Debate 1984, President, Democrats; Iowa Democratic Debate With Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, John Glenn, Walter Mondale, George Mcgovern, Ernest ""Fritz"" Hollings, Alan Cranston And Reuben Askew.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Iowa Democratic debate sponsored by The Des Moines Register. I'm James P. Gannon editor of The Register. And I'll be the moderator of today's debate nine days from today. I would Democrats will gather in twenty five hundred precinct meetings across the state to begin the process of selecting the 1984 Democratic nominee for president. The eight Democrats competing for support in Iowa are here with us today to discuss the issues of the 1984 campaign. Gentlemen welcome to the participants an article or without. The participants in our debate today are Ernest Hollings George McGovern John Glahn. Alan Cranston Jesse Jackson Walter Mondale Gary Hart and Reuben asked. I appreciate your enthusiasm I also would appreciate it if you try to restrain it so that we can hear each

other here and get on with the program. We'll begin with brief opening remarks from each of the candidates beginning with Mr Glanton. Thank you Mr. Gannon. This election is indeed important not just to us as candidates but for our party and for our nation. The events of the past 48 hours however make us pause and reflect on the very fragile in the grave state of world affairs. The leader of the Soviet Union is dead our president has never met with him spoken to him shaken his hand or looked him in the eye. Relations with Russia have only rarely been as bad as they are now. In Lebanon we find ourselves in an undeclared war with an unknown enemy. War grows wider. The stakes grow higher. I oppose sending the Marines to Lebanon in the first place. Once there I argued strongly that their mission should be secure and should be better defined. But such is not the case.

What the president is doing in Lebanon is involving us in a civil war that's wrong it's flat wrong. It's worse than that it's irresponsible and it's a moral outrage the president is playing politics as he tries to save face and protect a bankrupt foreign policy each. Just last Tuesday the president led the American people to believe that he is withdrawing our Marines immediately. In fact he is not. We're now told that redeployment might take many months even though it could be done in just a matter of hours. In the meantime the president ordered naval bombardment of Beirut in those 16 inch shells are tearing into villages killing women and children. While our Marines are kept in place to become even more the targets for fanatical retribution. There is little military justification for what the president is doing and no moral justification whatsoever. Because of our steadily deteriorating relationship with the Soviets and because of our ill conceived and morally

outrageous position in Lebanon. We need new leadership both at home and in the world. Together we can make a difference. Thank Is it together we can make a more sane sensible and secure future for ourselves and for our children. Thank you Senator Glenn. Our next our next opening remarks will be from Senator Hollings. Well I too believe in the importance of our foreign policy. We Democrats have always been strong with respect to building up our world around respect for the values that we hold they are. Specifically with respect to the Marines o'boy a year ago their deployment I set up there will put out a fight. There were too few that there were put out to die there were too many. And I think the target really is Ronald Reagan. And I'm looking at the fact that we've lost the last three out of four races as Democrats because we all come here in the next two and a half hours and we'll promise you literally everything.

We will give you a program for the retirees and senior citizens the pensioners and everybody else but will now have a talk about paying for it will get locked up. And unless. We can prove our liability as being able to manage that economy we're not going to get rid of Ronald Reagan out of that White House. I have accordingly submitted the freeze proposal where we just last year's budget people say how are you going to do that politically last year through three readings and three readings in the Senate signed by the president just in November. I'm saying take that budget not only just politically a teen but extend it for one year. We would immediately pick up 100 billion dollars and léon. We would be able to get down the value of a dollar of léon Iowa farmers would be able to sell their products without that 32 percent tax or penalty due to the overvalued dollar. Then the industry would be able to invest and reemploy plain we would be able to get

our country moving again. And finally the plane we would be able to pay for the programs where we Democrats go talk with you and I have not mentioned anything realistic like that. We don't say I am concerned any question you are going to ask. We are concerned but we're not going to pay for it. We will. Next to Senator Hart. Mr. Gannon I want to take this occasion to thank the people of Iowa for their hospitality and kindness to Lee and myself throughout the course of the last year. We appreciate it very much. I'm a Democrat and I'm proud of it. But this election this year is not just between the Democrats and the Republicans or just between liberals and conservatives it's between our future and our past. I believe the new leadership this country is asking for is different in several ways. First that new leadership believes in solving problems and not just debating old

