Debate 1986, US Senator; Chuck Grassley And John Roehrick; Campaign '86: INA Senate Debate

Why. This is a special report from my own more public domain. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. Campaign 86 the senatorial debate between Charles Grassley and John Reich sponsored by the Iowa newspaper association. The debate was recorded earlier this afternoon at the Conway center in Waterloo. Welcome. I am Walt Stevens editor of The Fort Dodge messenger and your moderator for this afternoon's program the Iowa newspaper association is pleased to offer you this forum for a discussion of the issues between the candidates for the U.S. Senate. Of the two major political parties. We've been at the forefront in holding such debates going back nearly 30 years.

I'm sure all of you know our participants. U.S. Senator Charles Grassley Republican from New Hartford and John Rorik Democrat from the boy. At this time I'd like to announce our ground rules. Each candidate will have two minutes for an opening statement. We flipped a coin to determine who will go first and Senator Grassley will have the first statement. Then the candidates will be questioned by a panel of Iowa journalists. Gary Spurgeon of the Bloomfield Democrat Eric Woolson of the modeling career and Judy Dobbin Mar of the Cedar Rapids Gazette each candidate will have two minutes to respond to initial questions and one minute for a follow up question as moderator I will decide if rebuttal remarks are in order. And if Saul allow 30

seconds for such remarks we do have some members of the general public present today but we ask that there be no applause from the audience. In response to answers from the candidates no signs are permitted in the audience. Ladies and gentlemen this fall's political campaign is about to begin. We would appreciate your cooperation by getting these two candidates your undivided attention for the next hour. And now to Senator Grassley for his opening statement. First I would like to thank the Iowa newspaper association for sponsoring this debate. Nothing in my public life has given me more satisfaction than working for you as your senator. Whether it's helping a small business when a government contract or starting up a jobs program or cutting the red tape around a disabled veterans check I've made your needs my mission.

Of course it's not good to have ideas if you can't. Before a senator though of course gets down to work it's quite obvious that he's got to listen to his constituents. That's why I've come home. Almost every weekend for six years. That's why I've held more than 2000 meetings with Iowa in Iowa and that's why I visited each of the 99 counties at least once a year hearing your ideas. The only I was senator to do that. Of course it's no good to have ideas if you can implement them with your help. I have one. What counts for Iowa. A new tax bill that rips the lid off tax sheltered farmers. A defense budget freeze that saves 17 billion dollars and thirty millions for rural jobs. But the senator's job is even more than victories for his home state. There are only 100 of us in the Senate saw a senator pass to be a leader. With

your help I've made national leadership difference in Washington like working for a federal budget. That's fair across the board. Like working to expose military fraud and waste and like working for a compassionate farm program. These are tough issues but we've built a solid foundation of success in the last six years. With your continued support and your prayers we will win even more success and build a better Iowa and nation. Mr. Wright may we have your opening remarks. I also want to thank the Iowa newspaper association for giving us the time for this debate because the choice that I would face in November is clear. Had the Reagan crassly policies of the past six years been good for Iowa or had they failed. Does a senator who votes three out of four times with President Reagan in deciding those policies deserve another term. Or is it time to choose a new senator and chart a new course.

Mr. Grassley voted for the 1981 tax bill which removed hundreds of corporations from the tax rolls who had billions of dollars in income and opened the door for tax sheltered farming. He voted for the 1981 budget bill which permitted the runaway defense spending that has become so rampant in this country. And he voted for the 1981 farm bill that simply devastated agriculture. Since Mr. Grassley has taken office and voted for those policies I Will his last thirty nine thousand manufacturing jobs 8000 farms and a hundred and twenty thousand Iowans have simply thrown up their hands in despair and left the state for good. And on the historic issue of tax reform Mr. Grassley had a choice. He could stand with my once and save our IRAs or stand with the special interest groups like his millionaire friend John Ruan. He voted against

violence but quietly slipped in a 20 million dollar tax break. I say I would deserve better. Senator Grassley has been the senator who can't say no and I won't vote with Ronald Reagan three out of four times and I won't give the special interests no taxes. And Senator Grassley when your friend John Ruan or any other political crony comes in and asks for 20 million dollars from the public tale I'm not going to say no I'm going to say hell no. And now for the first question Call of Duty knob and timer. She will ask this question of Senator Grassley. Mr. Grassley you have some 28 years of legislative experience while the challenger has now been given the state's economic problems in the last six years and the alleged insensitivity of the Reagan administration to them as I would be benefited from having your experience in the Senate and how could I want to be sure they would have. Thank you for that

presentation with a newcomer in the Senate. Well of course Iowa has represented and has done well through my representation the last six years because I have cut a wide swath in Washington D.C. against the military industrial complex leading the way on re prioritizing the budget. It was my amendment adopted on a 51 to 48 vote that for the first time froze the defense budget. It was that vote that allowed money to be taken from arms and given to farms. It was my leadership on the Senate Finance Committee that led the way to doing away with tax sheltered farming. It was my leadership in Iowa that got a Fortune 500 companies to meet in a seminar and to meet with Iowa economic and development leaders to determine if

