Debate 1988, President, Democrats; Star-Pac Presidential Debate; Rev. Jesse Jackson, Illinois; Gov. Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts; Sen. Paul Simon, IL; Sen. Al Gore, Tennessee; Gov. Bruce Babbit, Arizona; Rep. Richard (Dick) Gephardt, Missouri.

Oh. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. U.S. military spending almost always generates controversy. This afternoon the nation's defense policy is the focus of the Democratic presidential candidates debate live from the white sherman place in the mind the debate a sponsored by Star PAC the stop the arms race political action committee. Hello and welcome to the star packed forum that the stark the arms race political action committees forum on the president and the arms race. I'm Chet roundoff our co-host is Carol Rose. Starting last December all major Republican and Democratic candidates were invited to two star packed forums this month. Six candidates from the Democratic Party are here today. No Republican has so

far accepted the invitation sent though the invitation still stand for a later date. Now we could go all there was a drawing for seating order. Then there was a drawing to determine the order and on each series of questions. So the order of everything is by the luck of the draw. To start off. I will ask each of the candidates the same question and they'll have one minute to reply a second time. I'll ask the same question of each candidate and they again will have one minute to reply. The candidates were given these two questions last week. Then we start with questions from the audience. We want you to be writing and sending your questions all during the program signing them down. If you came with a question in mind why please send it down to the front here. Now remember this is a star packed forum on first choice 88 and it's on war and peace issues. Other important issues will be dealt with at other forums so be sure your questions relate to foreign and military issues. And then Brant Appel down here will group the questions that are similar and hand the most concise question that seems to be representative up to the moderators table. Please do not

send forward candidates specific questions. That is one address to a particular candidate under a fairness doctrine. Why. We'll ask the same number of questions of each candidate along the same time to reply. So as questions come to the moderator they will be in random order and will be asked of candidates seated according to the luck of the draw with the order of questioning by the luck of the draw every time. That means some candidates will not be asked certain questions. Again the luck of the draw candidates will have three minutes to reply to questions from the audience. The candidates are requested to stick to the question let's ask. Now in the second round of questions from the audience the candidates are asked to answer the question and then if they have time and if they wish they may comment on another question asked to which they did not get a chance to comment. Our time keeper Kathleen wood will be in the area of the orchestra pit holding up signs so the candidate will know how much time remains and when their time is up. And while there be few judgments made by the moderator the matter of time is not a judgment call when time is up the candidate may finish his sentence and will start calling time on the first answer so it'll be the same all the way.

And I'm sure you'll welcome the candidate who may be able to explain a position clearly in less than three minutes on occasion. If a candidate is challenged on a specific issue on the judgment of a moderator the candidate challenge the given one minute to clarify his position. If he chooses to respond. If there is an objection to judges seated on front of the question table will immediately either sustain or overrule the moderator and their decision will be final. Without discussion. On the next round the candidates will question each other with the question to be 30 seconds or less and the answer three minutes or less. We'll have another round of questions from the audience with up to three minutes to respond and then we'll have a question from the audience chosen by the moderator to which each candidate will respond the same question. Then we have the final question of each candidate. I'll introduce each candidate now. And we would welcome your applause that each candidate is introduced. Once we ask the first question then we will ask that you not applaud because this is not a contest of the applause meter. And I'll remind you of that

of the very first candidate the first question. And also at the conclusion I do not plan to come up on stage to greet a candidate. They will quickly leave the stage and go to the art gallery room where the press and those attending the reception for the candidates are welcome to shake hands to take pictures and talk with the candidates. So right now please start sending your questions to the front of the auditorium. People will be coming down the aisles. And if I could remind you take time to make them easy to read if you would. Now let me introduce the candidate to my left. Drawn by a lot. Governor Michael Dukakis and let's give him a warm welcome. Thank you thank. YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. Thank

you. Thank you thank you feel good. Let me introduce Congress Richard. Thank you Senator Paul Simon. Thank you. May I present you the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Thank you. To all. Your Applause for Senator Albert. To on. The A. The first

question goes to Congress and Gephardt with one minute to respond and a reminder to the audience that there will be no applause from now until the final question. Congressman Gephardt. If you were president today what level of contra funding would you request from the Congress. Can you state what your request will be if you're elected president. Well my request would be zero. I led the fight on the floor of the house. It's a good answer maybe but clearly the judgment of everyone here. I led the fight on the floor of the house eight times in the last four or five years to cut off aid to the Contras. This administration has violated the law of the United States and now has put the Constitution of the United States through the shredder. In order that they could get aid to the Contras when the representatives of the American people didn't want that to happen. I want to follow and try to make the arias peace plan work. And besides that we've got to have a policy that recognizes the underlying problems in Central America

and they are poverty ignorance and disease. So if I get elected president if Contra aid at that time is in history it will be. Thank you. Now let me ask the same question of Sen. Simon if you were president today what level of contra funding would you request from the Congress. And can you restate what your request will be if you're elected president. Again zero but has been my consistent stand in the house in the Senate and it will be as president if our aim is to defeat Marxism in that area the world instead of sending down weapons which today are killing about 6000 Nicaraguans a year for no purpose. We ought to be sending them physicians and teachers and Peace Corps volunteers. Second what we need is a policy that's built upon caring for people. That clearly is not there. And then finally while we pay a great deal of attention to Nicaragua with 3 million people we are virtually ignoring