ideologies. Nowhere is this clearer than on the issue of defense and national security. Ronald Reagan clearly wants to give not only a blank check but a blank check book to the Pentagon to prosecute and increase Cold War others in our party want to cut our national defenses almost arbitrarily regardless of the consequences. I believe that this country needs a strong national defense by rebore reforming our conventional forces to make them the most effective and not just the most expensive. Second the new leadership of this country believes in innovation not just supporting old programs but doing what Franklin Roosevelt advised and that is bold persistent experimentation. Why not individual training accounts to protect the jobs of our working Americans. Why not a freeze on the production of plutonium used to make nuclear weapons. Why not a tiered pricing port system to save the family farmer in this country. Third I think the new leadership the American people want puts principle above

politics. Nowhere is that clearer than on the issue of Lebanon. There are some candidates for this highest office of this land that the late in terms of coming out to bring the Marines out. Others on Capitol Hill held back in an effort to achieve some political advantage. I think of all of us to join together all of us on this platform to pull the Marines out as I recommended in September of one thousand nine hundred two possibly three hundred would be alive today. And that's the kind of bold leadership I think this country. Thank you Senator Hart. Ah Our next speaker is Reverend Jackson. Today I've come to learn and to Shanta participate and debate the great moral imperatives of our day to feed the hungry and to end the war. I'm not a farmer but I'm concerned. We have options of mutual development and mutual annihilation in this world. Leader for use the weapons we will burn the

people and freeze the planet. There we witness in the most severe farm crisis since the Depression. But as a parallel urban crisis. Record foreclosures on the farms family farms are wrecked. The rate is three times higher for blacks. Six million farmers in 1905 about 2.3 million to date. Our food water and ice poison a kind of self-imposed chemical warfare. A rise in the misery and the danger in that crisis in industrial integrity. The number one agriculture system in the world and yet 20 million people malnourished in this country. I have big in the world. Just open cans of six billion dollars worth of food stored at the cost of three hundred eighty three million dollars a year. More than a million dollars a day to store food. People are starving. The response the pick program for the rich pickpocket program for the poor. Two billion dollars cut in food stamps four million more people out of welfare food stamps out of options. We need leadership.

We must move from nuclear threat with Russia to some form of mutual survival. We need not complete overkill but now compete on. With agriculture and trade and technology. We need to restructure agriculture Relations Act the climate must function for the poor and the family farm. We must convene the leaders of the world not just in nuclear confrontation to use this vast resource to feed this world and to end tension. We need to put food above politics. We need more than a new president. We need a new direction. Thank you very much. Was. Thank you Reverend Jackson. We will now go to Senator Cranston what we must do in this debate. Is set the agenda. That will defeat Ronald Reagan. We failed to do that in 1908 and he beat us. Ronald Reagan has taken us to tragedy in Lebanon to the invasion of Grenada and to the brink of

war in Central America. He's given us a trillion dollar deficit and he strung five million of us out of work. But if we're going to win this time. The Democratic Party must realize that the American people want a president with a clear vision of where he will lead America. We need a Democratic vision that revives the work ethic in America that says people who work should be able to earn a good living. That commits us to preserve the small American business man and woman and the family farm as a way of life. In our country. The Democratic vision must lead the way to peace. We must have the guts not to use guns just because we got bigger and better guns than the other guy. We must see to it that America helps feed a starving world and shines again as a beacon of freedom and justice. This clear democratic commitment to peace and jobs. Must be at the center of our

vision. We must give America leadership that will make us respected but not feared. Again in the world. That vision that clear vision will beat Ronald Reagan in 1984. Thank you. Mr. McGovern. On October 8th I opened my campaign here in Iowa with a statement of 10 steps that I would take as president of the United States. I would like to restate those steps today. First of all terminate right now all U.S. military operations in Central America we must stop embracing and arming these miserable military dictators who caused a revolution in Central America in the first place. Secondly bring our Marines home from Lebanon right now. Why this