Iowa was a proper place for them to locate and hopefully enticing those businesses to Iowa so that we would create jobs. It was my leadership that brought 31 foreign nations through their ambassadors and other embassy personnel to Iowa for a four day symposium on international trade so that we would hopefully sell more products and more services overseas creating jobs for Iowans. Those are sayings that no senator has ever done before. And of course those instances aren't enough. There's there's going to be a seed sown that we hope will bear fruit of more jobs. But it's an ongoing thing we're going to have to have more trade mages more Iowa advantage type seminars to entice industry to our state and through that and an effective fiscal and tax policy. We're going to bring revitalization to the

economy of Iowa. And more jobs through our two minutes. In relation to the list of accomplishments that Senator Grassley has just related I believe that reflects what is nothing more than press release politics in regard to the ambassadors and bringing them to eye one on the trade mission. Let's not be mistaken as to what that was. But that was a political gimmick. The question is Where have you been for six years and getting those and basters to I was senator to create jobs instead of backing policies of Reagan that have lost 39000 manufacturing jobs in this state. And why weren't those ambassadors taken west of I-35. There is a state west of Des Moines in Sioux City in Fort Dodge and consul bluffs and as far as your fortune 500 is concerned let's talk about the twenty eight thousand dollars

that you received on or about that date from those companies for your campaign fund that was came as a result of the Fortune 500. I believe my experience as a as an attorney and as an Iowan who has been here and I were working over the past two and a half years to help family farmers small business people save their farms and their homes and their dignity serves me well to serve in the United States Senate. Because representation comes when you wonder stand what's going on in her people's hearts. When you realize the hurt and the misery that has occurred because of the Reagan crassly policies that simply has to stop. I want to take to the U.S. Senate that compassion that understanding and meet the hurt and the misery that is occurring and I well understood in Washington. And I will not practice press release politics. I'm Mr. Grassley one minute for rebuttal.

Well I'm glad to have a revote on that and I don't think anybody in an election year ought to listen to what any incumbent or candidate says about what he's accomplished or what he will accomplish I think it's much better for the record if you look to what other people say. And I cited my vote on cutting the defense budget 17 billion dollars in May of 1985. Time magazine said that that was the most surprising action taken by the Senate that year a Democrat senator said this about this senator that I was the greatest He turned to Pentagon trough and I've received six national awards as number one as ethanol man of the year for putting 900 million dollars more money in the pockets of farmers. The Eisenhower Award given by the granddaughter of President Eisenhower because of my combat defense fraud and waste destroying Stevens you know Senator you talk about the defense

budget but the defense cuts in the budgets. But let me say this that when you give the combination out you ought to expect the people going to take out of that vault what you furnished them. How can you stand here and tell the I Will voters that you're for defense cuts when you voted for every gold plated weapons system that the Pentagon has won it every time the Pentagon has sent down the requirements of a new weapon system your hand in the United States Senate has gone up and said yes. Just a word of explanation here everybody will be limited to 30 seconds I think I misspoke in saying they would be one minute but they will be 30 seconds. We're ready now for any follow up questions from the panel here on this subject are there any. If not we'll proceed with the next question from Eric Wilson of the Waterloo courier directed to Mr. Rory to edits for a reply.

Mr Orrick when President Reagan took office in 1981 he said that he would halt the runaway cost of government by closing down many federal agencies to date only to have been shut down the Community Service Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board. Should more federal agencies be eliminated and if so which ones. Well the the question that is as I understand it Mr. Olson is shall we continue to shrink the the federal government. I think that the federal government needs to be looked at as to where we can cut fat out of the bureaucracy. You know the one area in which we would do that is in the Defense Department. That's one area in which we could do it. Let's switch the focus of the debate and let's look at the debate which ought to really be the effectiveness of our combat troops to be able to win in combat and not just what the cost is the Reagan administration attempt at reducing the size of government has hurt our people. We have strong

government in the wrong areas. We have shrunk government in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid. We have shrunk government in the areas of education. We have shrunk government under the Reagan Grassley policies that have affected adversely the people of this country. When we talk about shrinking government we ought to be taking the hard question and biting the bullet on programs in areas that really do not belong any longer. I think that we need to have legislation that will allow Congress to look at whether bureaucracies are any longer needed and use instances where we can streamline and make government more efficient. The combining of agencies. But the real question is should be focused on what is the role of government and what has Reagan done in the past six years in fulfilling that role of government. Mr. Grassley.