Mexico with 85 million people. Mexico is at least ten times as important as Nicaragua and is receiving less than one tenth as much attention if in Mexico by the year 2000. There is zero population growth Mexico will taper off at one hundred seventy five million people. That doesn't happen all the year 2020 Mexico will taper off at 270 million people. Clearly we ought to get our priorities and or Thank you senators a lot to cover in one minute. We'll ask Governor to caucus next on the same question. GOVERNOR Well I would hope it would be necessary to address the issue because I hope very much that the Congress will kill this misbegotten adventure once and for all this fall. But if we're still aiding the Contras I would recommend nothing. Not only because this is one of the worst foreign policy fiascos in the history of this country but because it is illegal. It is a violation of the Rio Treaty. It's a violation of the charter of the Organization of American States. Both of which under the Constitution of the supreme law of the land because we helped to

draft and sign and ratify those treaties. I met with Pres. Arrius in Boston on Friday morning. I think that man ought to get the Nobel Peace Prize. And I think we ought to be supporting him strongly and enthusiastically. In helping to make that peace process work. And I have to say regretfully. That while the process will not be easy. My sense increasingly. Is that the most important single obstacle to his success. Is sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue. Thank you Governor. Reverend Jackson let me repeat the question. If you were president today what level of contra funding would you request from the Congress. And can you state what your request will be if you're elected president. Thank you very much. I would cut all funding to the Contras. I would cut the Reagan doctrine that espouses the Contras. We must cut funds for the Contras in Central America. For the Contras in the form of Savimbi

in Angola. Form for the Contras in the form of the anomaly in Mozambique. We must move toward a new doctrine the Reagan doctrine has failed. I would support and propose a Jackson doctrine. We must obey and respect. International law. Second the support the Arians plan all rights of self-determination and human rights and we will not have them over the top of the challenge in the Persian Gulf. And lastly we must use the money is now being used to kill people for an international economic justice plan. The alternative to war is peace and jobs and justice. Thank you. And Governor Babbitt. I was in Nicaragua a couple of months ago and I learned. First hand by talking with Danielle Ortega with. The cardinal with the leaders of the opposition parties. But I think we all know and that is. That the Contras aren't wanted in Nicaragua. They

don't represent American values. Contrary it is really nothing but a slow motion Bay of Pigs. It's a reactive policy it doesn't represent the future of our American values. I think we need to hit in a different direction. We need to support the audios peace plan and talk about a Central American common market economic development trade settling that debt that is a millstone around the necks of those countries and understand that Mexico which has more people than all of the other countries in Central America is really in desperate need of attention trade a Central American common market. It's a marriage without any possibility of divorce but it's also an opportunity for a Marshall Plan for all Central America. Thank you Senator Gore. Will all of the others have said basically the same thing. I agree with part of it and disagree with part of it. First the basic policy is a mistake. Years ago as a member of the Intelligence Committee when the CIA began this policy I

spoke out against military aid to the Contras and I have opposed it since then. One of the lessons of Vietnam is that the outcome of a guerrilla war will depend in part on the feelings of the people who live where that war takes place and the Nicaraguan countryside is not affording much support for the Contras aid what used to be called Humanitarian aid has taken on a new light with the emergence of the area's plan which contemplates such aid and with the fast moving developments in the region. I think the case frankly is much stronger and I support it on a temporary basis. This makes a larger point which I hope that our party will emphasize in the coming year. The world is complicated and foreign policy is more complex than a litmus test. We need a president with foreign policy experience who understands that we must deal from a position of strength. Thank you. Now I want to remind you to be sending your questions down I know you want to hear the candidates but at the same time if you want your question in there's one if we could have another person or

two coming down the questions there's another one. The second question and goes first to you Senator Gore. And we'd appreciate a one minute response again. The question is if you were elected president would you suspend all U.S. nuclear weapons test upon taking office and then proceed to conclude a formal test ban treaty. Well just as President John Kennedy made our world safer by getting a treaty banning atmospheric explosions I would seek a treaty with the Soviet Union banning underground explosions as well. But before doing so I would tend down the answers to two questions that are important to our national security. First of all can we firmly verify whether or not the Soviet Union is exploding. Tests on its territory. The evidence now coming from the scientists indicate that there are ways to negotiate cooperative agreements with the Soviets to make that possible but we need the answer before the test ban rather than after. Secondly do we need continued test in order to assure

