A Public Television Special; Interview with Senator Alan Cranston.

US Senator Alan Cranston the senior senator of California and Democratic Whip of the Senate is now starting his 18th year in the nation's most powerful legislative body. As always he's highly vocal on the issues. Recently he spoken out on topics from Gramm-Rudman to tax reform and offshore oil drilling. I'm Jim Cooper in today I'll talk with Senator Graham. And here in Washington. Senator Clinton at 71 is in the final year of his third secure term in the Senate. He's the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee and also served on the Senate Foreign Relations and the Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. He was elected Senate Democratic whip in 1977 and is now in its fifth successive term in that office. He

served two terms as state controller in California from 158 to 1966. He's a former journalist author and competing athlete. Senator I think everyone is wondering what your reactions are to the president's State of the Union message and what he's asked the nation to do. The president gave as always a very eloquent address to the Congress and the nation. He was almost saying when he talked about freedom and hopes for the future he didn't get into all the nitty gritty details that we have to contend with in the budget which he then sent up to Congress and in that budget there are some very very tough choices facing this. It seems there are two crushing legislative burdens that are before the U.S. Senate and the whole Congress right now. Either one of them would be major and by itself but they have both the Gramm-Rudman deficit you know and tax reform bill at the same time seems to pose the Norma's problems for legislation. What are your feelings about

that. Well they do produce enormous problems they are totally related one to another in many respects and the Republican leadership in the Senate is apparently taking the view that we should defer tax reform until we've dealt with the deficit so that if we find we can't. Reach the target deficit reductions the Gramm-Rudman imposes on us by just cutting things and we're then going to have to consider some new revenues although not in the form of a have an increase in the income tax or the corporate tax. I oppose that I think virtually everybody opposes that but there are other ways to get some revenues that wouldn't be so painful. You voted no on Gramm-Rudman. What was the reason for that private had no engram revenue and I'm prouder and prouder of that vote the more I look at the events unfold around Graham Rev and I voted against it for several reasons. One it potentially brought about a great transfer of power to the president from the Congress and I don't think that a member of the Congress should

willingly give away authority to the White House in a major way that could lead to an imperial presidency someday which would be not that good for our country our liberties insofar as our Constitution is concerned are based on the Bill of Rights and on the power. That is separated between the president the Congress and the courts that if we give up our power to the president we're jeopardizing the freedom of the American people. Secondly Gramm-Rudman has a provision that makes plain that if the president and the Congress don't agree on a budget and all these details then there will be automatic cuts across the board for that. Any sense of priorities without making any conscious choices just a mindless cut everything frantically. And that would be I think very dangerous and very ridiculous it would lead to some cuts in programs that should not be cut programs that benefit all the people that protect all the people of our country. Would that lead to some kind of an ominous Orwellian era in our government and

government by computer. If the Congress fails to come up with the cuts and you're failed to reach an accord then the computers take over and make automatic cuts that are arbitrary as you say is that government by computer. It would be government by computer it would be government without any thought process attached to the process. Let me give you two examples of. Ridiculous results could flow from that and will flow if we don't work things out properly. We've had a year of great air disasters but Gramm-Rudman could cause a cut of 25 percent across the board in the number of air controllers and air safety inspectors. Without question we would have more air crashes as a consequence. We have a terrible problem to cite another example of drugs coming across the borders of our country leading to a lot of crime and violence. Graham by admin could mean a 25 percent cut in the Border Patrol and Customs agents in the Coast Guard in the FBI in the U.S. Attorney General's budget and that would mean and ability far worse than

today to cope with all the drugs coming it would mean more drugs more corruption of our young people more violence and death in the streets. One of the one of the things that the president has said he wants to do is to increase defense spending. You know it's increased at the same time cutting taxes cutting the deficit and at the same time lobbing off domestic programs. Can you really do all three of those things practically from your position. I don't think we can do all those things I don't know of very many members of the Congress that think we can do those things. Republicans and Democrats tend to be in agreement that it's impossible to do all of those things and have it add up to anything sensible and cope with the deficit on defense spending the president wants a big increase. I don't think Congress can or will give him that increase I think there's a feeling it's not needed now. There's a feeling the Defense Department the Pentagon has wasted a lot of money when it's the eighty five hundred dollar coffee pots in the $800 toilet seats in the $500 hammers and so forth.