Well of course every government program defense entitlements any program ought to be reviewed on a regular basis to see if it's needed. So I mean this is maybe it's not needed. In some instances maybe it ought even be enhanced and nothing should be so sacred. That it should not be subject to review. But I think the most important step to take is a prioritizing of the budget whereas there has been an attempt by the president to reduce or eliminate a lot of domestic programs not as an end in themselves to reduce the deficit but to reduce to spend more on defense. It seems to me that we can not have that be the reason for eliminating programs song. We find ourselves re prioritizing the budget. The president proposes but were the ones who decide the priorities. And we have

decided those priorities in a different way than the president has. And I think my leadership in cutting the defense budget freezing the defense budget has in fact led the way towards that re prioritizing so that we would have money available for badly needed agricultural programs and other domestic programs so badly needed. But an ongoing part of any reply our ties ought to be the annual reviews that are so necessary. Now the president has appointed a commission to look into these things. And I'm a member of the caucus reviewing those priorities those programs that ought to be done away with in the president's point of view. But those will get the same scrutiny from me as any other program has these last six years. And he follow up questions. Gentlemen those were very general answers I'm wondering which program specifically you think that no longer serve their purpose and

be it Small Business Administration Legal Services Corporation which programs do we cut one minute for each candidate. The first program that I would cut if I were the. What I mean the United States Senate will be the attempt to eliminate the Strategic Defense Initiative the greatest boondoggle of all time in the Defense Department which I might point out Senator Grassley has consistently supported although it was press really politics that is otherwise because that area would produce billions of dollars of waste and a program that will not work. I think in the area of defense we have to eliminate certain programs Mr. Wilson and we have to as Senator Grassley said re prioritize. But that's not in the area of cutting child nutrition programs women infant children's programs or voting against appropriations for the Department of Education.

That's the first program that we knew would be cut within the Defense Department. When my budget freeze was adopted in May of 1995 I was a Sergeant York program that program is the only major defense program ever to be eliminated in modern time and that wouldn't happen without a freeze of the fence body. Now you can go after a program by program by program if you want to be a senator do that and fall into the trap of those people in the finance department on the Armed Services Committee who have a policy of divide and conquer and never get a majority to eliminate any problem. But go at the defense budget or any other program across the board and you pick up all kinds of frames to cut and we did that in 51 or in 85 by a 51 48 vote. And this year we're cutting the defense budget even more than a freeze and without any debate.

Our next question will be by Gary Spurgeon directed first do Mr. Grassley Senator Grassley. Well when President Reagan was elected he pledged a market oriented farm program. But now is administration is spending about 30 billion dollars this year which is more than any other president spent in his full term. What direction do you think our farm programs should take a market oriented or substantial government subsidies to farmers. We all want cross profitability for agriculture until we get profitability. There won't be any maintenance of the family farm and a farm bill is only one of several elements. In a farm program that Congress has to look at. The most important is a sound fiscal policy by the Congress to reduce interest rates and reduce the value of that out. There is no two things that will bring

profitability agriculture more than those two things. There is no farm bill that will bring the profitability of agriculture that they will a sound trade policy so that we can export in a free and fair manner a sound monetary policy by the Federal Reserve on this business of bringing out all of the inflation overnight has wreaked the most havoc of any government policy. That's that's been done to agriculture. And beyond that on agriculture bale that serves too as a safety net for our farms just like there's safety nets for the defense industry just like there are safety nets for the unemployed eel housing the undernourished. This administration started out with the process of eliminating that safety net and through our RE prioritizing the budget. In the 1985 farm bill we saved that safety net. But we have not guaranteed

profitability. But no farm bill will guarantee profitability. And we've got to look at a sound trade policy sound fiscal policy sound monetary policy and maybe the most important thing a sound tax policy because this tax bill now passing the Congress is shutting down agriculture as a gigantic pack shelter that it has become. Mr. WRIGHT Well it's interesting to note that the rhetoric here is the regard to the reduction of interest rates lowering the value of the dollar. A sound trade policy and sound monetary policies. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Grassley the Republican controlled Senate have had six years to do something about it. And nothing's been done. The Republican philosophy is as far as the agricultural concern shown by President Reagan's joke exports to farmers and save the grain. And that's what they're trying to do today with market level clearing prices. The prime concern in