the reliability of our own nuclear devices. Again the initial evidence indicates that it may very well be possible to ensure reliability without continued tests. But we have to have those answers first on a moratorium with a fixed ending date as a step toward these negotiations makes sense. But then I favor the Kennedy Hatfield plan to reduce the number of tests and the size of each test as a step toward the longer range goal. Thank you Reverend Jackson. The same question. If you're elected president will you suspend all U.S. nuclear weapons tests upon taking office and then proceed to conclude a formal test ban treaty. I support a moratorium on nuclear weapons test. But that's not enough. I support a new vision. We must revive the vision of the free. Free these weapons and not burn the human race. Let's choose negotiation over confrontation. Let's negotiate deep cuts. In the arsenals. Probably have a chance. And then use the resources

from cutting the weapons. And threatening the human family. Use those resources to begin to invest. In the economic development of the country as we reduce their debt. And reduce our deficit and also reduce tensions. We put America back to work. And so the choice becomes that of this we raise their standard of living. Rather than lower our own and have peace and justice. For everybody. Thank you. The same question. The answer is yes. And yes I would initiate a conditional moratorium. I would seek a comprehensive test ban treaty. I go beyond to the agenda of deep missile cuts putting out Star Wars genie back in the bottle. But the real danger of nuclear war is in a different area it's in Europe. Last week General John Galvin our commander in Europe. Talked about his response in the event of hostilities in

Europe. And here's what he said. He said and I quote within a matter of days the war would go nuclear. That means that America would initiate a nuclear war. I find that a horrifying thought. That's the real danger. And it's not necessarily. I would commit myself as president. To work with our allies to build a real conventional defense in Europe that will mean we don't have to respond by initiating a nuclear war because our objective should be to make certain that there will never be any situation in any one in which anyone uses a nuclear weapon anywhere at any time. Thank you Governor. Senator Simon the same question. If on January 20 one thousand nine hundred eighty nine The Soviets are still willing to stop testing I will assure them we will stop testing. That will be a substantial step back from the arms race and just the cost of the one test is enough to take care of the municipal needs of the

Waverly Iowa for up to 11 years. We can spend our money more wisely. And let me add this is not just an election year. Interest on my part. I was a delegate. Part of the delegation to the special session disarmament United Nations in 1998. We need to take additional steps. We need to see if we can stop all testing of ballistic missiles. We need to see if we can prevent any weapons in space. We need to build the base of understanding a whole series of steps that can be taken but that first big step is a huge one. And I shall take it. I represented get parred let me rephrase the question. If you are elected President will you suspend all U.S. nuclear weapons tests upon taking office and then proceed to conclude a formal test ban treaty. In the last few years I've been talking about this issue but I've also been doing something

about it. I joined in a bill with Representative patch Roeder about three years ago to cut off the money for nuclear tests. If the Soviets agreed to verification and continued their moratorium. It's probably not well known but the Soviets had a moratorium for a little over a year that we could have accepted but we didn't. And it's interesting to note that on the day that Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and Secretary of State Shultz agreed to the IMF treaty the Soviets set off an underground test. That tests needn't have occurred if we had an initiative if we had an administration that believed in negotiations that believed in changing the attitude between our two countries and had an annual or even semi annual summits that really got down to the table and talked about what we can do to make art the relationship between our two countries more stable and more safe. That's what I want to do. If I'm elected that's what I will do.

Thank you. And Governor Dukakis I believe we have the best opportunity for meaningful arms control and arms reduction we've had in our lifetimes. Assuming that the Soviet Union would agree and I think there is every reason to believe that they would given what they did unilaterally. Many months ago. I would initiate a verifiable moratorium and I don't think there's any question that the technology exists to effectively monitor that while we began the job of drafting and signing and hopefully getting Senate ratification of a comprehensive test ban treaty. And that would set the stage for deep cuts in strategic weapons. For a missile flight test ban. And conceivably for serious negotiations on conventional weapons as well I think there are real opportunities out there opportunities which have not yet been seized by the neighboring countries. And I think at the same time that. These other steps are being taken. We should seriously undertake negotiations for the reduction of conventional forces as well and. I think the prospects for that

increasingly look better and better. Thank you. We have questions from the audience now and here to put those questions is co-host Kelly rose. Thank you. The first question goes to Governor and you have three minutes to respond and question ends. Would you be willing to cut funding for all U.S. military activities in the Persian Gulf. No I would not. I think America has a vital interest to preserve in the Persian Gulf and we have to assert that interest. The problem in the Persian Gulf. Is a little different. The president doesn't have any values any objectives any policy. And the reason is that he sees everywhere a world in which America is losing. He has a narrow kind of fearful view of the world. He thinks that every time there's a conflict that somehow it's a conspiracy against the United States of America. What he doesn't understand is that that war in the Persian Gulf. Began

13 hundred years ago with the death of the Prophet Muhammad. He's been searching for a conspiracy against the United States. First he had soldiers of fortune in Iran offering the assistance of the United States to overthrow Iraq. Then he decided that the problem was Iraq. And he offered our support to Iraq then an Iraqi missile hit the Starck and nearly sank it. The president reacted. By threatening a preemptive strike against the Iranians. Then he heard that the righties had discovered the phone number of the Kremlin and might be asking for assistance. So he rushed to put American flags on Kuwaiti ships carrying oil to Japan. In the same gulf where the American ships are flying Panamanian flags. Carrying Iranian oil to Japan. Now who's on first.