So they have to be in a tighter leash to get them to have their money more prudently. And we're stronger than any nation on the face of the earth now and we can afford to be more prudent. Secondly. If we made all the cuts in domestic programs we would be even doing even greater violence to air safety and to control of our borders and to education and other programs we have to be giving some support to. I think Congress will come to the conclusion that some new revenues are needed. The president says no no taxes of any sort no increase in revenues I'll veto any bill make my day by giving me one I can beat up. But I think the force of events will lead to a compromise on that issue between the president and the Congress but again I repeat not raiding the family budget as the president suggests with more income taxes collected. There are other ways to get that money the best way to start is to see to it that individuals and corporations are earning huge sums billions or millions of dollars and pay no taxes or very little start paying their fair share. I think most Americans feel

that would be a very sensible thing to demand. Let me use a quote that you made in a recent speech you said with the new mandate to eliminate the 200 billion dollar annual deficit. I'm afraid we'll have to stop talking about reducing tax rates until the deficit is lifted. Many wealthy California told me I'd like a tax cut but I don't need it. And the nation can't afford it. Would you enlarge on at all because I talk a bit about that for the tax reform bill that passed the House. The tax reform approach that the president wants the tax reform approach that I've been supporting would close loopholes and do what I just mentioned a moment ago see to it that people not now paying their fair share and corporations not not paying their fair share start paying their fair share. We would have a minimum tax to assure that everybody had to pay some reasonable amount of tax if they have bigger earnings. But the tax reform ideas have been proposed to the huge earnings that would come in as a consequence of that be used to lower the rates for everybody. Lower the rates for example the top rate on the income tax to 35 percent. There's a

growing feeling that I share that this is no time to be cutting the rates. Let's leave them where they are and use the revenue we pick up by closing those loopholes to reduce the deficit and to avoid catastrophic cuts in air controllers and Border Patrol and education and so forth. You talk about I minimum proposed minimum corporate income tax which would close the loopholes and some corporations and millionaires that have that they've enjoyed it for two months. Are you doing that only by closing loopholes or imposing some kind of a minimum tax at all corporations that have to pay. The proposals that I think most members of Congress are now supporting would close loopholes and deductions and exclusions and credits or modify them if they don't pay to serve any valid economic or social purpose. But some people might still find ways and some corporations might still find ways to wriggle their way through what was left and avoid paying taxes so we would also impose a very stiff minimum tax to ensure that every corporation and every individual with

significant earnings is going to pay some tax that is not a tax increase. That's finding a way to get people to pay taxes that are not paying their taxes but it would leave the rates for everybody where they are now. We seem to be in an era of euphemisms So if you want to call something a tax increase you can call it a revenue enhancement right. Oil import fees. What do you think about that idea. That would be another rather sensible way to get some revenues I think and there's rising support for that. We have declining oil prices in the world now with opaque in disarray. So there wouldn't be an increase to the consumer if we had a tax it would simply keep prices about the way they have been. It would serve two other very important purposes apart from helping reduce the deficit. It would reduce our dependency on Arab oil which is a very dangerous dependency. We've seen the Arabs can cut off the oil if they want as they did once upon a time we had a long gasoline station lines and our dependency on that oil could embroil us in a war in the Middle East and

we should be in a position to avoid having that temptation of that compulsion to get involved military militarily in the Middle East. Secondly if we have something in the form of a tax on imported oil that would keep the price at a reasonable level that would provide an incentive to develop other domestic sources of energy to to provide for our energy needs sources. We hope that would be non polluting and deplete of all that would be a great advantage in the long run to our economy. Let's move on since you talk about being dependent on Arab oil let's talk to a big issue in California and that's offshore oil drilling. You and Senator Wilson have both fought for a moratorium and yet Governor do Megan said we don't need a moratorium that there should be. Offshore oil going off and down California if need be. Would you explain exactly what your position is now and where we're going with offshore oil drilling particularly at that effect. California Senator Wellstone the Republican and I a Democrat worked together on a good many

