever had an opportunity to vote on. Take the this option away from those people in Washington and trying to get us into a nuclear war and give the people an opportunity to express their fears very quickly please sir. OK very quickly I've taken a position in favor of Proposition 12 I think is absolutely necessary that we have a sane nuclear policy that we have bilateral and verifiable no good policy and that we open discussion with the Soviets in this regard. I favor proposition 12 as I would if I had been in the House of Representatives when hates JR 521 came up last summer. Congressman Lungren Jim I did not support Proposition 12. I think it's a good sentiment. I think it's a bad tactics. I think people are men and women of goodwill can disagree on this. But what I personally find displeasing is to have some people on the other side suggest that we need this because there are people in Washington who want to

stop start a nuclear war. I don't accuse them of trying to get us under communism I think it makes no sense to say we're trying to get in a nuclear war. Question isn't over how you stay or do you want to stay out of nuclear war. The question is how you do it. I think it's bad tactics to try to freeze prop 12 Mr. bad. First of all Jim I believe that people do have honest differences in this. I do not believe and I opposed the initiative. I do not believe in establishing foreign policy by the initiative process in one state. Secondly we have to face the facts and I'm a member of the Armed Services Committee that the Soviet Union has three more generations of Internet continental ballistic missiles on station. They have nine hundred nuclear warheads aimed at Europe where we have none on station there either us or the European countries and a freeze. Now at this point would freeze the Soviet Union into a period into a position of great nuclear superiority. And I don't think we can afford this at this time. I very quickly have a little time with them when I get my chance to be here as well. I. Am.

Prop 12. You vote yes. I would vote yes. And we have the argument though Jim is over parity whether or not we're equal because we don't. I don't trust the Russians and I don't think anyone in America should be trusting the Russians. We have to be sure that there is parity now that's what we argue about whether there is parity. I think that we have good honest people and they are on both sides of the fence and say there is parity if we get into a nuclear freeze it doesn't mean we take another step until the Russians agree with us. And they also free so we're not hurt by by taking a step back and forth. I'm for it. And a recent study by the British international institution for Strategic Studies challenges the myth of Soviet fairy Ardi. The study shows close to parity on land and sea based warhead. And the U.S. advantage when aircraft weapons are included. So your vote on Prop 12 will be 4 4. I would vote for it all so I don't think we want to leave our children a legacy of the largest nuclear arsenal in history able to blow a crater deeper than the Grand Canyon from Vladivostok to Moscow. We have forward systems and the tried and true submarine in the B-52 bomber are now

implementing the B-1 bomber. We don't need to be deploying Pershing to and Guga missiles to Western Europe and worrying about everybody's business but our own. And so I would vote for it and it must be a bilateral Fresen I think we need to get back to detente to salt ratifies salt too and put an end to this ridiculous arms race. Thank you very much our time is about up and I want to thank all of you for a very lively discussion on two important congressional districts that are going to be representing Orange County. You the voters of course will have to still make that final decision in November 2nd at least be a player. Don't be one of the one third of the voters in Orange County who are estimated to stay home on November 2nd. The part of the two thirds who are expected to be turning out and I'd like to see that figure go much higher. Please be with us this Friday night at 8:30 when we'll present a special program on all 15 of the ballot issues where we will have a pro and con discussion with members of the League of Women Voters. And remember on channel 50 you will be having for four straight hours and from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on election night complete coverage of all the election returns here on Channel pathy.

I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. We. See. THE