Ah. There's my time up and all. They're taking a little your time but you go ahead. I have a different view of the world. My view of the world and the basis for our foreign policy whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. There's an assumption that it's coming our way that America is winning that our values are now in the ascendancy all over the world. Look at Asia. Japan the Pacific Marxism is dead. That's not the problem. And we need a foreign policy that asserts American values that talks of democracy and economic aid and an American presence in the Gulf. That is designed. To bring an end to that war. Not to get involved not to take sides. And not to continue a policy based on fear and paranoia. Thank you. Thank you Governor. Next question goes to Senator Gore and it is what kind of plan would you implement to remove the enormous

profits in military contracting. Well first of all we need procurement reform. Profit itself is not a dirty word at all. But the size of the profits which come from a system that has no competitive bidding and that has an iron triangle of defense contractors and a Congress that has in the past been too lax and the military itself overseeing the process have been unwarranted as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I have participated in efforts within the past year to reform the procurement system in the Pentagon. I do think we need more competitive bidding. I also think we need a closer match between our objectives in the world and our policy and the equipment that we purchase to further those objectives. What the Reagan administration has done too frequently is decide first of all what the industry wants to build and then procure the weapons and the hardware and then go out and try to find an

objective that fits in with what they have then purchased out. Another problem is the so-called revolving door. And I would toughen the penalties against persons in the Pentagon who are overseeing the contracts in the defense industry leaving their job in the Pentagon one day and then going to work for the contractor that they've been overseeing. The following day a very large percentage of those who leave this particular part of the Pentagon do go into the private sector and end up working on exactly the same projects that they were overseeing procurement reform has been tried by this administration but with little real heart and put into the effort. In fact just within the past week there was a major resignation. The last person which they hired to. Go into the Pentagon and try to straighten out this mess. He said that he was not getting any support from the secretary of defense or from the other top officials in the Pentagon. So one of my first steps in

dealing with this problem would be to appoint a secretary of defense who understood what the public interest was and who understood how to go about saving the taxpayers money. I would then look very carefully at what systems we need what systems we don't need and when we continue with those that we do need to make certain that the job was done on time in a quality fashion and not with the overruns that come out of the current system. The next question goes to Governor Dukakis in the Middle East. How much time do I have. Well let me begin with the Persian Gulf and the strange and wondrous tale of an administration that doesn't know whether it's on foot or horseback. I think first coined that phrase. There's a little war that's been going on in the Persian Gulf now for seven years. Longer

than World War Two. Hundreds of thousands of human beings have been killed and maimed and crippled in that war. Where has the international community been. Where have the five permanent members of the UN Security Council been. I'll tell you where they've been every single one of them at one time or another during this past seven years. Has been supplying arms to the combatants. Along with about two or three dozen other nations that are making money on that war. Now the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council under the charter of the U.N.. Are those five nations in this world. That have a special responsibility for stopping conflict. For understanding that conflict anywhere potentially is conflict everywhere. And until a few months ago. Every single one of those nations had supplied the combatants combatants with arms we had and of course as Bruce pointed out we'd been supplying

intelligence information to the Iraqis. The Russians have supplied. I'm so paranoid of both sides. The British were supplying spare parts the Iranians the French have an airfield it does nothing all day long but run military equipment the Iraqis and the Chinese have provided the Iranians was nearly a billion dollars worth of military equipment including those missiles. Belatedly within the past few months the administration has rediscovered the Security Council or as the president called it of Venice. That committee at the U.N.. And now for the first time and I'm not blaming just. The United States and administration because each of those permanent members of the U.N. Security Council has a solemn responsibility here and now for the first time. We're beginning to see some action and I think some very hopeful signs. That those five nations are working together. Working to stop the war to get a cease fire an embargo on foreign arms sales and a U.N. peacekeeping force if necessary. But we should have been doing that six and a half years ago.

