Iowa Press; Governor-Elect Terry Branstad

I have a press show Tam Tams recorded December 12th 82. Major funding for this program is provided by friends of IP PM. Saturday February 27. After a thoughtful consultation with my wife my law partner and friends I have decided to make my announcement today of my intention to run for governor of the state of Iowa. Tuesday November 2nd but I want you to know that we're going to do everything we can in the next four years to demonstrate that the faith and the confidence the people of Iowa demonstrated today. It's been well play. Thank you very much.

His opportunity to do that comes in just over a month when Terry Branstad becomes the state's 34 elected governor. He's come face to face with his biggest problem already a recession wracked state treasury that makes the wishes of state agency heads difficult to fulfill. It was a weekly news interview program for Sunday December 12. This week Governor elect Terry Branstad. Here is Dean Borg. Good evening. For nearly five hundred fifty thousand Iowans our guest this evening needs little introduction after all their votes propelled him to a stunning victory in the November general election

over Democrat Roxanne Conlin. But Governor elect Terry Branstad will do when he assumes office in January is what those people are interested in so too are we and that's what we'll try to find out this week and I will press the governor elect to be questioned by David yaps and with the Des Moines Register. And by John McCormack with the Harris newspapers for governor of Mike open our discussion the saving by offering you our congratulations although I'm not sure that given some of the problems you face that we shouldn't be offering our condolences. One of the problems that that you face is the fact that the voters gave you a Democratic legislature to work with. What do you think they meant by that. Well I think when you analyze the election returns in the Midwest you conclude is as I have at least that we had a Democratic trend running in the Midwest generally. I think a combination of a couple of things lower farm prices and a lot of people out of work high unemployment made people to a great degree come out and vote for Democrats. I think in the governor's race

however it was a race that was highly visible. We had four televised debates. The people of Iowa had a chance to compare the two candidates their experience and their stand on the issues. And I think they chose me to be governor because I think they felt my experience in my stand on the issues was more in tune with what the people of Iowa wanted. At the same time they chose a Democratic lieutenant governor and Democrats in a majority of their legislative districts. I think however that the message is that the people of Iowa expect both the governor and the legislature to work together to solve the very difficult economic problems that are facing this state. We hear a lot of that after every election. Why is this one different. Well I think the difference in 1900 too in as we approach this session and as I take office in January of 1993 is these are the most difficult economic times we faced in this state in the 50 years since the Depression days of the 1930s.

Unemployment is very high nationwide setting records in our state. Although we're not as bad as many other areas we do have some very severe areas of high unemployment. And of course were a farm state. Farm income has been low for the last couple of years in and we have a lot of businesses that are having a hard time making their ends meet so we have some very difficult economic times and I think sometimes the worst in times brings out the best in people. And hopefully we will be up to the challenge and we will work together to meet the economic problem that faces us all and we know that you can't solve a national recession on a state level. But I think there are some significant things a governor and legislature working together can do to try to make Iowa more attractive for jobs and economic development. Well Governor to get the first things first. How are you in that. New Democratic legislature going to keep the state going from now until January. June 30 is the end of the fiscal year with the budget

which Governor way and the old legislature have left you. We're already in September when we saw our revenue was not reaching expectations. A governor a in the present state controller Ron Mosher came out with a plan to make some adjustments in the spending in order to bring that budget into balance. We intend to enact those changes and of course we're going to continue to monitor the economy but we have had a difficult time for the last two years and we've made the adjustments we've kept I was spending within our revenue receipts and it's absolutely essential that we do the same and we are in fact going to going to do what has to be done in. And that means that we're going to have to make some minor modifications in our spending we do have a hiring freeze in place already. You think those September plans are going to hold up going to be adequate. Well so far we feel that that's the case our revenue is running only slightly above last year. The estimate is that we will have

slightly over 5 percent growth in revenue. So far it's running at 1.7. So it's going to have to improve the second half of the fiscal year beginning Jan.. You know on the first half of the calendar year the 1903 the second half of our present fiscal year has to be a little better than this fall has been. But most of the economic predictors are saying that is going to get better and there are some positive signs out there is interest rates are coming down. If they do or are you still holding out the possibility of some across the board budget cuts just in order to balance things. I think that it's very doubtful that we'll have to use an across the board cut because the legislature's going to be coming into session in January and so we can make selective changes in our spending and that makes a lot more sense and across the board. I've never ruled out any option but I think that would be much better to recommend selective changes that can be handled and then do go with across the board and with the legislature in session that's possible when