further delay and why the shelling of Lebanese Muslims and Druze with whom we have absolutely no real quarrel. So let's put the Marines on the ships today and start those ships back to the USA. How about that home. Fourth. Fourth. And. Forth with enough weapons already to utterly destroy the world many times over let's invoke the nuclear phrase right now and then go after the enormous waste in the Pentagon pick your amount of weapons other boondoggles in that system. If we would do that we could save 25 percent and President Reagan's current military budget. And Fred that's the way to pay for these programs that you say people aren't thinking about. Fifth Let's stop paying farmers 12 billion dollars a year

not to produce guarantee them a decent parity program and then use the surplus to end hunger in this country and around the world. The way the remaining steps I'll get to after I get to the White House. It'll be Mr. Mondale on February 20th. The voters of Iowa Democrats will be the most powerful citizens on earth. Mr. Reagan has announced that he's coming to Des Moines that night and I hope that you'll all send him a very strong message while he's here. There are three fundamental objectives that must be achieved by the next president. And all of them require the defeat of Mr. Reagan. The first

is to elect a president who will use America's strength to lead this world. Toward safety. This president has led us in a way that the world is now. As dangerous as it's ever been before in the history of the world. No arms control talks an arms race instead. The tragedy the bloodshed in the Middle East in Central America and all the rest of his leadership has made the world much more dangerous and we cannot tolerate it. Secondly his leadership has resulted in the absolute deterioration of America's posture in international competition. We are now in full and utter retreat. This will be the worst trade year in American history by all odds. Some 4 million Americans have lost their jobs. It has been the worst thing ever happened to the American farmer and he's providing no leadership to restore competitiveness or to train the next

generation. The third objective must be the restoration of a fair nation in a radical way this president is trying to teach us to disregard our fundamental sense of fairness and the average American family in every conceivable way has been asked to bear the full burden of these unfair and uncaring policies. We must beat Mr. Reagan. I'm convinced I can do it. Thank you as well. Thank you. We will complete this round of opening statements with Mr. Astley. It's no accident that Ronald Reagan is in the White House. And he will stay there unless we Democrats have the political will to be candid with the American people. Our party has lost touch with the mainstream the middle class the working people small business with the forgotten majority the American people. And now we're allowing a few within our party to dictate the choice of our nominee for president.

I'm the different Democrat. I'm reaching beyond those few to speak for the forgotten majority. I speak for those who want America to live within its means. I speak for those who want both a strong defense and arms reductions. I speak for those who want jobs and profits and opportunity in a competitive economy that doesn't have to rely on domestic content rather forms of undue protection. I speak for those who value both. The potential of life before birth and after birth and I speak for those who want a president who is willing to be different who is willing to risk losing some votes so that you can get to the right way so that you can govern on behalf of all the people. I speak for those who are looking for real leadership that can deal realistically in the real world. Thank you Mr.

Haskins for the next hour. The candidates are going to question one another. Prior to the debate. Each candidate drew the names of three others and prepared questions for those three candidates. I will call the order of this questioning as determined by those drawings. I remind the candidates that they question should be brief and to the point. No speeches please. Answers will be limited to two minutes. The first question from Mr. Glenn is for Mr. Cranston. Ellen there are those who are trying to make our vote on the August 1991 tax bill a litmus test as to whether or not we are real Democrats. We lost the White House in the Senate back in those days do you feel less a Democrat for supporting a change in the nation's economic policy at that time. No but frankly I wasn't seeking the change we got. I voted against Kemp-Roth every time we had a vote in that 12 times. I

voted for the final passage of the bill that had Kemp-Roth in it we couldn't defeat it because it had some good measures in it like. Reducing the marriage penalty like there were some good things that I thought out weighed the bad. As it turned out the deficit got totally out of hand because of that tax cut along with the huge increase in military expenditures. And I thought now think that tax cut was a must that vote was a mistake. But what we've got to do is look to the future. What do we do about what Reaganomics turned out to be. And I think what we must do is restore taxes on well-to-do people not paying their fair share. I think we should close loopholes like the loophole that permits people to have a tax shelter by buying a farm and then not farming. We should get Americans back to work. So they're paying taxes and don't need entitlements and don't need assistance thus revenues go up and expenditures go down that's the way to cut entitlements not cut up what people need but cut out what. They don't need when they're back at

work that's the way to save their get down interest rates. If we cut interest rates from 12 percent to 6 percent we'd not 50 billion dollars off the deficit. Finally get the arms race off our backs Ronald Reagan wants to spend two trillion dollars in the next five years under a literary matters I don't believe we can do that and balance the budget any time Son I don't believe we can. We need to do that to protect ourselves we are the strongest nation on earth now. We don't need to squander our money in the arms race way deprives us of what we need for domestic needs. Our next question will be from Mr. Jackson for Senator Hollings sent to Hollands in these debates. There's not a lot of focus on what the government can do cannot do should and should not do. At best we're talking about the 900 billion nine of them that have been in the public economy. It's a three trillion dollar private economy. Almost no focus on corporate accountability industrial integrity take out tax dollars and close plants on workers without notice.