Not six and a half weeks ago. And I was so mean we can stop that conflict and I believe we can. Then conceivably the stage may be set for an internationally sponsored conference in which Israel. And Jordan and Egypt. And responsible elements of the Palestinian community will accept Resolutions 242 and 338 can sit down together. And begin to negotiate a peace in that part of the Middle East. But I don't believe that kind of a conference will be possible unless the conflict in the Persian Gulf itself is stopped. And that's a responsibility which the Security Council the United Nations has and which I hope within a matter of days or weeks it will carry out. Thank you Governor. Thank you Governor. The next question Senator Simon and it is this Would you favor removing U.S. troops from South Korea and placing them in Japan. I would not. I do believe we have to re-examine what we're doing in Western Europe. We now spend about 6.7 percent of our GNP

on defense. Our friends in Western Europe spend about 3.3 percent. Yet about 45 percent of our expenditure is for the defense of western Europe. I think we should reexamine our troop involvement. In Western Europe. In South Korea I would not favor it for the very simple reason that Kim Il sung in North Korea is not the most stable kind of a person to put it mildly. He is making bellicose sounds from time to time. No one knows what might happen. I think the withdrawal of our troops there could signal something wrong to North Korea. At the same time we ought to be working with the government of South Korea and we should have been a long time ago to move in the direction of democracy in that area. We have not stood up solidly for democracy and that has been a real mistake. Beyond that let me just add. We ought to be working with the Soviet Union

to see if we cannot have a mutual withdrawal of troops on both sides in many areas of the world. Let me give you just one quick illustration. All of the name of Jacques Hoover was out on San Francisco Bay in a small ship boat by himself. It started to sink a guy's life raft out shot up a couple of flares when boats came nearby. They didn't see him. Finally use an emergency radio transmitter that emergency transmitter picked was picked up by a Soviet satellite Soviet satellite transmitted that message to Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. Scott Air Force Base in Illinois notified the Coast Guard in San Francisco. The Coast Guard rescued Jack Hoover. If the United States and the Soviet Union can cooperate to rescue Jack Hoover in San Francisco Bay we ought to be able to cooperate to rescue civilization. And it just seems.

Thank you. It just seems to me that we ought to be working with them to both defuse the weapons build up whether it is in South Korea and North Korea whether it is in Western Europe whether it's in the Pacific or where it is I think we can build a world that is much safer than we now have by working with the Soviets more and some of these things. Thank you Senator. The next question goes to Representative Gephardt. It's a bit longer in the past. We have heard Democratic candidate can down military spending but then they've continued to increase it. Please tell us specifically how much you would cut from the current request for three hundred billion dollars in military spending. Well I think in in our bones to meet our budget needs and to have a strong defense and I am for a strong defense. We've got to freeze our I have very little growth in the next three or four years in defense spending.

It may be possible to even reduce it if we can have the kind of both conventional and nuclear arms control that I think everybody here and everybody across our country is for. We can increase American security and do it through arms control and spend less money on defense. That's obviously our goal. But you know when we take this wrap as Democrats for being weak on defense and we've taken in the last few years certainly Ronald Reagan tried to say that in 1984 I got to ask a new question. You know Ronald Reagan in 1980 said Are you better off than you were four years ago. Well I got a new question for 88 My question is are we safer than we were two trillion dollars ago. Was it strong and safe and did it make us more secure to leave the barracks in Lebanon undefended and over 200 Marines got killed. Was it safe and secure and strong for us to leave the stark undefended and

have some more sailors and military personnel killed. Was it safe and strong and wise for us to go to the ayatollah on bended knee with a Bible and a birthday cake. Was it strong and good for us. As a country when we were in Grenada that our phones that the army had didn't match up with the phones the Navy had. We couldn't call in an air strike so somebody had to take an alien TNT card and go to a phone booth. Call the Pentagon the Pentagon call the aircraft carrier and in came the airstrike. Or was it strength when our military personnel wound up in Grenada without any maps they had to go to all wrong. A mobile service station to get the maps to know where they were going. Was it strong for us to have the bug so many KGB bugs in the walls of our embassy that were trying to build in the Soviet Union that the lawless left on the ground could probably crawl away from the construction workers that were working on it.

I think it's time to indict this administration and the way they have been stewards of our tax money to make this country strong. There isn't anybody in this country that doesn't want to be strong but nobody wants to waste money. That's what we've done. And I'll say this. We Democrats ought to say we are strong on defense. We do want security in this country and we can achieve it through a combination of better more efficient spending a better run Pentagon and through arms control and a better stability between United States and the Soviet Union and in Central America and in the Mideast that really does make it secure and does make us strong. Thank you Congressman. And a final audience question of this round goes to Reverend Jackson. It is this. Do you plan to continue registration for the draft even as U.S. relations get better. I do not intend to continue. Registration for the draft. I'm

concerned that we have. A new doctrine in our foreign policy. Seven years later. We've spent more money. And we're less secure. The foundation is shaking. The real issue is not the size of the military budget. It's the value is that drive it. The reality is that the feds should be to deter a war. Defend us if we must fight. Defeat the enemy if we must fight. Or protect our vital interests. A war in Central America. Mining those who try and assassinate leaders. From the Contras. Running games in Honduras and Costa Rica. It's not in our national interest. Our policy in Southern Africa in Angola. Who were choosing an alliance with South Africa and negotiation over confrontation. Is not in our national interest. The reality is in the Middle East. We need to start

