Iowa Press; John Culver

Needy I will press number a go to director producer executive producer and hara Kari by Dan our guest John Culver. Will rouse a weekly news program for Sunday October 12 this week. The issues and the politics in the race for the summit with John Calder here is Dean Borg.

Good afternoon. It was described earlier this week as a referendum on the American way of life. And while that phrase was a dramatic overstatement by Iowa Senator Roger Jepson nonetheless serves as a useful highlight for the fervor with which Chuck Grassley and John Calder are campaigning for the United States Senate. The campaign is distinguished by the clear choices it offers Iowa voters in November and by the firebrand intensity of us participants. Candidates and staffers alike were behaving as if the outcome of this election well represent more than merely the defeat of one man by another that it will instead represent a triumph of philosophy a reaffirmation of principle. That is one of the reasons that spending in this campaign is unprecedented. An estimated one point two million dollars the Calderside and 1.8 million for Grassley. The high stakes of this campaign are reflected everywhere and they're mentioned frequently on the stump where John called and his Democratic supporters

suggest to their partisan audiences that if nothing else philosophy and belief demand committed effort on his behalf we don't make that next summer we're going to get. Your friends and family we're going to have their children enjoy a future here and we can look back on their freight hysterical reaction and remember you know and we can say with bright. Sun the fate of. The men and women. The future direction of our state was to be driven back were. Actually that we failed ourselves. This isn't one. Yes I'm sure you're going to say what we have when we're on the call.

No you would not be 78. Between the ages of the dirty was my phrase U.K. government not to leave my home. All for the DVD when people participate. That's how we do our part. Rhetoric and aggressive schedule and well-placed television ads have now all combined to bring John called her from 17 points behind Chuck Grassley in mid-summer where both campaign staffs agree now that he is leading a Grassley today. Indeed today's Des Moines Register Iowa poll shows that Culver is five points ahead. He'll be questioned this week and I were pressed by John McCormick with the Harris newspaper's Norman Sadler of United Press International and David yaps and the Des Moines Register. Senator Culver during the four years that you and Dick Clark served together in the U.S. Senate you

compiled virtually identical voting records since his defeat. He has said the one of the reasons he was defeated because because. He was he had a voting record that was out of touch with the people. Maybe it was too liberal. How do you answer the charge then that if you're too liberal with it you're out of touch. Well I think first of all that my campaign and my record of service in the United States Congress for 10 years as well as six years now in the Senate. Has been very much in the mainstream of Iowa's progressive tradition. I think perhaps the best test and the best example of that is the fact that in the five times I ran and sought re-election in the United States House of Representatives. That overwhelmingly a majority of the constituents of my district increased the margin by which I was elected. And I think that is perhaps the best testimony of the fact that it is responsive to their needs. And in terms of meeting their hopes and aspirations how truly compatible with their interests how is it that he was out of

touch and and you aren't. Well first of all I think every campaign is unique. No two individuals are alike in the matter of fact that. In this campaign you have two people seeking this office both of whom have served for the past six years in the Congress. We both have records to compare and our effort in this campaign has been to urge the people of Iowa to in fact compare those records so they can make an informed judgment as to which of us has the capacity and the caliber to most effectively represent the interests of our state as well as deal with the large questions that our country is going to be confronting at home and abroad in the decade of the 1980s. And I submit by that standard we have demonstrated a record in the Congress of initiating legislation. Seen it in acted in the law and also effectively representing the needs of our constituencies before the bureaucracies of our government. So they're treated fairly as well as effectively obtaining much needed funds in

our state for vital community projects Ed. This race between yourself and Congressman Grassley has been characterized as a study in contrasts indeed both of you him with to a little bit more degree have stressed that there are fundamental philosophical differences between the two of you in your approach to government and your view of the role of government. Specifically what is that difference what is it that separates you from Congressman Grassley in. And next thing laws to deal with the basic role of government. First of all I believe very strongly that there are many things that government can't do and many things that government shouldn't try to do. And in fact in my judgment the role of government should be only in those areas where individuals can't do those things that need to be done or a community of interest can accomplish them without a positive role by the government. And in my judgment that's been my general approach to the role of government and I think in things like protecting the citizens from fraudulent drugs for example or in the areas of conservation and problems of protecting our soil our water in our air

and also guarding against monopolistic price fixing and that type of thing only government can really protect the public interest. I say Congressman Grassley does does not you you don't think Congressman Grassley believes that government should be involved in those air I think when it comes to protecting the public interest. I think we do have a different perspective on the appropriate role of government. And I think our records attest to that the extent to which our record has been very strong in these areas and is acknowledged to be by way of public interest now for example let me give you an example. Take something like our environment. I have one of the highest records for my work in conservation during the last six years in the Congress. Congressman Grassley has one of the poorest we approach this problem very differently. I supported the Safe Drinking Water Act. He opposed it. I supported the act that will control toxic substances and require that they be tested before they're marketed. He opposed that. When you look at the oil companies he voted for windfall