California issues and that's one very good example of our collaboration along with most of the members of the House bill the Geishas from both parties. We feel that we do need some oil from the offshore fields that are there. The nation needs that oil and we can use the revenues but we also feel that we should take other values into account and in beautiful places like Big Sur and some other marvelous parts of California off the Orange County coast in the Goodna for example. There should be no oil drilling. The state has given up getting oil from the tide then Geria you know the state controls unknowns. Three miles out from the beach. Yes. And in certain places the state has voluntarily given up the revenue from that oil because of the higher value of the environmental beauties that attract people to work state and make living in a state so delightful create. Business for tourism and our fisher people and others and we don't want the inoffensive of the oil developments where they do their fishing. So we've decided to

have sanctuaries in certain places. No oil drilling. And we believe that the federal government should respect those sanctuaries and not drill three miles out on them. And some other places are so delightful that they should be protected. What's now happening is that we're trying to achieve a balance between drill in appropriate places but don't drill in inappropriate places and we started a process of meeting with Secretary hoedown the secretary of the Interior to try to work out an agreement with him. Yes go ahead and drill in these places. But no don't drill in these places. You seem to be on the other side of the fence with get with the governor of California who said we don't need any moratorium any way anywhere in California. People say the Republican is also on the other side of the fence from Governor Deukmejian on that issue. Yes that's very true. What about your relations with the government of California. State Dept the state governor even though he's a Republican you're a Democrat. What about in general relations with the state government. Well every now and then there's something where we can collaborate and we do.

Let's take a look at another issue that's over a lot of interest to California that's toxic waste. We're still on domestic questions I'd like to get into some foreign question but I think it's so important. Toxic Waste is a big issue the Republicans and the Democrats are are both battling already in California saying not enough is being done. What's your position on toxic waste and what is going to happen or my position on toxic waste is I think the position of virtually all the people of California and that is that it's got to be controlled. It's a threat to our health and indeed to our lives. It pollutes. The environment in ways that are intolerable and it's got to be dealt with. The main way the federal government is trying to help cope with that is by creating a super fund to provide significant funding to clean up toxic waste sites for there have been chemicals and so forth dumped that create unpleasant smells and to do far worse in terms of what it may do to your health. We also have to have very stringent laws to prevent more waste sites from being created and we have to find ways to dispose

of that waste that are environmentally sound and acceptable. Our problems are the deficit. Therefore the fact that it's not easy to get money into that Superfund and there were similar battles going on in California between Governor Dick major and some people in the legislature environmentally concerned people. I'm not familiar with all the details of that struggle but I'm familiar with the struggle back here to make the Superfund work. And we haven't yet agreed on a way to get adequate funding into the Superfund unfortunately. But that must be done. It is in the the Gramm-Rudman Hollings bill going to cause toxic waste money to be another casualty of the budget cuts. Yes the the Gramm-Rudman act can hurt that too. If it's not a very comfortable time that the whole Congress is coming into all these hard choices. No it isn't I'd like to touch upon another unpleasant aspect of Bradley admits that in terms of what it could do to our defense I think it requires across the

board cuts in domestic and military equally 50 percent and take percent from each and if the trigger is pulled. What would happen in the military would be that we couldn't cut weapons systems contracts that have been left agreed to signed and sealed if you cut them you pay a heavy penalty you would save any money. So what would be cut. Would be the number of soldiers sailors Marines their pay their training ammunition and spare parts conventional strength readiness strength and that might well mean that we have some great weapons systems that we don't have the people to to make them work. And it could mean that a president in a time of crisis would feel the readiness forces conventional forces aren't there. Therefore I got to turn to nuclear weapons and that could lead to the ultimate catastrophe of a nuclear war and that's. An extreme example of the foolishness of Brad Redmond. We shouldn't cut the military just willy nilly across the board everywhere we should cut where it makes the most sense to cut.