They replace Robert with a robot and make us feel guilty about losing our jobs on the one hand they engage in chemical warfare upon the American people. Acid in the rain dioxin in the earth could contaminate our water and our strains. If you were president what would you do to the man industrial integrity and accountability. The right to appoint Jesse I think the first thing to do. Is. It's time. Actually your question on the environmental and of course I have the Delian with Senator Mitchell relative to Ashley Greene with respect to the industrial integrity about robots. We are moving into a technological age we're not going to stop that technological development because we are competing in a national economy on every one of these great modern industries right here on I want to know that. But what we realize is that we're competing with those offshore. We need a trade council just like we have a National Security Council to correlate out and give

us a chance to compete. Someone mentioned Roosevelt and keep the banks open and close the doors and all of the say the clout of the crops and all had to remove a barrier we might have to raise a bar out of a chance to compete. But the real bottom line of it all is about closing a plant. We called it this crowd right here in Washington. We own 200 billion dollar deficits as far as I can see. Worse we got a spending race going on between Republicans and Democrats. Ron Reagan don't want to do anything about it. The hundred billion increase in the budget he submitted last week. The Democrats are dancing around the fire. But if we could just get ahold of our sales we can get that White House back. And the way to do it is just an act. Last year of budget. Well no one would really stop it would be a shared sacrifice. Then they'd quit talking about corporate integrity and get back to political integrity

than dog clothes and stop closing those plants down real employing and the recovery would be complete rather than tapering back at the present time. Thank you Senator. Our next question will be from Mr. ask you for Reverend Jackson. Reverend Jackson I noticed in one of our last appearances you had indicated what I thought possibly was a different position that you might have taken in the past on abortion. I guess one of the reasons that I'm different on it is that I do favor a concert an amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade in order to let Congress set a national standard. What is your position on that right now. So my position is that I am not for abortion freedom of choice even as a match. T remind the audience that you're using up Jesse Jackson's time.

Even theologically. God gives us a choice. We must live with the consequences of that choice whether to go to heaven or hell but at least we are not robots with people we have choice within the law all we have the choice I would never encourage him. Abortion is not embrace it. I put more focus on sex education before the fact. Cept discipline before the fact. That people might be responsible and discipline and the two wouldn't make the decision that they before so they will not make decision that they after the fact is it is one's choice and it is also one's consequences that must be lived with. That is it's for me as I'm out of fear and trembling. It was a position to take and I stand with that position. Thank you. T. Our next question will come from Senator McGovern to Mr. ASCII. Ruben I understand that you've been called evading the support of the so-called Right to Life movement while at the same time

opposing the nuclear freeze. Now in view of the fact we already have enough weapons to utterly kill everybody on Earth without building any more wouldn't you make a great contribution to the right to life if you came out for the nuclear phrase or two. I would Senator if I thought it was the surest path to peace. I don't believe that the nuclear freeze goes far enough. I think you literally need to put caps on the number of warheads we have caps on the number of missiles caps on the overall destructive capability. More like a frost than a freeze. Something that covers everything puts a lid on it but doesn't freeze in our inability to be able to selectively modernize to ensure a strong deterrent and then to build down taking away those a certain amount whatever the farmer might

be for each ones we employ. And then in the process negotiate much more seriously. You and I both know that up until the bill down which was a result of a nonpartisan bipartisan consensus not consensus but people in the Senate. What we were talking about was giving them a proposal they would accept them them giving them and we would accept them. And all during the time the third world and we had the nuclear proliferation that I think that Senator Glenn has been a leader in this area that's the great danger right now the third world's going to get possession of it and set off something none of us can stop. Because there's no such thing as a limited nuclear war what's it starts. But please understand that I am as committed as you are toward saving this planet but I'm also fully cognizant that we've denied 15 million children a chance to have a life during this period since Roe v. Wade I'm concerned both ways soon.