right and begin to left off. Open up the Camp David Accords. And proceed from that. To bring the relevant forces then. One cannot achieve this kind of peace through a sleeping president. One must be alert and on that case. In Western Europe the first time now in 20 years Western Europeans perhaps our strongest allies choose Mr. Gorbachev the leadership of peace. Over President Reagan. We deserve better leadership. It's time for a fundamental change in doctrine. Nice to meet you today my friends if we choose negotiation over confrontation relative to the Soviet Union. If we choose to pursue a course on the Goetia actions and agreements we can have peace. I'm excited about the prospects of signing and controlled agreement. But not too much so. Because it just deals with 2 percent. Of the nuclear weapons. It is a

short step for mankind a giant step for Ronald Reagan. We need to end all of these weapons and choose the human race over the nuclear race and give peace a chance. The mothers that we are now spending on the Reagan doctrine all be spent on a docstring of justice and peace throughout this world thank you very much. Thank you. I would encourage you if you have a question just send him down the front Do we have someone coming down the aisle who has some questions that you want to hand in there's one coming up over there. Any other questions of passing toward the center aisle. And then if someone would come down and collect them. Appreciate it. And also I just mention that it's a beautiful day in Iowa but it is a little warm on stage and so if you notice that if you are perspiring on the forehead it is warm here it's not because they feel under pressure actually they seem quite relaxed. Pull out your handkerchief if you feel so inclined. Now we come to a part that I'm sure

you'll find interesting I find challenging and that is we go to the portion of the forum where each candidate will ask a question of another candidate. Now the order of asking the question of the candidate to whom the question should be directed and those to whom it's directed were both determined by drawing last week. I'm sure that you're as interested as I am in having a president who can ask the right question instead of always having a ready answer. And you want a judge who can ask clear concise and incisive questions. Each candidate will have three minutes to reply to the question asked. And as with the questions from the audience questions by the candidates are to deal with war and peace issues. Reverend Jackson. You have the first question which goes to Governor Dukakis. That's not for Pat. We have a growing crisis in Central America and southern Africa and they have. They have a certain kinship. This

administration said in Central America you must have open free and fair elections by a certain date and a national supervised. Year so we will recognize you. And of course they have done that and they still have not been been recognized. On the other hand relative to South Africa No date has been set free elections on international supervision with the threat of Libya will remove all corporations from your country. If you are elected and won this contest. A policy approach to end apartheid in South Africa and relative to American corporations that. When I think the point you've made Jesse is is very much the point that all of us have been making there is no consistency in this administration's policy. There is no democracy in South Africa. There are no open and free elections in which all people

regardless of the color of their skin or who they are have an opportunity to participate in the political life of South Africa. And as a matter of fact as you know we now have what appears to be pretty good evidence that some representatives of the administration were talking with South Africa about the possibility of funding finally aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. As a go between for us. A shocking and unconscionable. Situation and one that I regret to say every American ought to be ashamed of. I'm an optimist. I wish I could be more optimistic than I am about South Africa. It's almost like a speeding freight train that's heading for that wall and everybody knows it's going to explode and we're all kind of sitting there watching this movie in slow motion. And I would be very very tough. On the current government and the political power structure in South Africa. I would try to do so in concert with the international community. Bringing tough economic sanctions to bear at the same time reaching out

to what appear to be important elements. In both the black and white communities of South Africa I think there's some evidence that leaders in the business community are interested in something different. There is certainly evidence that younger people. Younger white. Citizens of South Africa are interested in something different. And obviously there are leaders in the black community with whom we should be in touch and. In constant communication. But I think we've got to be a lot tougher. Than what we've been and as somebody said not too long ago maybe it's time to really boycott South Africa and engage in a constructive engagement in Nicaragua. And Central America might be a nice change in American policy. I think too that there are things we are doing in Southern Africa which seem to be bolstering and reinforcing the South African cause. I mean the South African white because we've done very little to move toward independence from the been it seems to me the United States ought to be using the full force of its influence and strength of the United Nations to do that.

We are engaged in an adventure in Angola which I don't think any of us understand the notion that somehow we have a vital interest in. Rebel forces in Angola which themselves are being supported by the South African government. It strikes me as being contradictory to all of the values and principles and goals that this country stands for. And that too is something that I do when I think we can substantially improve our relations. The future of our relations with the nations of Africa. But we are going to have to be a lot tougher than we've been on the South African power structure unless and until they understand that open and free elections and. An open a democratic society in which every single citizen of South Africa participates in something that is a model imperative for them and for the world. Thank you so that we know Congressman Gephardt to you last the next question. You know we did have several drawings under the Fairness Doctrine here and there was even a later drawing of a

drawing. And so in case you didn't get the message this is the latest order and that is Congressman Gephardt would you ask your question of Reverend Jackson and I'm sure the Reverend ready. You're right. OK. Jesse I think a lot of observers of Defense believe that in order for us to be secure we have to pursue. Both arms control and modernization of the weapons that are left after arms control as we move along simultaneously. That we cannot be in a position where we're simply approaching arms control with seriousness which we all hope we will. But at the same time we're unwilling from time to time to modernize especially the three different legs of the triad the airborne the land based in the sea based weapons. I'd like to know your opinion. Do you think that we ought to modernize as we approach arms control. And then more to modernize our approach to the world and have a different