profits tax loopholes in the amount of twenty seven billion dollars. He voted against a law that would require the oil companies to provide the government with information with regard to their activities now as a result of the very marked differences in those two records. The oil companies have contributed over 54000 dollars today to his campaign. He is the largest recipient of chemical company contributions of any candidate running in America today. Over 60000. Well. It does it does suffer though that is a philosophical difference. What is the role of government in terms of protecting the public health the public safety and the public interest. He would apparently leave many of these decisions to the private sector. I don't believe that in doing that with all due respect that the public interest will be best served. For example I knew that you see a more aggressive role for government is that fair to say that you see more areas in which government has a legitimate interest to regular life. Pointing out I did point out some specific illustrations where I think government does

have an appropriate role to regulate and were apparently based on the record. Congressman Grassley does not feel that way regardless of the difficulties if I were polled again which he did mention shows he called Bush and the Democrats of Grassley and I appreciate it and you cited so more than one have out of every five Democrats he's not with you today. When he did his poll How do you account for that Democratic defection. You're one of the Democratic leaders not only the state of the country and how they act how do you hope to get them back. Well first of all I think what you should look at. Them is to record music. Here's a comparison between the earlier polls a summary and this present poll and as you point out some 12 percent of the Democrats are currently leaning in favor of Mr. Grassley. I think that same poll will also show what's the percentage of the number of Republicans leaning toward me. Twenty 20 percent 20 percent. So as you can see. We have maintained the strength of the Democratic vote more successfully

than Mr. Grassley has a story going to public and I would only say this. I doubt if there's ever been a ration of political history for any member of a party does much better than 90 percent of his own party's vote. So we hope that that type of thing will continue into the general election. As you know there are 500000 Democrats 500000 Republicans and about 500000 independents in our state. So I think this of course is a close election and we feel that we are going to have very intense support within our own party but we also are receiving very marked support when Independents and Republicans as well in this camp. What do you think these say these trained Democrats idees Catholic Democrats who are opposing you because I have no idea but I would I would not emphasize the fact that you've got Pro percent strain I don't think that's very many. To be honest with you I think that any polls I've ever seen that's remarkably low. And you know you're always going to have that kind of situation pertaining as I say I think relatively speaking. The number of Republican leaders that are supporting

us and frankly I might add. How do you counter that Republican support. Dad gave up on his great philosophical difference. I think there's a great tendency in Mr. Chorley to talk in terms of labels and slogan. And I think essentially they're a substitute for thought. I think what we've been able to do in the course of last few months by urging a comparison of the actual records to demonstrate the issue as to who can be most effective and what are we really talking about here and who has demonstrated not only an ability to work hard but to produce results and solid accomplishment and genuine achievement. And I think the extent to which that is demonstrated in all our previous campaigns for Congress we've received very substantial Republican support in 1974 in the Senate election we did then as well. And I think the critical thing in 1080 will be a large turnout. I think you mentioned the 1978 campaign that in my judgment the thing that was most unfortunate there was only 38 percent of all eligible

voters actually participated. And we look for a far different situation in this presidential year. Senator one of the things that you've said during this campaign is that people have to judge who has the best intellectual capability to serve in the Senate. Are you saying that Congressman Grassley is too dumb. Oh no they don't. Of course not. What does that mean. What I what I think what I've said is is who has the capacity and the caliber to most effectively represent our state based on the record and deal with the large issues based on their record. And that involves not only intelligence where I have a high regard for Mr. Grassley But with regard to judgment with regard to a proven record with regard to maturity with regard to general approach to the whole question of how to most effectively represent or say for example when we have years of example I believe very strongly that what I would needs in the decade of the 1980s take the agricultural issue. Is someone who can

bridge the differences in our society. And now we have such a small farm block muscle only 4 percent of our of our nation is farmers. Forty members of the House are from agricultural rural districts now in the United States Senate what we need if we're going to have an effective advocate for farm interests is someone who can reach out and build coalitions that will obtain support out of mutual respect for regional differences. And the problem we face now I think in the difference are represented by Mr. Grassley and myself was that his approach is best as I can understand it is to pit consumer against Farmer Labor against farmer East against West. And from my own experience in the Congress I'm very satisfied that we can get votes for I was needs because we've also demonstrated a recognition that this economy is interdependent and you can't have prosperity on the farm without having it in the factory and vice versa. And that a rising tide lifts all the boats. And I think that's the difference in terms of frankly a

parochial view about the nature of our economy as well as the nature of the most effective political representation in the United States Senate that would be an example I think it's important to evaluate and compare. I mean sure some will get more specific up there certain perceptions of your candidacy that have been. Created by what you've been saying on the campaign trail and by what people have been writing as well. And there's something that seems to me in Congress and all of that there was a release that went out from your office and it was last week that cited some comments that a certain magazine with a large following of outdoors enthusiasts had to say about you. And in part of that release it pointed out your opposition to a gun control legislation now pending in the Senate that was that. Was an attempt to woo a certain group of voters that in the past has not been viewed as being in your camp. There seems to be something inconsistent in there with some of the traditional following you've had. Well not at all and I think one of the four choosing is about the article you referred to which was in this month's edition of Outdoor Life magazine where they selected