any agricultural program is to provide our farmers with sufficient income to take care of their families and live with dignity. And that's not being done under the Reagan Grassley policies. They have had six years to reduce interest rates. And while the prime rate is coming down the farmer who has to go borrow funds to plant just crop is still paying 13 14 percent. We lower the value of a dollar. When we start to target interest rates again which this administration has abandoned and we have out we come up with a fair trade policy when we finally realize there is no such thing as free trade and a sound monetary policy does not come from voting. As Senator Grassley in the Reagan administration has been for deficits that have created jump to the level of two hundred and thirty five billion dollars and created more deficit in federal spending than all other

presidents combined or allowed the interest rate to the value of the dollar to be driven up where we have a two trillion dollar two trillion dollar debt. I hear talk talk talk but we don't hear solutions. And I think it's time that we have solutions and quit practicing press release politics. Rebuttal on 30 seconds Mr. Daschle. Well I don't have a rebuttal but I have more comment except to remind you that there isn't a farmer in Iowa that believes that a farm bill by itself is going to bring prosperity to their pocket because there isn't a farmer in Iowa that if he had a choice would want to get a government check. And so the interest rates are the most important thing. But I think of this every day as I think about my son Robin he's 60 or a farmer 26 years of age struggling to get along

because I think that if Robin can continue to farm then a lot of other young farmers will continue to farm. Mr. Ari 30 seconds rebuttal. Yes we talk about a farm bill. We have offered our campaign has offered a farm plan which will bring prices in the marketplace up for the average for the Iowa farmer because the Iowa farmer is entitled to control his own economic destiny. He's entitled control his own production and he's going to entitled to be paid first not last. Such as what is occurring. We have offered our plan. And Senator Grassley after six years. Where is yours. We have a follow up question from Judy. Gentlemen the federal government continues to spend record amounts for a farm support programs and yet farmers continue to go broke. Is it time for an airtight limit on how much money individual farmers can receive in

subsidies from the government. Mr. Grassley one minute. Very definitely the $50000 cap must be reduced. But more importantly than even reducing that it has to be tightened up so that partnerships can't break up to get around that limit. And I think if we do that not only are we going to save money we're all going to also increase credibility in the farm program and that's very important for consumers to support the family farms and say in fact in some ways I think urban people are more concerned about the family farm than some farmers are particularly in relationship to the government. But I do feel. That's tied to other issues as well other than just putting a limit on what the credibility of the program is pretty much the issue.

Just one minute. I think we have to go beyond putting caps or beyond reducing the caps I think it's time that we d politicize agriculture. I don't want Jesse Helms the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee dictating to our eye what corn producers hog producers and bean producers what their prices are going to be in the marketplace because we sat deficiency payments and target prices and loan payments that are below the cost of production. It's time that we get Congress out of agriculture and the setting of price supports and let the farmers control their own destiny. Again we have rhetoric but we need to have a farm plan not just a farm bill. We need to save rural America because it is a matter of national security and is our most important resource. We'll move to the next question my duty directed to Mr. Rorik. Mr. Reich a group of Republican congressmen is urging repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution in order to allow presidents to seek a third term in office. Would you

support repealing it amend. Well it's interesting that the very party who is who instituted that amendment is now asking to have it removed. I believe that that amendment its search has served itself well in the past 30 years that it has been in existence. And I think that it that we ought not to monkey around with the Constitution not only in that area but in many other areas. So the bottom line is no I would not support the repeal of that amendment. GRASSLEY No I do not support the repeal of that amendment. And that isn't just because it's become an issue lately. I think of. The late 40s when I was in junior high school ignored for dial one of the rare governmental issues of that time and that stage in my life I remember is a passage of that 20 second amendment. And at that time I thought it was a good idea. I still think it's a good idea. But not just because it's in the Constitution or that it's the