view of how we see the real world. An awful lot on east east west relations who must already know Mr. Gorbachev is just a man now at the meeting as one eighth of the human race. Seven eights of the human race lives. North and South. It is significant that we have adequate and. Qualitative and effective weapons in the field and our real weapons are in our minds. The great breakthrough for peace and security came to leadership initiative that is to say that. And Eisenhower went to Korea. On a Nixon went to China. Calder convened Camp David. On the dot went to Israel. As a personal case if I might say I I went to Syria and brought Goodman back and then leaving with Assad. I went to Cuba and brought Americans and Cubans back home and took Castro to church for the first time in 30 years. And one cannot do that with a modern weapon want to do it with a

developed man and a will to peace. A key to peace is in fact. Presidential Initiative. Obviously part of our defense is to deter war. The other quote of course is that if we all fall. The reality is the 10 billion dollars that we've spent in Central America. Buying weapons that can be another spent on opening up markets and housing and education and health care and jobs where the stronger the threats and 700000 people living eight to 10 years later. In the case of Europe it is clear now that we have a chance to have a mutual reduction. All realize 40 years of peace in fact in Europe. The fact is that the borders have been drawn. Boundaries have been established it's now time to reduce the number of troops on both sides. To do so a number of weapons

and the key to all of this is leadership initiative. Up until two years ago with the Reagan engaged in rather bellicose rhetoric about the Soviet Union the change didn't take place and we built weapons that we did not need. But when his own opinion of him began to go down in western Europe. When the pressure from the peace movement came up here people sitting in this office began the march in this country and they shifted from talking about the Soviets going to Geneva talking with them. And then go on to Iceland. That laid the predicate and so Peace comes when we leave than to initiate change and have the courage to teach peace and not transmit Fiesta our people. Thank you Governor Dukakis. Governor Dukakis would you ask your question of Governor Bob. You've been particularly eloquent I think on the subject of Mexico. And especially its relationship to this country its relationship to Central and Latin America.

And it's important to us it's important to us as one of our leading trading partners I think they're our third biggest customer. I think they're Iowa's second biggest agricultural customer. The damage that the imposition of an oil import tax would have. If it were imposed on. The. Mexican oil and the things that we must do to help that neighbor of ours to turn around and come back and build a future for itself and its people. I wonder if you could expand on that in particular what you think the United States should do to assist them. Mike I'm going to return the compliment I thought you were particularly eloquent on South Africa. And to your explication I would add only one thing I think the United States must send a message to the government in Pretoria that we don't recognize them as the sole legitimate representative of South African government. And I would then go beyond that by extending direct diplomatically a

zone to the African National Congress to the South African Trade Union Congress and try to make a diplomatic statement that we recognize the inevitable transition that must take place the sooner the better in South Africa Mexico. I was I was in Mexico some months ago and at the end of a long day I had occasion to visit with President Della Madrid at Los Pinos in Mexico City during the course of a long discussion he turned to me at one point and he said Bruce you're aware that our standard of living has dropped 50 percent in the last five years. And he said in America you have a high standard of living. But let me ask you a question. What would happen in America in your country if your standard of living dropped 50 percent and persisted. For years on end. It was a question that didn't need an answer. Because I knew the answer and I knew what he meant. The question is. How long can that continue. And what I couldn't tell him. Is why it

is that we have an administration. That is obsessed with Nicaragua. And ignores the positive opportunities like dealing with the Mexican crisis before it's too late. This administration never sees the opportunities. It has a reactive view of the world a soldier of fortune mentality. Will send the soldiers of fortune from the oval basement to every crisis or crisis in the world. We're on the wrong side. In Nicaragua on the wrong side of history in South Africa policy in the Persian Gulf as in comprehensible. I believe in an entirely different worldview. It's one that I learned working in the barrios of Caracas as a social worker back in the 60s. One that I saw a few years later when I hitchhiked across Guatemala on my honeymoon. It had. One that I saw in Mexico during the nine years as governor of a border state that I dealt with the leaders of Mexico and Central America. The rest of the your world is your need. For American

leadership and understanding that we're winning all over the world if only will play to our strengths. What do we need in Central America. First. Debt reduction. That debt is going to sink any hopes for democracy and development in those countries. We can't leave that to the New York banks. It's a matter of national security. We must have a Marshall Plan in the form of debt reduction expanded trade agreements access to markets the return of capital flight American investment. And surely a recognition that Mexico is the most secure potential source of oil and petroleum for America. It's a marriage that can be made to work. Thank you again about it Senator Simon if you'd be ready in just a second but a reminder that if you have questions to send out I'm told that we should pass them too. That aisle though there's not much room to come through is there. But I'm told that using this aisle has a disadvantage for the cameras so if you would keep