in their judgment not mind their judgment the 10 members of the United States Congress 535 who they feel were the best friends on outdoor interests involving conservation and other things. And I was pleased that I was one of three senators selected in the Senate and the only Democrat who were Republicans. Now they cited a great number of my efforts in the area of conservation and other places where they felt this was critically important to the kind of environment that not only hunters but outdoors people of all kinds felt were beneficial. Now I think it was fortunate that this article was presented because of the missive information that has been circulated by certain interest groups as to what my true position is always been with regard to gun control. I have never supported and do not today national licensing or registering of handgun so as far as the lying going state registrar that certainly is a product of the states could look it up but I don't believe that it should be done at the federal level. Now I was a hunter as he

is and enjoyed hunting and still do and I was learned hunting a boy in the state with my father induction pheasants and I was in the Marine Corps. I was trained in marksmanship with rifles and in small small arms. Now I did support the 1968 Gun Control Law and I did do that because it put a ban on the interstate sale of guns and it also made it more difficult for minors and incompetence and felons to obtain these weapons. What I feel and I finally think I finally feel I think it's unworkable and I think it's unnecessary. And I finally have supported mandatory mandatory laws in terms of of punishment for crimes committed such as a felon with a gun. And I've also supported compensation for victims of handgun type accidents or assaults and I also have favored the Justice Department taking on that responsibility as opposed to the Treasury Department but my position has been entirely consistent

in all these areas and it's unfortunate that some groups who in fact originally supported the 68 law have misrepresented what my true position has been. So to cover tax indexing is a technique that. Would help people who see their incomes inflated. About the same amount of taxes because their buying power hasn't been inflated. Now you have a CO is that although many members of the Democratic Party have endorsed it and it has been shown as explained it would make the income tax more progressive. Why do you oppose it. Well I oppose it for several reasons. First of all I oppose indexing at the federal level because in my judgment it will come of the problem of inflation rather than combat it. What I think we've seen in other countries who have adopted inflationary indexing of their tax system. Take Brazil. Their inflation rates increased 57 percent since they did that. Take Israel triple digit inflation since

indexing. Take Canada who's moved indexing massive borrowing increase deficits. I think what happens is that businesses and corporations automatically increase prices in anticipation of greater purchasing power. Now what I would prefer as an alternative and have supported is periodic reductions in middle income and lower tax brackets which I voted for for example in 1978 and Congressman Grassley voted against it would reduce the tax burden between 10 and $50000 income levels. And in my judgment if you look at the last 20 years if you do that. 14 of the last 20 years taxes would have been higher if you had indexing than the periodic reductions that we have made and which I have supported and Congressman Grassley has voted against one last point on federal indexing. The greatest beneficiaries of federal indexing first will be those in the income groups 50 to $100000 income and secondly between 100 and

$200000. You know I understand you're saying that you'd rather have the government in the upper income tax brackets take off. The benefits of inflation rather than have a soundman a norm for you didn't listen really understand me or I didn't make myself clear when I said we have periodically reduced the tax burden to adjust to the artificiality of having them through inflation placed in higher brackets by what by specifically such as in 1978 and earlier 75 by reducing the tax burden for those in the income group 10 to 50000 there was an 18 billion dollar reduction in 78 I supported that reduction for those middle income people. And Congressman Grassley voted against it. DAVID But Senator one thing that we all do understand is that inflation has shoved us all into higher tax brackets everybody. And Congressman Grassley maintains that all this is done is unable to. Liberals like yourself to have extra federal money to spend without ever having to vote for tax

increases. What's your answer to the charge he wants to take that away from you. Well see if my answer is if that allegation isn't correct and for the reasons that I just articulated. If he was concerned about reducing the tax burden for middle and upper middle income and lower income anything from 10 to 50000 It seems to me you had an excellent opportunity in 1978 to vote for that 18 billion dollars in tax reduction he opposed it. Now what he would favor it would be an indexing which I indicated would benefit whole limo. Those in 50 to 100 and those in hundred to two hundred thousand. He's also supported the camper off across the board. One third tax cut he voted for three times in the last two years. Now his idea of tax reduction I think would be highly inequitable and very responsible in terms of the deficit that would result. And every economist that I've talked to agrees with me. Every chairman of the Council of

Economic Advisers for the last 20 years both parties says that that across the board tax cuts would be unworkable and would increase the inflation and increase the interest rate. Now what that would mean would be under his proposal would be that if you were to earn for example $200000 a year then you would get a tax reduction of about 14000. But if you were received $20000 a year in that neighborhood you'd get somewhere between one hundred fifty or a hundred eighty dollars in terms of tax relief now and there that's an equitable and I would prefer very substantial targeted reductions and I think that's the way to adjust to the inflationary consequences of the tax lation so-called to get back to the philosophical difference of the moment you're aghast and to some extent I want to go but but get back to agriculture what can you illustrate some specific differences between you and Congressman Grassley where where you're going to be about it after Hannity.