And now Senator Cranston has a question for Mr. McGovern. George you're the only one of us up here who has been the Democratic standard bearer for president in a presidential campaign. What lessons did you learn from that experience that will help us beat Ronald Reagan because that's what we've got to do. Well I think the first lesson I learned about this Al and what I want to win as badly as you do but I learned in 1972 there are some things that can happen to you and politics that are even worse than losing an election. I wouldn't change places with a man who won. And. Thank you. Having. Having said that let me.

Let me give all of you a little practical advice. Work hard but don't work so hard you get to the point where your judgment becomes clouded. Most of the mistakes that are made in presidential campaigns are made because of the Taig. So ads don't work so hard trying to catch up with me next year. Ah. That you that that you wear yourselves out one final. One one final serious note to all of us. Let's try to stay with what we really believe. Let's not watch those changing and unpredictable public opinion polls too much. Let's lay out the weaknesses of the present administration as clearly as we can. Instead of worrying too much about knocking each other over the head

let's let's lay bare the malfunctions the weaknesses of this present administration and then lay out as clear an alternative agenda as we can of what we as Democrats stand for and what we proposed to do in terms of the directions of the country. Ah. Senator Hart Now it's your turn to direct a question to Senator Glenn. Well I first of all want to thank George for not mentioning his campaign. Is under Glenn. You unfortunately were not able to join with us in the farm debate we had here a few weeks ago and so the people didn't get a chance to get your views on agriculture you and Fritz Mondale disagree on a lot of things. One thing you do agree on is the domestic content Bill would you care to state why you think that will

not severely impact I was farmers and and farm implement industries. I was sorry I could not be at that as a matter of fact I had other commitments in Florida at that time they'd been on for a long time and I was sorry I could not join you for that forum. But as far as domestic content goes are two functions on domestic content one is making trade fair. And right now we're not being dealt with fairly in that trade area. I come from a farming state also Ohio has major industrial interests also. But in the area of affecting a farmer's I don't feel it does affect farmers because well we make it fair we're also keeping our our defense industry out and that's important to keep our steel industry above that 28 percent that it was down to just about a year and two months ago. That was one of the main reasons for voting for that local content was to avoid a government subsidy to our steel industry. But the main thing with farming is to make sure that we have it as fair as can possibly can possibly make it the 4.7 making on agriculture a

bin that we want to expand those markets. That means indeed getting control of the deficit so we do not have the huge interest rates we have the cut our farm marketing down about one third of our farm produce normally goes overseas we have seen that reduced by about a fourth over the last two years mainly because of the rise in interest rates the dollar too strong distorted against other currencies. We also want to make certain that we have. Our marketing stable here at this within our own country here set aside programs acreage reduction programs. First we should have gone into this thing with the idea of saving some of the family farms that the administration indeed did have legislation and the authority to take on such as the 600 million dollar long program for economic disaster that on the farms at the present had to be literally taken to court. To Making use some of that authority. The third area is conservation we have some 140 million acres that danger right now.

And number four is to preserve that family farm not only with emergencies with emergency help but also with the programs that will keep stability on the farm and in spending or so in markets all around the time. We go now to Mr. Mondale will have a question for Senator Hart. Senator one of the most important objectives in my opinion toward the future of our economy is to get labor and management and government working together cooperate and not fighting for the long term interests of the industry of the country. That's what I did helped do in the crisis for a little before we got everyone together save 600000 jobs. And finally actually made some money for the American taxpayer and we have a healthier industry. You opposed that. What is your view. My view is that that was not good industrial policy and I would have supported a similar measure if it had encompass the entire American automobile industry indeed that agreement is the pattern by which I think we ought to negotiate agreements among

management labor and private capital private capital not public spending to direct investment in the modernization of plant and equipment and training of our workers so that by the end of the 1980s this country does not have Japanese owned automobile industries or West German owned automobile companies but American owned automobile companies producing autos steel machine tools as efficiently and productively as any nation on earth. I don't believe the government ought to go around bailing out individual companies. I do think in the 1980s. I do think in the 1980s to make this country competitive we are going to have to have a Democratic president who doesn't who resist the temptation of protectionist legislation that will be so destructive to this state and to our nation's economy. But does bring the players together in the private sector to form an agreement by which within a specified period of time not just Chrysler but every viable American automobile manufacturer is producing cars in competition with