22nd Amendment. But because I look at the history of our country 200 years now and except for one president either by constitutional amendment or by tradition we have seen our country develop into the great democracy we are today more freedom than any country on the face of the earth. And we have done that under a two year tradition except for one president and it's forward that reason the historical and traditional evolve much of our government and our country and freedom that I want to preserve the 22nd Amendment and the two year limitation the next question will be Beric be directed first to Mr. Grassley Mr. Grassley will be one hundred million dollars in aid to the Contra rebels enough to secure a victory for democracy in Nicaragua. The answer to that is we don't know. I hope

that it doesn't even cost a hundred million dollars to accomplish that goal because we all want democracy like we enjoy democracy. We have seen right wing dictators thrown out of Honduras. Guatemala. El Salvador Mar Marcos out of the Philippines and we have a left wing totalitarian dictatorship. In Nicaragua. It came in under the promise of democracy and freedom of religion freedom for the church freedom of press freedom of business freedom of the labor union movement. But we see all those freedoms the press now and what we want is free and fair elections. What we want is self-determination for the people of Nicaragua. What we want is the sanctions to be made by the ballot not by the ballot. What we want there is what you and I enjoy all the

time. A political solution to our differences. We've seen America making a difference in getting rid of Marcos in a fellah pains. We helped through the Organization of American States move some oats out of Nicaragua. We're trying to make a difference for the black people in South Africa. And we're trying to help the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. Surely if America can make a difference in the Philippines and in South Africa and in Afghanistan the United States can make a difference for democracy and self-determination and political and diplomatic solutions to issues in Central America as well. Mr Orrick. Well I'll answer the question. The hundred million dollar Contra aid that's been being sent down to Nicaragua. Well not a sure victory. It is only the opening deposit on the amount of continued amount of money

and what really concerns me is that. I believe it will eventually lead to the fact that we're going to be sending young men and women to do the job that money couldn't buy. And when we do that and when we see the body bags of our young men and women coming back from Central America. Senator Grassley your boat. Help do that. You can talk about political stability. But I think we need a hundred million dollars in this Central America more than in Nicaragua. Here again is Apollo. One minute I reply and the candidate first candidate to address it will be Mr. Gresley Mr. Grasso you said a moment ago that you want a decision in Nicaragua to be based on the ballot and not the bullet. And yet you voted for military aid for the Contras. Aren't you being a little inconsistent on that point.

I have seen American money honored seventy three million dollars of American money used for economic development in Nicaragua between July of. 79 and March of 81 because we want to help that new revolution which we supported by helping the Organization of American States move out some also. We want to help you get started because we knew what had Democrats in it was for freedom of the religion it was for freedom of labor union movement freedom of the press and all those things. And we seen the revolution stolen from the people. And we want now the evolution of that revolution. And I don't think it will come with a little bit of outside pressure. But as we just about had a treaty signed on June the six except for Ortega saying no there will be a day shortly that there will be a treaty signed and there will not be any more

fighting in Central America. Just one minute. The hundred and seventy three million dollars in economic aid that you spoke of that was sent to between 979 in 1981 was to replace as you said Mr. Somoza. But then the Reagan comes in and places an economic sanctions and an embargo upon Nicaragua and forces Mr. Ortega into the Soviet bloc. I think it's time that we understand that we have to go back to the policies of John Kennedy and talk about an alliance for progress and use our ability our technological and our economic ability to create interdependence between nations and realize that we have a duty to help people to spend one hundred million dollars for Contra aid to buy bullets would be at it better be spent on a hundred million dollars for food.

We have a panelist that isn't easily satisfied Erika's another question. Mr. Daschle like to direct this to Mr. Rourke. Oh all right. You say that you oppose overthrowing the Nicaraguan government and yet clearly they're under the influence of the Soviet Union. Where do you draw the line in trying to stop Soviet influence or the Communists have to come into Miami before the Democrats are willing to take some action. Now you know Mr. Olson I don't think that the communists have to come into Miami before we take action. The point is that we ought to be working. The point is we ought to stop looking behind every bush to see if there's a Russian bear. There are just some times just sometimes that countries should have the right to resolve their own affairs and we ought to question the policies that Dr. Ortega into the communist camp.

It is going along OK. It is a fact that there are Soviets in Nicaragua. It is a fact that there are Soviet armaments. You nations helicopters tanks in Nicaragua. It is a fact that there's Cubans there. It is a fact that the Sandinista leaders themselves said that their revolution knows no boundaries and it is a fact that the United States helped the Sandinista revolution succeed through our leadership in the removal of some on its own. Now we ought to deliver on what we promised the people of Nicaragua in our indirect help. And that is the evolution of that revolution that the Sandinistas promised. We have another follow up by Judy.

Mr. Grassley if it's that serious should we send in troops. Where do you draw the line on fulfilling that promise. We will not send troops in because the president's in Central America have told us they don't want American troops involved in fighting in Central America. We will not send in troops because a president does not have the authority anymore to send in troops because the War Powers Act make satay congressional be sation so that there will not be as President Johnson did in the 60s the evolution of a full scale war our and our obligations under the real treaty our obligations under the United Nations charter that were that big that gives that authority to a regional organization are going to keep our foremost purpose they're finding a diplomatic solution through the Contador process and through bilateral negotiations.