Iowa agriculture that a congressman who makes the point that he's a five hole I think one of the best examples currently of course is with regard to China trade and the issue of whether or not we should have normal trade relations with China when that issue is before the Congress. I strongly supported granting to China most favored nation status. Congressman Grassley opposed it. Now the fact of the matter is that that trade for us is enormous and very substantial This year alone. We have trade agreements with them for one point eight million tons of corn. We have something like eight hundred fifty thousand tons of soybeans and 1979 every farm family in our state receives seven hundred thirty dollars from 8 million dollars in trade with China. But is it now that trade is also going to be expanding now. And frankly most favored nation was essential to expand that trade I was there in 1977. I talked with those Chinese officials. I can assure you that

all during this earlier period we were only the supplier of last resort only when Australia or Canada could not fulfill their needs would they be forced to come to us. But it was a chance it was a economic and political precondition to normalization of trade and now we're going to see it expand. Tens of billions of dollars. In the immediate years ahead including this new agreement that is being announced in the present time and currently being negotiated is that a philosophical difference so Senator I mean really is it true that basically a farm state lawmaker the options are pretty much the same and it really that you and Congressman Grassley don't have very many philosophical differences on agricultural on on these for trade. I think this is a philosophical difference and it shows you that when push comes to shove Congressman Grassley will vote with the new right who have substantially supported his candidacy financially and it's an important philosophical difference I agree with you. And they would prefer to see us go back to recognizing Taiwan. Now if we

did that. Of course it would vitiate and make impossible the possibility not only for this expanding economic trade. Did I mention which is so critically important not only to our agriculture but to our industrial development here and job opportunities that are tied to that massive market. But it also is important philosophically in terms of what it means to U.S. security interests. Because one of the reasons it's important to thicken the ties with China is in order to create a strategic balance and equilibrium Visa V the Soviet Union Ed. And I believe also that would be very much in jeopardy if a majority the Congress were to agree with his international view as to United States general relations with the People's Republic of China speaking of security interests in the balance. You have supported the annex missile project. Some of your colleagues in the arms control movement over the years have said that that project is a boondoggle. Very briefly we're running out of time. Do you do we really need the M-x missile to enhance our national

defense right now. Well in my judgment what I've supported here is 1.5 billion dollars in research and development in order to explore all the appropriate questions and issues not only as a guard to the missile itself but the appropriate and best basing mode that's necessary. We will not have to make a decision for two or three years on deployment. And when we get to that point there are several questions we have to answer before we make a decision. One is the technical feasibility. Secondly is the environmental impact. Thirdly is the arms control issue. Fourthly is the cost effectiveness of it. And lastly the security aspects of it whether or not if we proceed with such a system that it would be subject to espionage or sabotage. Finally we have to explore whether or not a submarine approach or an airborne approach is preferable to a land approach. I do think that given the the problem of strategic vulnerability that we face in 1981 and 82 on the land leg of the triad that we should be exploring fully prior to resolving

all these questions. The importance of strengthening that leg as far as both perception and capabilities of the Soviet Union are we like to stand anywhere in the few seconds we have left. What mistakes do you feel that you made during your public career you've been criticized for a lot of things are there any votes any specific sorts of things that you've missed. Well I have voted some 6000 times and I've never cast a vote where I first didn't consider what is the consequences to the people who are one and their needs and interests. And I'm sure that if I were to go back through there with the benefit of hindsight their own variably would be some votes and I would change. I can't think of any major issues where I feel that a change would be appropriate or necessary. Our mistake I think finally Senator you know Winston Churchill said that well just your usual sort of I could if he had his life to lead over he would have played the red instead of the black money car and I probably would have done that too but I'm sure I can find some but honestly it was that we waited too long to ask that question we're out of time thank you very much Senator Culver for being our guest this week and I will press next week.

We'll be back with a look at the polls on the November ballot which would call for a state constitutional convention our guess at that time will be David Stanley and Arthur knew of our panelists today Dave yaps and Norm Sadler John the Borg. Thank you for joining us. Before Grassley.