When you ran for president you were very much concerned about the nuclear issue that were one of the biggest issues that you used in your campaign. Are you still concerned about the nuclear issue and I referred to the five billion dollars that's going to go into SDI Defense Initiative. Where do you stand on. Well I've been concerned about the nuclear war issue since 1945 long before I ran for the Senate let alone the presidency. And my concerns are just as strong today it's the number one threat facing our country in terms of its security and survival and facing the human race if we land in a nuclear war. All the other issues that are vitally important and going to really matter very much we won't be concerned about deficits or toxic waste or education or rapid transit or the border or air controllers or whatever we'll we'll just have an absolute catastrophe. So we have to devote ourselves put high on the agenda. The task of seeking to avert a nuclear war. I'm glad that President Reagan has met with Gorbachev the Soviet leader. And I hope that will lead to a greater facility in communication between our two peoples which can

reduce the danger that some misunderstanding could lead to a conflict. Star Wars has been proposed by the president as a great shield for the country. I favor research into all of that to see whether there is a way that it will work. I would oppose a ban on research because there's no way to verify that the Soviet Union isn't carrying on research but I think we should reach an agreement with them that there will be no testing and no deployment at the present time because otherwise I think we're going to have a very difficult time reaching any real arms control and production agreement with them. And there's great skepticism in the scientific community about Star Wars working with if we ever come to the time when we would have to depend upon it. The problem is in part the fact that we can never test it. You could never tested in battle circumstances so you'd never know for sure that it would work. So you are saying proceed with the research but you're skeptical about what it's going to work yet if the MMU gone to California a couple of times for a long trip in August and again in

January too I suppose if you get a sense of the people with sense of their feeling with community forms one of the messages that you keep getting back from California. Those community farms were events that I held meetings I held up and down the state and all over the place we've held about 50 north south east west in California to give me an opportunity to report to people who came on the major issues confronting us and them and to get their input get their thoughts we had forms on education on the deficit on crime and so other matters and then anything else anybody wanted to bring up with me and I I told people I am ready to answer any questions but I also need advice and if he has some good advice I would welcome it. So they were very free ranging discussions. There is great concern about the consequences of the deficit and a feeling that we must come to grips with it. On education a great feeling that that most will be a victim of the the

deficit in the budget cutting that we have to maintain adequate support for education probably pay teachers even better than we do now to get and keep the best people in the classroom. One of the most interesting topics that we discussed was crime. And I've developed a very strong feeling that you can't expect just law enforcement officers and government to cope with crime when people themselves in their communities band together to set up crime watch groups or neighborhood watches or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That's very very effective. The way that works is that a community pulls itself together and they agree that certain people will watch the streets or watch the neighborhood at certain times and they report instantly any to any suspicious behavior and the police come and seek to cope with it. One community in California Tanglewood which is in the northern part of Santa Barbara County has totally eliminated crime by that frankly just discovered that is crack and criminals have discovered that's no place to go if you're going to try to mug somebody or rob somebody because you're going to get caught there and watch go

somewhere else. And that's kind of the community generated idea isn't it. Yes. And that that's great is the people coping with their own needs. One of the important roles that any U.S. senator has is moving into the arena of foreign relations. And I'd like to ask you about the president's message to resist communism and to support freedom fighters as he calls them anywhere in places like Nicaragua or Cambodia or Afghanistan. And yet you said in a recent talk I believe the only way the U.S. can prevent a takeover by pro-communist rebels in El Salvador is to press relentlessly for genuine reform. That's why I believe the only way to encourage the Sandinista is to live up to their promises of democracy is to avoid driving them further into the arms of the Soviets through the conduct of CIA backed war. What about that little Exactly how do you feel about for example more money to the Contras in El Salvador by way of background and Central America.