that in mind maybe move your questions that way. Thank you Senator Simon. Your question goes to Senator Gore. Al you are by any standard one of those appearing members of Congress. You like my question so far. You're you're off to a good start and we all want to strong defense. But you have voted for our nuclear carriers B-1 bombers chemical weapons. When I have my men minin to get rid of the old racetrack missile when I was a member of the house you voted against that you voted for the M X missile six times. How do you justify your vote for the M X missile. Well first of all Paul the question itself is part of the problem that we as a party are facing. The American people have been given the impression over the last several presidential elections that the Democratic Party is against every

single weapon system that is proposed and is prepared to go into negotiations with the Soviet Union on the basis that we're going to get something for nothing. And if the Soviet Union does not go along with the negotiations then they may be able to get exactly what they want without giving up anything. Now specifically where the iMac is concerned I think you know this story fairly well. But yes I was part of a group that included Sam Nunn and others early in this administration endeavored to engage them in a dialogue about arms control. We imposed a limit on the M-x missile going from 200 down to 50. And we've kept that limit. What did they give in return. Well first of all they started up the single warhead mobile missile program which many of us in Congress had urged upon them as a means for achieving stability in the arms race. Interestingly enough the Soviet Union in a long range strategic analysis just published a few months ago responded to a question from Gorbachev

how deeply could we cut. Still maintaining deterrence on both sides and still have a stable relationship. Their response to Gorbachev in the Soviet Union was the ideal balance is 600 single warhead mobile missiles on both sides. This is an idea of the future. It has been made possible by the arrangement which was entered into at the beginning of this administration. Secondly what we got from them was an agreement to engage the Soviet Union in a new and more serious way. In talking about arms control now I know you and many others at that time said it is totally ridiculous to think that bipartisanship has any place in arms control with this administration. Aren't you a little bit surprised that this administration of all groups is now on the verge of a significant agreement in removing two whole classes of missiles from the continent of Europe. Yes they have missed the main opportunity for strategic arms

control. But even there the hope is still a little bit alive. I don't expect them to get it but I hope they will. And as a Democrat I'm going to do everything I can to increase the chances that our nation Democrats and Republicans will approach the Soviet Union with as much unity as possible while we are in the middle of critical negotiations like these. The next president will have an opportunity to build upon whatever progress is achieved during this administration. They have gone farther than anyone thought they would. They have must the main opportunity but we are better off as a nation than we would otherwise have been if they had continued for eight years with nothing but confrontation. Thank you Senator. Governor Babbitt when you asked your question of Senator Simon. You've been one of the more effective members of the United States Senate. And here comes the question. You spoke a little earlier about

the sailor in the life raft. And I often think of the unfinished environmental agenda because increasingly it's an international environmental agenda whether it's protection of the ozone layer tropical forests water quality. And my question is this isn't a time. To get those items on an international agenda right up there with arms control for the safety of the planet and specifically. How would you propose to do that with respect to acid rain. I'm glad you asked about acid rain because I happen to be from the state of Illinois which is has more coal reserves in any other state in the nation and the coal industry in Illinois is not in them or moving on the acid rain problem. One of the things people ought to be looking for in a president is someone who's willing to do what may not be politically convenient. One of the things I have stood for is moving ahead on the acid rain

problem. But I think we have to do more than simply look at the acid rain problem we are going to have to cooperate with other nations in the environmental area. I can remember being in. Little outside little town in El Salvador along the coast I saw garbage just being dumped from San Salvador right into the ocean. Unfortunately El Salvador is not alone. We need countries to cooperate but environment is more than acid rain. It's more than garbage. It's also people we have to move in a variety of ways of seeing that the people really do have a chance and we give you a very practical will stretch back some years ago. Congressman Steve Solarz of New York and I were walking along in Jakarta Indonesia in a very poor section of town and have been translated from the embassy with us about 20 or 30 children were following us. Noticing our strange

clothes and the strange language of English we were speaking. And Steve stopped all of a sudden and turned to the children and said How many of you go to school. And about half of them raised their hands. I pointed to a boy maybe 10 or 11 years old said How come you don't go to school. He said it costs a dollar and a quarter in a month. My parents don't have a dollar of course. I don't know how his future ties in with the future of my two children and generations to come. But I know somehow it does. But we have to do is to improve our environment in every way. That means stopping pollution of the air. It means stopping burying toxic substances because what gets into the water and into this into the soil eventually gets into us. But it also means improving the environment for human

beings so that there is hope and opportunity and justice everywhere on the face of the earth. Thank you Senator Gore. Well you asked your question of Representative Gephardt. Well Dick in a speech to this very group start back in another speech in Los Angeles last month and on several occasions you have gone way beyond the proposal for banning nuclear explosions and proposed the idea of a total flight test ban on all ballistic missiles. This is a new litmus test being imposed on candidates for the nomination. Paul Simon endorsed it this morning this afternoon. Mike Dukakis has endorsed it proposed it repeatedly. How are you going to maintain deterrence.