those that are the best in the world. And that is exactly what my policy as president will be. Now Senator Hollings you have a question for Mr. Mondale. Fritz I really believe if we as Democrats could lead the way for sacrifice as John Kennedy did we could win that White House back. But instead of the sacrifice you are promising by the end of your term a 100 billion dollar deficit. Why don't we pay for our future and quit wrecking our children's future can't we do better than that. As a matter of fact I think the objective of reducing the federal debt is the most single important domestic objective that must be achieved. There's no alternative. If in my presidency I don't get that deficit down by more than half as I promise it will just not only destroy my presidency but destroy the whole for restored competitiveness for reduced interest rates for full employment. And that is why I have proposed a specific proposal. The most

specific of all the candidates for reducing the president's deficit by more than half. This involves cutting defense spending in defense ways involved in national health care cost containment program involves wise management of the agriculture program that involves the reduction of interest rates through reduced deficits and involves other FAA efforts to get the spending down by over 70 billion dollars that's my commitment. Then we have to restore revenues. And I have I'm committed to restore revenues by at least 60 billion dollars. But to do so in a progressive way we're people that every income that have gotten hit so hard by the Reagan tax programs doesn't get hit again as some here are proposing but instead by. Improving the increasing taxes on higher income Americans by plugging loopholes by enforcing laws against tax evaders and the rest restore at least 60 billion dollars in revenue. We also have to be realistic. There are certain new

expenditures that are needed pro-competitive expenditures. We simply must invest best in this new generation for education and science and technology. We have a deteriorating infrastructure and there are some very compelling needs for fairness but I have defined exactly how I'm going to do it. The dollars within which are going to achieve those objectives. And all of it is consistent with boosting those deficit. It simply must be done. Thank you. That completes our first round of questions among the candidates we're going to begin a second round now with a question from Mr. McGovern to Senator Cranston. ALLEN You've been one of the nation's leaders in the efforts to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Considering the fact that the United States is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country of which I think places a special moral challenge on us.

Would you favor our party going on record at our convention next summer with a recommendation that the United States commit itself never again to being the first country to use nuclear weapons. I. I know every word but no first strike by George I believe that should be the objective of the next president and it should be in our party platform. We do have to do it in consultation with our allies we sold them on his policy of our putting nuclear missiles in Europe. I oppose the new additions the Persians and the cruises. We have to make plain to them that we will revise our force structures and revise the places where we have our strengths so that we will not ever be tempted to make a first use. If we just say we're not going to use them first the Russians will believe us. They've said they're not going to use him first and we don't really believe them. They haven't made changes in their force structure and their position of their strength to

convince us that that is their policy. That is what we must do. But I am all for it. And I would do all that I can and I will do what I can to see it's in the platform. And I trust that the next president will move in that direction so that that can be our policy and that beyond that of course our objective is not only never to use them first but never to use them second third fourth or last we have to abolish these weapons in the face of the Earth Day. Senator Hart now has a question for Mr. Mondale which vice president several of us here have given much of our political lives of various iterations to the interests of working men and women. You of course were fortunate enough to get the endorsement of organized labor in your campaign and the president of the AFL CIO said the decision was based on the fact that you had never disagreed with Labor on one issue. Can you cite one major domestic issue in

the last three or four years where you have disagreed with the AFL CIO or organized labor. As a matter of fact they came to me in support of my foes in support of my budget supported my objectives for this country. This was not a case of a deal of men agreeing to do something with it and that's why they came to my cause they trust me. Moreover they've got a reason to be involved in this campaign in the in the modern history of American politics. We have never had a president that is so assaulted the interests of working men and women like this administration whether it's taxes or health costs or soaring interest charges or hostility to labor or job safety or Social Security or any of the things that ought to be essential and a part of the bargain of working men and women this administration has just gone out of its way to assault that air bridge working families. And they are coming to me in

my support because they want a candidate who they can trust not who they can run. I'm my own person. I'm not running for president a fellow CIO. I'm running for president out of state. And I've told them as I'm told everyone else you're going to have to give things to the to the betterment of this country and they're prepared to do it. But they have a right the working men of this country to get a president of United States who understands that hits his responsibility to stand up for the needs of average working Americans. We need that desperately. And that's what I'm going to do. Mr. Astley. Mr. ask you it is your turn to ask question of Senator Hart Senator Hart you have criticized its Mondeo for not having the courage to take from Stan early on difficult issues and I certainly agree with you and I didn't quite hear his answer to your last question. You