Had threatened. I will promise a weekly news interview program for Sunday October 26 this week. The issues on the politics and the race for the Senate

with Chuck Grassley. Here is Dean board. Good afternoon. There's a zeal to the race for the Senate that almost seems religious and it's for candidates this fall are preaching their political creed as they're trying to convert followers to their causes suggesting by their rhetoric that they believe that the fight for the U.S. Senate seat now held by John Calder is more than just four votes. That is as Chuck Grassley once put it for the hearts and minds of the aisle electorate. It is with an evangelical zeal that Charles Grassley is running this campaign with the fervor of the Baptist preacher that he is the 47 year old New Hartford native is exhorting Iowans to be reborn into what he calls their conservative tradition something they can do he says by placing his voice among the 100 in the Senate. Congressman Chuck Grassley. His approach on the stump is to decry government's ills its excesses its wastes

three areas mentioned frequently by Republicans this year are really addressed with the kind of certitude that can only come from one who deeply believes in his cause. Or from one who knows that solid support from Iowa's conservatives is essential to his electoral success. Lately the old polls and some of Grassley his own staff suggest that the congressman's hold on his natural allies may be loosening hurt especially by what was perceived as a confused stand on Social Security as well as an attempt on Grassley as part early in the campaign to move his campaign rhetoric more toward the center. The conservative base has softened from what it was in the primary. Because of that in the past month Charles Grassley has retreated to the themes that seek to make the differences in this campaign as clear as night and day. Now obviously you know we're involved in a battle here a battle for minds in the sense that my opposition is

out carrying forth a philosophy that he's voted for a long time around big government more government regulation. High taxes. On balanced budgets. The deficit spending that goes with that. Wheat nation defense. And all those things and so long have brought America economically to its knees. This campaign unlike so many has nothing to do with which candidate is a nicer guy or which candidate is more wealthy or more moral in the way he leads his own life. There is a clear choice in 1980 between John Calder and Chuck Grassley two experienced members of Congress with thousands of votes under their belts. John Calder represents the same old tired programs that have gotten us where we are today. And he's back to offer us more of the same. Chuck Grassley offers Iowa. A clear alternative to the

carter Kovar policies and I have a record that proves it can be accomplished. Whether that choice will be Chuck Grassley will be decided less than two weeks from today in an election that is characterized as being now too close to call. He'll be questioned this week and I will press by John McCormick a columnist with the Harris newspapers. Norman Sandler political reporter with United Press International and David Epstein political reporter for The Des Moines Register. Congressman Grassley you said that Senator Culver is an ultra liberal too liberal to represent the state of Iowa in Washington. Yet on the basis of the same ratings that you used to label him an awful ultra liberal you might be construed as being an ultra conservative. Why aren't you too conservative to be representing Iowa in Congress just as you say Senator Corker is too liberal. I'm not too conservative because I believe in balanced budgets I believe that taxes can be too high that they stymie the economy so I'm for leveling off the taxes. I believe that the marketplace is a better regulator of the distribution of goods and services and

then the government is through extreme government regulation. And I also am for a stronger national defense than what my opponent is. And you add those things together and you can equate them with what every poll shows that people in Iowa want from their elected representatives. And I've long believed in this process of representative government and I worked hard to determine what grassroots feeling is and then represent that and what my affiliation and if. And close relationship with the people the grassroots have affirmed what I have long felt. And you check my voting record against that of my opponent you'll find out that on those issues that I'm closer to the people and that's what not being too conservative all of it is that as Senator Calder has put it an ultra conservative record that you have absolutely not because you see that's his language because he wants to paint me where I'm not legitimately can be put and the best

example of that is that I have voted with 86 percent of the Repub I have voted with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Eighty six percent of the time. And that's more than any other representative from Iowa so I think that that statistic right in and of itself puts itself right there where a majority of the elected representatives of the people one hundred sixty Republicans from all over the country. And that's where I am. That's why I'm proud to be and you can call it whatever you want to I refer to it as fiscal conservatism because people today want somebody who looks out for their dollars and Chuck Grassley is one of them. Congressman one of the arguments that Republicans used two years ago was that Iowa somehow had this too liberal of a Senate delegation. You know when we had to get rid of Dick Clark because John Colver and Dick Clark with the most liberal Senate delegation the country you've heard that that's the same rating systems that the that you're using. If you go to Congress when I was Senate delegation then become too

conservative and don't in fact we have the best of both worlds right now in the U.S. Senate with a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican. That really means that there isn't a view in the state of Ohio that doesn't get represented somewhere in Washington. Well just look at my opponent's record and I think I'll answer your question yourself Dave in this sense. He's voted 22 times increase the national debt. He's voted. He's never voted against a single spending bill to come out of the Congress in the six years he's been there. And he has never voted for a balanced budget. He's voted for the $13000 pay raise and for more government regulation. All those things. Evidence to me that that when I replace John Calder we're going to have people another senator in the United States Senate that represents what the average Iowan want and your own I will poll in The Des Moines Register affirms all those things over a long period of time and if I'm representing what is reflected in the Iowa poll as accurate as we know that is

sometimes that obviously we're there with the mainstream I am there with the mainstream and those are the things that I represent where do you differ with with Roger Jepps And why why are we just if you are elected why don't you just be. Well for another I love chips. First of all people are going to be voting for Chuck Grassley because I might be like somebody else or against somebody else they're going to vote for Chuck Grassley because I made an issue out of this campaign. What I've stood for what my political philosophy is how hard I've worked you know I've never missed a vote the first five years I was in the Congress of the United States. My opponent has missed five hundred fifty or 500 some votes since he's been in the calm in the Senate just in the last six months and I think that's what we what we really want people want representation. Johnson one of the things you can establish your color for phoning for the bailout of New York City and you. You criticized him for supporting the Panama Canal treaties normalization of relations with China. Now on those two issues in recent weeks Yeah Governor Reagan has swung around to that position close to