It's 3:00 on Monday. Senator Grassley can you guarantee that we will not be sending in troops. I don't believe that guarantee can be given. Again I go back to the five that if we send down 100 million dollars this year and the Contras can't as you use the word evolve the revolution. Do we send 200 million next year and then do we send a billion dollars the following year. If you give us a darn t that we won't send in troops. All well and good but I don't believe anyone can do that. I also believe that we have to be involved in the contra Darr process but sometimes just sometimes countries have the right to decide their own government without interference from the United States or any other nation. Next question by Gary Spurgeon could be directed courage to Mr Orrick. Mr. Roy in view of the administration's offer for a subsidized sale of 4 million metric tons of wheat to the Soviet Union should a similar

offer be made for corn. I believe that the I guess the answer that yes but I think beyond that what we need to do is to realize that the the Reagan Farmdale of 1981 and now the 1985 Farmville is simply devastating role America. What really concerns me about the subsidized wheat is the fact that it was used as a political ploy to Garantie real actions of three United States senators from the been a while asked and yet no hue and cry went up from our senior senator over those sales which is going to hurt our corn producers. The Reagan farm policy is just like the Keystone Kops. They're running around left and right trying to see how you solve the problem. And the only person that's been hurt is the American farmer who's received the pie in the face and now with the

subsidized wheat we're in the process of get pay using tax dollars to try to get rid of our surplus again. I believe we have to go back and develop an agricultural plan that not only talks about supply price supports but actually gives a fair price to the farmer so that we don't have to have political games played with our agriculture. Will each of you newspaper people in the audience please give my opponent a free subscription to your newspaper so that he can read about the letter that I sent opposing the fact that corn was not included. Because when he says that I didn't say anything that I just stood back. He is not telling you the facts. Now the first move I made to the White House when I was elected senator in 1980 the first meeting I had with the president was to go to the White House. That first month in office asking the

president to withdraw the Carter grain embargo. We accomplished that goal. So I have for a long period of time both before that and after that made clear to the people of Iowa that if we're going to trade with the Soviet Union and that we should that we're going to have to do it on a same basis that we do it with other countries. And that's why I sent that letter. To make clear that I objected to the special treatment of weight and the Unfair treatment to the corn farmers of the Midwest and we have not seen the success that we would like to but I believe that we will. And the reason I believe it we will is because this administration has had. That view that we're going to have to treat our trading partners

equally sometimes to the detriment of our country I would say. But sticking to that principle it surely got to be applicable in this instance of the export pick applying to corn as well as to wheat. Gary has a follow up question on should these subsidized prices be extended to Japan or some other trading partners. I don't know the answer to that Mr. aspersion how far we continue to expand our tax dollar base and giving away our tax dollars to other countries. I think again we need to come up with an agricultural plan that does away with the need for this. The need to dump rain upon the world market. And I just like to say that Senator I did read your letter that you did send that you did send to Secretary Lang But again my question is what happened to it. What has occurred what influence is the senior senator from Iowa show and

to help our corn producers. We can write letters and we can talk. But when did you stand up on the floor of the United States Senate and attempt to do anything about it. And that starts with the 1981 farm bill. I stood up for the corn producers when I sponsored the amendment for a freeze of target prices on the 1985 farm bill. I stood up for the corn farmers when I led the way to the restriction on import of ethanol from Brazil into this country. I stood up for the corn hog farmer when I took the lead on stopping the import of live Canadian hogs into this country and I have been recognized by the ethanol industry and the Corn Growers Association through that award that I've previously spoken about that I've got. So I think not what Chuck Grassley says but what other people have said about my accomplishments for representing the corn farmer speak for themselves and I'll stand on

those statements of people outside of politics just a status matter a rebuttal has already despise you freeze the 1985 farm bill Mr. Grassley. I note that on that bill you voted for the Senate version which were not only a frozen target prices but reduce them over the next four years and further devastated the farm economy. As far as your restriction on ethanol that was to import ethanol. But where has been your leadership in developing ethanol here in this state and the state that produces the most corn in the world. We could have ethanol plants and this state to use the grain our farm farmers produce merely prohibiting the import is just one more example of rhetoric. Let's get some legislation that really helps ethanol. Well there's really no fact that speaks better for itself. But if you're going to promote domestic industry the first step you have to take is to see