ATF would have it today but haven't you done the same thing on domestic content I came out strongly against the build you said you once might vote for it. You didn't seem to have the courage to come out against it until it became obvious you couldn't get the door for the labor unions right. Governor that's not correct and you know it's not what I said was. That I would support the domestic content legislation if that were the only way to save the American automobile industry I take it your position is even if that were the only way to save it you wouldn't support it and you would let the American automobile industry go down the tubes. I am not willing to take that position no. I sent the head of the UAW in this state a letter. Almost a year ago in which I laid out my position on domestic content very clearly and I've shown you that letter and I said in that letter that I did not intend to support domestic content because there was a better way to save the American automobile industry and it was just exactly what I've said. Not by bailing out one

company at a time but by a president that negotiates agreements among management labor and private capital to modernize that industry to target markets and produce cars by the end of the 1980s as competitively and efficiently as any nation on earth. I do not take the position we can let the American automobile industry go. I think it's crucial to this country's industrial survival in the future. And because of that I put forward my own policy now. Senator Glenn you have a question for Mr. ask you. Yes Ruben one of the most important issues in this campaign is going to be the gender gap. This administration is basically turning back the clock on progress for women in the workplace as threaten the security of their retirement. They've cut back on critical programs for low income women infants children. What would you do as president to bridge the gender gap. Well first of all I think we need to recognize that we are headed by the turn of the century

for a complete feminization of poverty in which almost all of the poor people in this country are going to be women households headed by just one parent the woman and children. First thing I do is try to pass equal rights of women to the United States Constitution. The second is that I would hold all those people who are against the IRA but the for the economic improvement of women to the economic equity act in the Congress to give them a chance to fish or cut bait. Thirdly I would be for the education Equity Act which helps remove so many stereotypes and so much of the programs that we deal with now as a record as governor was one of bringing women in to my administration and in fact we have only I guess some token men in our campaign structure I say that because I valued women and the leadership role that they can play. I believe the childcare has got to play a critical role not just opening up opportunities for women but also for childcare prenatal care. And also I believe

that every man should pay the child support court orders to take care of the children and not leave it just upon women. I believe in comparable worth. I think we need to use a full potential of all of our people if we're going to be competitive again. And I can assure you that as as a as a person as a small child in a family that a young mother 33 had a mother father who didn't pay. No one in this whole race feel stronger about opening up economic opportunities for women and being fair with them because if we don't we're not going to have the society that we should and we're not going to take the full potential of all of our people and we certainly aren't going to give greater opportunity for the young people to come along and be a part of the American scene in the way they should. Thank you. I've Senator Hollings now you have a question for Reverend Jackson Reverend Jackson on last evening I know of that you had first been

able to visit Iowa since you've been out and I know you haven't had the opportunity to really express as some of us have the views that you would want known as president. As proud of the United States what would be your first three priorities. Peace justice and education and in that order. In that op ed because the nuclear build up is is so costly and so dangerous and so I'd like to take place it must be the first order of business we have of the next leader of the Soviet Union our president must take the initiative to meet with that leader. We must have the security because we do have the military security to meet unconditionally. But I agree conversationally you must lead by Leadership Initiative. The present danger is that you can have a nuclear war either by a margin of human error. All computer malfunction says they have first rate nuclear power but level computers we could be

victimized by their own inefficiency. Thirdly we could be tracked by and on authorized agent pushing the wrong button pieces of a critical issue in my judgment in such a meeting. If we move from nuclear defense as a way of measuring who we are to economic confidence begin to relate on agriculture and trade and technology in fridge for lation then we reduce tension to that. And while we're looking at East West that is the last south conflict. Our boys dying in Honduras haven't died in Grenada dying in Lebanon. We still need to have a peace policy as opposed to a war policy it's a more civilized way to go. Secondly within our nation there must be a sense of justice there within our party about long shots and big shots a long shot to win the some dishonest about that. If it's one person one vote why should be a long shot if yourself last long shot the way you talk makes you a long shot. You will. Get it if you're black Hispanic female