your column he now supports the Bayeux out of New York. He says he accepts the status quo in Panama and trying to. Where does that put you now in your criticism a call for taking a position now your own presidential candidate seems to be taking Senator Coburn's position on most of those issues is very on representative of the people of Iowa and that again is the Reagan people I was there in the past. And then those issues are such that as time has passed you know there may be some change in thinking it happens. You get there you're paid and you can get Governor Reagan on on the New York City support I'm not going to run against him. My Presidential candidate of course he sees it as he has now I've had a vote on those issues over a period of time and I think it's important that we emphasize in this campaign that that these issues that you brought

up are issues that have cost the taxpayers money. Now John Colver sees as a solution to the problems of the people of this country just the passing of more legislation to cost more money to throw more money at a solution or out of the house. And then of course that's the issue in this election because we can't continue this philosophy John that we've long had that you can just get deficit span and monetize the national debt you know we have depreciated people savings. If you had a thousand dollars saved for your retirement in January this year because of John Culver's positives it's only worth a hundred thirty at the end of the year the question is was the law and the Reagan change in philosophy. Do you now still stand by your stand even though Governor Reagan has changed his views differ with your presidential candidate then. I do not disagree in the sense that I have not changed my position no in fact it was just very recently that I wrote a letter to the

secretary of the Treasury saying that we should not give the most recent loan to New York City. But I don't I don't really know what was behind Ronald Reagan's positions and I don't pretend to know I'm running this campaign based upon the record of my opponent and what I believe. Well you know that your opponent says that you're for tax cuts and increased defense spending and more balanced budgets and that that's a jingle a stick an over simplified and how do you respond to that I mean you claim of being a big spender and he accuses you of this what's your response to that. Dave what is more simplistic. What is more simplistic than to do what this country's been doing for the last 20 years 16 years he's been in the Senate. I'm just borrowing ourselves into prosperity. That's the easy way out. You know just spam and spam and spend 22 times he's voting increase the national debt. I think that that's irresponsible but how does he finance that he borrows the money drives up interest rates so that there's nothing for the farmer and the small businessman the homeowner to morrow or else he

depreciates people's savings. And that's the simplistic approach if you want to take it if you want to make the real hard choices Dave. Those hard choices are. And Norm and John. Is are you going to pay for what you want to stand and why is government any different than Davey Epson or John McCormick. You can't win you can't live beyond your means very job beyond your means. John very long without going bankrupt right. And that's what's happened with the government that are in on employment is eight in one pants million people that Christmas so this year it will be. That's a sad commentary. We've lost our leadership in the free world because of the lack of respect that Europeans and Japanese have for our economy and we're talking about reestablish let's let's go OK let's go back to spending here though twice during the show so far you've mentioned John Culver's votes to raise the national debt. You said he has never voted against a spending bill on final passage in the Congress. Is it not the truth the federal agencies need those spending bills passed on final passage to

continue operating. And if the national debt is not raise the debt ceiling is not raise that the government does not have the money to operate at this point. You mean out of one bail out of one hundred twenty five that Senator Culver could not found something wrong with that that it was spending too much money or too little as it just sounds to me like he's not very. Discreet in the way he approaches spending that he and that anything that comes up to a final vote that he ought to approve that's not my policy so obviously let's say the notion is let's see those bills are defeated though what happens on gauging what's going on by those you don't want so immediately going to happen then the Appropriations Committee is going to go right back to work. But it's dumb of the living for those agencies. Listen if the Democrat Congress is start passing their appropriation bills when they're supposed to be passed during June July and August we wouldn't have to worry about not having them done by the time the fiscal year ends. So that's what I'm proposing under a Republican mandate. Congress we won't be taking every Friday

off. And part of the money is off January February March April as we did this year we'd be passing these appropriation bills very early. And when we defeated an appropriation bill to Nancy norm dance your question we would go back to the Appropriations Committee and you would bring out a bill that a majority vote could get for but we get it back to one of the other senators holdovers attitude you know will never happen because he just goes ahead and automatically rubber stamps yes on it. So you never get to that point to renegotiate all my songs I said I said I said you oppose any expenditure of federal funds to aid the city of New York at the same time you voted to approve loan guarantees to Chrysler Corporation. What is it about the people in New York City that they don't deserve the help from the federal government but the Chrysler Corporation does. Well New York City under the Constitution of the state of New York and the constant federal Constitution is a creature of the state of New York. And that's a problem that ought to be solved in Albany. Well but but like you I think right a problem should be they should be solved in a free market and competition and if they go under they go under and they're