that unfair competition from the outside. At least one is beyond the treaties and the agreements we've signed. Yeah it is not prevented. And that. Speaks for itself. The next question by duty to be directed first is Mr. Grassley Mr. Grassley in light of the growing concern over drug use in America. Should employers be able to require their workers to take drug tests. In very sensitive areas yes. And as long as the constitutional rights of the workers are protected. General application. Yes but I think that we need to move very slowly into this area. Because if we go into it as a reaction to the increasing drug traffic you know we don't want to step on the constitution in the process. But there is a

major problem out there of drugs. One that Congress has been wrestling with for a long time and we have to deal with it if we deal with it effectively. Then the issue that you present in your question would not be an issue at all. Even having to discuss and I think that one of the first places we ought to stop start and where I have been involved with was Senator Hawkins of the state of Florida is to deny foreign aid to any country that does not participate with the United States in stopping the drug trafficking between that country and our country. Beyond that. More and better cooperation between the existing agencies that are all involved in drug trafficking or drug enforcement. But I. Can lend a hand in the process ought to be accomplished and that means some use of armed

forces greater use of FBI and not only meeting at just of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. ROEMER Well this is an area Senator where you and I can come to some agreement on for a change. And I also agree that the drug problem in this country is starting to run rampant. And I think that we need to have drug testing in sensitive areas as you said. What concerns me when we open doors like that is that is not only the protection of the constitutional rights of individuals but what will be the penalties that will be exacted on those individuals who are found to be dirty. What we need to look at is not only are we going to institute drug testing programs in the highly sensitive areas but what is going to be the result to those employees if they are not clean. I think we need to look move carefully in that area. I think we have to look at being able to

set up rehabilitation as an alternative then to outright firing or imprisonment. I think we need to put our resources into education about the drug programs or the drug problems in this country. I think we need the overall commitment of the federal government in that area and protecting the rights of the people in this country. As you said not only for constitutional purposes but for penalty purposes. There can be no doubt that that is a problem today that is running rampant. But we must move cautiously and we must make sure that we recognize that the people are treated fairly. Judy has a problem is the U.S. Senate the type of sensitive job for which drug tests should be required and should candidates for that office be required to take drug tests. I would submit to a broadcast.

You're talking about amending the Constitution as far as I can tell. And I don't think anybody would be very serious about amending the Constitution requiring a drug test. We have had some senators require drug testing as a matter of as the president has stepping out being first in the process of doing it. But I think I'm one being particularly maybe because I'm from Iowa that would move very cautiously in this area of across the board requirements that would require that sort of testing. But obviously if I was going to required of my staff or if some other Senate rule would require of Senate employees then there is no reason that any one of the 100 United States senators should be exempt from that requirement. That's right. The sensitive areas in which I am speaking in relation to drug to drug testing and again I want to say that I first think we set up the process

of how we're going to handle those people who are found to be involved with drugs is in the area which is of of national security I'm not sure that the United States Senate isn't that sensitive an area as to require candidates or senators to have to take drug testing. But I think when we're talking in the area of air traffic controllers people who are at Offit Air Force Base or who have their finger on the nuclear button that's a matter of the needs to be explored. And I guess finally I'll say that I also would be willing to take that test. Next question Eric. What should U.S. officials do to secure the release of U.S. News and World correspondent in Moscow and the Associated Press correspondent in Lebannon given that the administration's public policy is that they don't negotiate with kidnappers. Well I think I think that we you know they have the problem that we have with Mr. Donilon off of the U.S. in Europe News and World Report is I read in the in the press

this essentially that that he was that he is being held in the in the Soviet Union and we do need to negotiate. We need to negotiate with him for his release although I don't believe that we should trade for him. I think that we have to take an active participation and an active role in attempting to bring home all hostages whether they be held in the Soviet Union as Mr. Dan aloft is or they be held in in Lebanon. And that's where we need we need a firm foreign policy in a firm statement by the administration that area which we have been lacking in the last six years. Yes I would associate my remarks with my opponent on the point if it's a person for person trade or if it only involves one person but I feel somehow understanding as we all ought to understand the Soviet mind and hand the tools that they will use to accomplish an overall goal that they have of their