disabled poor or young. So if the majority is a long shot why should the big big shots have the aristocratic domination over us. Thirdly the idea of education our first line of defense is not guided missiles. It's the vellum minds. We must educate our children. Ah. Now next Senator Cranston has a question for Senator Hollings. Fritz I've been thinking about a dream ticket. Cranston Hollings. Got it. I think we could just blow Reagan Bush out of the water with by Hollywood good looks and your clear Eastern access. To Iraq. But first I got a question. You serve in the Senate Budget Committee you've been wrestling with these 200 billion dollar

deficits that can add up to a trillion. What will those Deford's do to our country to our society if we don't stop. Ronald Reagan. It mortgages our future it puts our children into tremendous gridlock whereby the just no way other than to come and pay for the interest cost on a national day at a little bit for defense and Social Security not all will be modeling along like England they will not be able to afford a home they'll not be able to send their children to college. Now immediately at this moment these deficits have gotten us in a penalty position with respect to international trade with respect to jobs industry expanding and re employing. But to come down the pike as you indicate and just mortgaging our future here we drunk on the tracks out there with Reaganomics recovery and rushing down on us and it's going to knock us in to that kind of gridlock where children will never be able to get anything done to make us a second rate nation and I'm more concerned that we do

something about it because we're all polls to politicians. I am concerned about I am concerned that Gary Hart was locked up with two when I was with Pat Condell coming all the way over from Omaha. That's bad enough. They never have solved any problem they'll tell you not to solve a problem Alan. That's exactly what they'll do just say you concern hit and run driving and that's the way to get re-elected and I rather believe in the way Kennedy approached the thing and lead the way for sacrifice if we can all just hold the line for one year and then have 3 percent real growth. We can work our way out of this situation but it's going to take that kind of sacrifice with respect to the economy that kind of balance with respect to the military that you and I both understand and unless we approach it in that fashion we're going to be a second rate nation. Mr. Jackson now. Justin asked Sandra Bland.

Son the Glenn part of our strength and I believe in a strong military defense. History teaches us that ultimately might is not right right is might. And part of what makes our nation strong is its commitment to democratic principles. One person one vote we find the gutter that. We measure one person one vote majority rule is the mockers in this country South Africa minority rule represents democracy. Our nation now is South Africa's number one trading partner. Help get them an IMF loan to make them stronger. What would you do to savage us of this position of a moral disgrace being the number one trading partner. How would you in that relationship put pressure on apartheid. And would you serve on the board of a corporation that was in fact doing business with the government of South Africa. Well let me. Will abhor completely the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa. And I think this administration with their constructive agreement is a tried to call it that they were going to

somehow lead the South Africans into that well they would not be against apartheid too much. And that way they would try and work with them and try and get some sort of arrangement with them just did not work did not work in any way. In fact it was our own government that suggested that perhaps the Cubans and then Goa gave them an excuse for going into Namibia. And so they have been in a Namibia for all these years and we should not have done that I would discourage investment in South Africa. I would not say that we would prohibit it absolutely and completely because we have some American firms there that might voice wish in fact to make more investment in expanding their policies where they actually have blacks in management positions over white South Africans. And there are some of those companies there but I would so I would not prohibit completely but I would say that we would discourage any new investment in South Africa certainly and one of the other areas that I'm particularly concerned with South Africa is I was the principal author of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. We've tried to work very

closely with South Africa and getting them to agree that they will not develop nuclear weaponry. We have not been able to do that with them. This administration in fact just approved some new parts sales and things to the government of South Africa which encourages them toward development of nuclear weapons and I would not want to see that continue. I would enforce that nuclear nonproliferation act just as carefully as we possibly can not only there but all over the world so I would discourage it I would hold out discourage investment in South Africa. I would hold out the hope that if if it did not move they don't move off the blackspot policy in the policies they've had there we might make a cutoff at some time in the future but right now I would discourage investment South Africa of a cooperation to administer that government very quick depend on the company. It's now vice president Mondale's turn at.