We've had corrupt military dictatorships and tyranny and a good many countries that represent about 1 percent of the people who are 99 percent of the people aren't that well off and the ninety nine percent of the people want change and they try to bring it about by Democratic approaches. And if that can be achieved that's the way that change should come. If there is not a democratic solution that they're going to turn to violence. Some people are as we have seen there will be revolution and the communists will be the beneficiaries of that because they will get active on the side of those trying to overthrow the dictatorship and they will win the support of some of the people particularly if the United States backs a dictator and too often we have backed the status quo against change when change has been badly needed. The troubles in Nicaragua began in that way we backed a dictator there helped him sustain his power and eventually the people overthrew us which overthrew that government with the help of the Communists and the communists the US got a foothold in that country

while those believing in democracy lost out because they hadn't been active enough in seeking to bring about the change that was needed in that country. So I think we should do all we can to back reform and to back those that seek reform and approaches toward democracy but shy away from backing dictatorships and shy away from a military solution. If we can do that. What about money for the Contras for example in the Iraq war. Well I would have opposed direct military aid to them. We can't afford it given the deaths of Gramm-Rudman. And I think it's not the way to resolve the problem there and it's likely to lead to our own military involvement and that would be tragic now and to go to another part of the world to Angola. Yes the president is now asked apparently that do we. Get behind the forces that are backed by South Africa against the regime there. And that would line us up with apartheid and I think be a disaster

for us in all of Africa. What about the outright gifts and support for the government about Salvador to resist a communist takeover. Well in El Salvador we have a government that is trying to maintain itself in power and trying to improve democracy and improve the humanitarian aspects of the regime there so I think that's a government that we should give some help to primarily economic help. Your opinion from where you set your opinion on this whole effort to trying to seek accommodation with the summit's we seem to be entering an era of summitry one summit down two summits to go. What are your feelings about the hopes of that. You said that the top issue in the world is a common one and well I'm glad that President Reagan is meeting with Gorbachev I've encouraged him to do that I'm glad he's doing it and I think he's done very well up to this point. When you talk with an adversary there is a reduction of the danger that just a blank misunderstanding and non-communication

can lead to a collision. I hope that out of that in the long run will come an easing of human rights violations in the Soviet Union and progress on arms control and arms reductions so that we can meet the common interests of the American people and the Russian people. Reducing the danger of a nuclear catastrophe and reducing the terrible drain on both our economies of the cost of this arms race. You're 71 you're heading into a tough and arduous race again for the Senate of the United States. You've raised three point three million dollars which is very impressive. At last count I think there were 10 maybe 11 Republicans who want your job. How do you feel about this whole exercise of having to go through that senatorial battle at the same time you had your duties here. Well it keeps you busy but I'm ready to be busy and I am. Prepared unfit for it and a political campaign is an exciting engagement. It's a great competition and I relish

the tension of my ideas versus the ideas of others and the issues are so important and the opportunities to affect what goes on in our country and our worlds are great in the Senate and I have so much I want yet to do there that I relish this opportunity to win another term. Do you have a lot of apprehension about this race that instead of having a few candidates you've almost got a platoon running against you. Well maybe the more the better because they they spend a lot of time attacking each other trying to become the one candidate against me before they are able to just take me on. What is your personal agenda what is the high priority this perhaps the top two high priorities you have for the war the most important issues that I think I can be dealing with are among others the effort to. Deal with the threat of nuclear war and reduce that dire danger and to deal with the economic problems that we face to build a better future and invest all that we can in and ways and means of helping our young people who are our

future prepare for the next century and that means support for education and health care and so forth. You seem to want to continue the job very much another six years. What's the biggest reason for that motivation for you to continue in this tough job for so I got into public life and into politics and government the Senate because of my concern about the issues of our time rather than being a passive observer. I wanted to be involved in the action and the opportunities to affect decision making on the great issues of our time war and peace and the economy and justice and opportunity the environment are very very great. And even when we're not doing that well and one another these are those issues I'm always able through my staff to help individual California for their problems and that always gives me a warm feeling. Thank you very much. On that note our time's almost up now and I want to thank you Senator for your comments on current issues. There's been a special program for public television with United States senator Alan Cranston of California.