and they shouldn't rely on the government. And yet you'd jump and have the government bail out if the free market was working totally That would be all right but you forget that the Democratic Congress about six years ago it established a loan guarantee for industrial corporation retirement plans and I was going to cost the taxpayers of billions of dollars a billion dollars and it was going to cost for food stamps and unemployment cop and lost revenue and all these things and it was a case of a fiscal conservative like me waiting a cost of two and three quarters billions of dollars for sure costs against all costs taxpayers will own guardian don't forget we're talking about a loan guarantee here. Congressman one of the things that that Senator Culver has criticized you for and it is that New York City folk and him refer to a statement that Berkeley Bedel made and he said that that was the most important farm vote that he cast was because and he said that because. In their view that helps bring support to I was rural interests

and and farm interests from New York and urban Congress. Why how do you answer Senator coverts charge that your positions would alienate Eastern Bloc congressmen and senators and in such a way that they wouldn't support things like the 1981 farm bill. Dave it's a fact that there's too much vote trading going on in the Congress a United States congressman have put themselves in the position of that's the only way you can get things done. That's not true because I remember not only the the bills that I've gotten through the Congress of the United States like most recently I had two victories I got through a bill for roll Development Act with Congressman Nolan another one that's in conference between the House and Senate but it will become law taking away the hundred twenty thousand one hundred twenty million dollar tax advantage that that foreigners have. It's a loophole that they have that we're closing to give equity to American citizens on that

issue. And each of those words through the House of Representatives without any vote trading. And so Senator carvers just. Seeking for a justification for his vote for New York City when it need not be done. These issues ought to rise and fall on their merits and unless that's done we're below us on a state so you'd start by ending that vote trading practice by sacrificing and alienating some well some German senator just recently I voted against a pork barrel bill this spring in the House of Representatives that had some projects and I won because they worked they didn't go through the proper authorization procedures but there were a lot of people that voted for that because if I don't vote for this bill maybe I will get my project. But that sort of trading is not very beneficial to the people of Iowa. It's not very beneficial to the cause of representative government what we've got to do is get these issues to rise and fall on their own merits. Some statements in the past about being an Iowa farmer and so you can represent Iowa farmers Well

the center Jepson represent Iowa farmers well. This point was in direct relationship to the number of senators who today are farmers for three of them retiring one up for re-election I've been saying in this campaign that there ought to be at least one farmer and hopefully two in the United States Senate. And I've said that there's been 70 lawyers there I wouldn't even want 70 farmers in the United States Senate no one profession should be overly represented. And I've been trying to make the point that that my relationship directly with agriculture gives me a better understanding the farmers and somebody else you have to be a chef to know the soup tastes bad. And do you have to be a farmer to be able to go to Washington and represent farm interests in the complex sort of economics and all that sort of thing that goes on in the show you do not. But I think that when people know that I have an understanding of their problems as I've stressed being a teacher factory worker farmer today my son's farming our farm.

My background as a state legislator. I think that my understanding of people's problems gives them more credibility and what I'm going to do and then my whole motive is to help reestablish some credibility in the whole process of government. And I think too many politicians are aloof from the people and they feel like there's no understanding. And and that does not. Increase your respect for the congressman and then hence not respect for government. We want to build that up. Congressman I want to ask you about some it's been an issue all the way throughout this campaign. Turning to a different subject here that's Equal Rights Amendment. You have declined to say whether you will vote for or against the state yet you voice sort of at least at times I've interviewed you you've indicated that it's possible that you may take a position before the end of the campaign. This is probably the largest single audience that you will have between now and Election Day. Are you going to vote for or against the state Equal Rights Amendment. My position has been well thought out.

It's one of a federal congressman feeling very sincerely that I should not dictate to any of the Iowa voters on this issue. But I'm glad that this issue has come up because it's given me an opportunity to point out that my opponent has rhetoric in Iowa but a record in Iowa and Washington that does not substantiate his equal rights posture and I pointed out how I've even gone beyond the Equal Rights Amendments sponsoring legislation that even the Equal Rights Amendment won't take care of like the migrant I we're asking we're asking about vote frankly who used to take the estate tax. All right let's lice Why is the estate tax and all that sort of thing. So my position is one that I am not going to dictate to the people of Iowa. Mine is a position of neutrality and I stand by that and I firmly believe that the people of Iowa are going to make a wise decision. John nobody is talking about dictating three weeks ago we had two Republican women on the show one for one and I asked them both specifically what they thought your

appreciation lads each one of them thanks you're very shy now which one of those women had an issue and I got on the point are you misleading you're misleading one of those well I won't because I have said. The same throughout this entire campaign and then you're along the wall. It's not very consistent that I feel that the referendum process is a check on the legislative process and that particularly federal officials but even state officials I feel are money in the constitutional process when they get involved in that referendum I don't want consolation and electing a senator you don't have any qualms about telling the people who they should elect to the Senate. I want a house in the town against you or President what you get for the difference is that we're talking about amending the Constitution it's a check on the legislative process. But this is I want to. Let me let me turn just a minute to some other issues in the Femina campaign you've been critical you have radio spots that are critical of Senator Cohen for some of his overseas travels. One of the responsibilities that a U.S. senator under the Constitution has is to advise and