expansionism. That we ought to think in terms of how this may be part of the chess board game that's being played with this arm and the extent to which you and I want peace extend to watch disarmament is a very important part of bringing about world peace. The extent to which we honestly believe that the Soviets want some disarmament so that they can transfer funds from defense spending to domestic needs of their people. I think we have a real hope for peace here. But maybe Dan aloft is the first shot over the bio that maybe we misinterpreted their efforts. Maybe there's though a cold war is warmed too much. And I think we need to make that determination before we make too many moves. A final question my very direct approach to you Mr. Grassley Senator Grassley of special interest to this group is that if the postal rates that of rapidly escalated for the nation's newspapers and

caused a lot of financial distress bill has been introduced in the house to lower these posting rates. Would you support this bill in the Senate to limit the questions and the answers to one minute please. OK. Well I can answer that very simply and I hope that your association and I have every reason to believe they have. I have already told the membership of the Iowa newspaper association that I am a co-sponsor of Senator Stevens bail. And from that standpoint obviously I I support changing existing law. But remember if Chuck Grassley is playing for an across the board budget freeze had been adopted in February of 1982 when it was such a radical plan you couldn't get any attention. And now it's an accepted fact that we have to freeze some things and we would have a balanced budget today if it had been adopted. But if it had been adopted there would not have been one cent reduction.

And the postal rate subsidies and there would not have been one increase and the cost of mailing the newspapers in this state just one minute. Yes I could also support the the help to the the Newspaper Association on the posting rights but I want to point out that I'm a ninth of 1985. Senator Grassley voted to cut the subsidies and the government assistance that was given to small town newspapers and magazines which thereby required them to increase their rates as far as the balance budgets concerned that Senator Grassley has spoke up. I find it interesting that in 1980 to July 27 when President Reagan I want to build was introduced in the United States Senate to require President Reagan to submit a balanced budget. You voted against that. And in 1983 when Senator Ford from Kentucky introduced a similar bill you voted against it. You have spoke about the balance the need for a balanced budget and yet you voted for the budget in 1981 that on leash the spending

and you voted for the 1981 tax hike which caused the difficulties that we've had in this nation. The problem is when President Reagan The problem is the Congress because a President can't spend one penny that Congress doesn't give him the authority to spend. And you know support in three out of four times on those spending bills. Well the president can't be right all the time. We'll continue this debate. You're right was the content of this debate in the closing statements which were ready for at this time. The order of appearance has been term and may have been determined by the flip of a coin. Mr. Grassley will present the first statement two minutes since you elected me six years ago. I've been on the job voting more than any Iowa senator in 30 years. I don't expect you to agree with each one of my 2000 votes or my position on every issue. But I followed my conscience and I've been my own mind. And I hope that you know that every day and in every way

I've done what I thought was best for Iowa being an effective senator is a study in contrasts. Sometimes a senator's got to be tough. Like when I took on Canadian pork imports and Brazilian ethanol imports that threaten the mainstay of our economy. But sometimes the senator's got to be compassionate too. Like when I won federal relief for desperately ill children or rural hospitals or older Iowans. With Chuck Grassley what you see is what you get in my dozen years in Washington. I've never caught Potomac fever and I've never forgotten about you. So no matter how I work for you prodding the president for relief farm relief here or pushing Fortune

500 companies to invest here are pressing foreign ambassadors to buy their products here. I'm still a farmer from Butler County Iowa. I'm proud to be one and I'm proud to be your senator. Working together we've had some big victories. We've got more to win. So today I'm asking you to join the record number of individual Iowans who've committed themselves to keeping me on the job working for you. Thank you and God bless you. Closing statement from Mr. Romney. You know this as I said in my own many remarks this election is important but it's important not just to Senator Grassley and me but it's important to all of us Iowans who are concerned about our future. And the future of this state in the direction in which we're going and the real future of this state lies with our children throughout the state of Iowa. And so I think it would be appropriate to dedicate this election to a little girl by

the name of Sarah Stubbs who lives in Marshall Town whom I met at a picnic recently and Sarah is four years old and she's as cute as a bug's there and she was wearing a little T-shirt that said if you think I'm cute you ought to see my daddy. Sarah told me that when she grows up she wants to be a mommy. And when Sarah grows up I wanted to be that Mommy. But if she also wants to be a teacher or a laborer or a lawyer or an astronaut she should have that right. So Sarah and every other child in this state has the right to grow up and have the best education we have that we can provide them and they have the right to graduate from school and go on to college and enter the workforce and to live with dignity and Saira and all the other children of Iowa have the right to farm a family farm or work in a small street on mansion a small shop on Main Street. And Sarah has the right to live free from nuclear war and

with clean water and clean air. And I think that we need to have more debates to talk about the area of agriculture economy education and the trade other than the few questions that we've had here today. We need to debate more of the issues and have more debates to show the people.