consent to the foreign policy of the United States. How would you do that and not travel around the world. Well if you remember my news conference I didn't say I would never travel I've traveled to Canada in a couple instances to deal with energy problems for the upper Midwest it happens I didn't do it at government expense but I still did it I did in my capacity as a congressman and I would not want to tell the voters of Iowa that I may not travel to some foreign country but the point that I was trying to make Senator Corker traveled to 47 countries at taxpayers expense and he did it all during the first four years he was in office. I thought as a senator when I have that if that was a necessary if it's necessary to travel that much it's it ought to be just as necessary for Senator Corker to travel the last two years of his term. But he knows that he probably was doing it excess of late can communicate and staying up all of the time for a couple of the countries you listed. One of them was to say he is it turns out was a refueling stop on a trip that Senator Corker made was it fair to say that Senator Coburn has been to t he want at taxpayers expense.

It's the same way that when Chuck Grassley could've when I didn't know was it already used to he said I'm going out there as a refueling stop. Let me tell you what kind of a refueling stop that probably was the same one that when I could have gone to the Philippines through Laguna. We stopped or could've stopped over two days and why do you think it's raining now. They're saying Are you saying that it was or that it could have been that time and that on the trip that I could say it. And remember the Banking Committee. I don't know the specifics. Let's take the Geneva traffic. It wasn't Senator Corker went over I believe to observe the salt to talks. Was that appropriate Was that a vacation as well. All I'm saying is that if President or if Senator Corker found it necessary to travel his first four years in office to four different countries and as part of his essential function as a senator and I'm willing to say that in some instances it might have been and I'm willing to say that I will probably travel on an occasion if it's deals with my specific duties.

Why didn't he travel say you want to know you are opposed to where he went I mean it goes to when he went there. I made it very clear that that he should lay out his record to the point of the release and the point that I want to make in this election is that Senator Corker has traveled all these countries and I laid out in the same news conference. How many times I've been dial. I want Senator Corker to tell the people of Iowa whether he's been to foreign countries more often than he's been back guy when the six years he's been in the Senate John I think that's very key cognition possible and if you had traveled more if you'd taken a look at the starvation in Somalia for example and heard something in there in the Philippines and other places that you might get. You have a different view on foreign aid you've said that we're spending too much on foreign aid. Four point eight million which is about $20 apiece compared to 31 billion a year we spend for the record and you say that that's too much. Yeah let's now let's set the record clarifying John.

Now you're saying I've never spent any money on foreign aid but I voted for humanitarian programs like the amendment for 60 million dollars to the hungry in Cambodia. I voted for relief for the earthquake victims in Nicaragua I voted for the hurricane victims. You know to Dominican Republican and the flood victims in our title about disaster I'm talking about the underlying economic foreign aid to poor countries who need who need fluids point to get on your feet that you are opposing the point the point is that aid goes through political. Countries where it's going to be wasted like princes gets 400 million dollars worth of rice. They turn it and sell it to a foreign country for a big profit. That was Anna and a lot of that is also military aid as well it's not just humanitarian. But the point is we don't have foreign aid to give away. We're deficit spending so that means it's hypocritical for the John McCormack reason that Chuck Grassley is a vote for an engagement if in

fact we don't have the money to give it away. I know you haven't quite finished your thought I want to get to one more question here in a fleeting moment that we have. Cullen's radio in Cedar Rapids this week Rockwell called and said that they're going to move some of their manufacturing operations in fact a good share into Florida and Georgia because labor is just too expensive in the Cedar Rapids Iowa area. As a U.S. senator what can people in Cedar Rapids do. If you were to be elected a U.S. senator what could you do to help them save their jobs. First of all supported Senator Chuck Grassley who supported the Juan bomber in turn helped out. Rockwell Senator Corker voted against they are going to move the manufacturing to another place for the same contract because labor is cheaper there number one. Number two is I'm going to vote for economic programs that encourage productivity which in turn are going to promote savings which in turn are going to promote investment. There's going to be investment in jobs that we will not otherwise I am able to hide so you do have to know I talk about Flow say well that's their decision

that's a management decision. But one thing is that there's going to be incentive to work and there's going to be incentive to produce jobs with an economic program that I support because I support a tax program that's going to bring about investment. What's wrong with Senator Corker's program is that it's all you spend spend spend and there's no money left over for investment. I'm saving I'm out of time thank you very much Congressman Grassley for being our guest today and I will press. Not Charles Grassley is one of five candidates for the U.S. Senate seat and at 9:00 this Wednesday campaign 80 the race for the Senate will be looking at all of them. And next week and I will press will be back on the eve of the election with a look at a brand of politics that have played important roles in the current campaign the politics of single issue groups for a panelist today. I'm Dean board. Thank you for joining us. Good afternoon.