the legislature is not in session Of course that's not possible those selective changes going to include some tax increases. Well I have said consistently that I would prefer avoiding any increase in taxes I've seen and of course my home town like Mills is near the Minnesota border and I've seen what's happened in Minnesota. They thought they could bail themselves out of economic problems by merely passing higher taxes and they now have increased their sales tax. They did that in July 1991. They put a surtax on the income and now they're faced with the potential of even more tax increases now they're looking at another cent of sales tax. They're looking at a higher surtax on income tax and in the process they've also passed a unitary tax on corporations in history and jobs are leaving Minnesota in droves. So I don't think there's any way we can tax ourselves out of this recession. I think we have to be very careful with our spending and we need to make government do what individual citizens and businesses and farmers do and that is live within our means and that's what we intend to continue to do.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here today. You think that the the the revenue projections that the comptroller has made are going to hold up. At this point we feel that we can meet those projections. It depends you know one month we're above it the next Want month or the last months you've been consistently below it. For the most part you're going to have to have a pretty dramatic shift in that in that line aren't you. In order to meet those projections Well it's not really a dramatic shift to have the growth going from 1.7 percent to 5.1 percent that's not really what I'd call a dramatic shift. It means to be it has to be movement in a positive direction and revenue coming into the state treasury must continue to increase if it goes down instead of up. We've got trouble now. We had a month of October that was above projection then we had the month in November below projections how it's going to be I'm anxious to see what the figures are going to be for the month of December because that's very crucial every month we get further down the road where we don't have. Revenue at or above estimates.

We have to look at other changes. One idea that's floating around the capital and you may have heard it is the idea of an income tax or tax one shot deal. I help to make sure that the state treasury is balanced to provide you with a little one time money to take care of some things. What do you think of the idea of an income tax or tax in Iowa. Well I've seen Minnesota do that. They had a surtax of seven percent last year. Now they're looking at increasing that to 10 percent so it's not likely to be a one time thing it's likely to be permanent and I'd like to avoid that. You think you can though given what some of these budget requests that you're getting are calling for. Well we've been analyzing their requests and there are a lot of very legitimate and and important programs that departments are asking for. Many of them I think have been careful however in have been conservative in their approach and what they're asking for nevertheless. If you analyze over the last several years the governor has always recommended far below

what the departments have asked for it to bring the budget in line. And this year won't be any exception I'm going to have to adjust the low and reduce the recommendations in a number of areas it's not going to be easy. We've got to set priorities and determine how the scarce resources we have can best be utilized to meet the needs of C but I understand too what you've said during the campaign you were saying that you would employ an increase in the sales tax only as a last resort is that still what you're saying if you don't see that that need is going to be there yet even the six weeks that have passed since you've been elected. That's right. At this point I have not even completed the budget hearings. And so I maintain the idea that we would like to avoid a tax increase. I certainly don't want to see the income tax increase I don't want to see property taxes go up. If we had to look at a tax increase a sales tax would be considered as a last resort. I don't think we've reached that point. And I want to continue to monitor the revenue situation as well as set priorities in our spending to determine whether or not we would have to do that. Fair to

ask what that point is. I don't know that there's a given point. It's a balance of our revenue plus the needs of our people I don't want to see as jeopardizing the quality educational system we have in Iowa or our requests. Our need to meet the human needs of our citizens. However we do have to set priorities in all spending and that's exactly what we're going to do and I have now heard most of the departments. I've got a few more that I will be hearing from. I intend to be listening to the citizens also in their concerns because we not only have to balance the wants and desires of the Department of State government we've got to look at the citizens of Iowa and what they can afford to pay for what should I make of the fact you're not closing doors I mean you're not totally ruling out a sales tax increase not totally ruling out a surtax should we make anything of that. Well I'm I think leaving the door open for one later on.

Well I think it's important that anybody that's in an important position like Governor or chief executive in a state be flexible and be willing to adjust to changing times. I can't foresee what's going to happen no way down the future. I've got some ideas of things that I think we can do to try to make things better. But throughout the campaign I I always tried to keep the door open a little bit and say here's my philosophy. I would like the state to live within our means. And I would only look at a sales tax is an absolute last resort and I have also said that I think our income tax is one of the highest in the country I don't want that increased. I certainly feel that would be a mistake for us to pass the cost on and and increase property taxes so. So people know that's the philosophy I'm coming from now in terms of implementing it. A lot depends on what we can do it with additional economies and efficiencies in government and how we can. What kind of revenue projections we receive in the next

month. What would you say the odds are that you'll have to ask for a tax increase. I get about what you're saying here today less than 50/50. Well I'm not a better you know I never have been a betting person and I would rather say that when I do the best we can and I'm going to put together a budget that is going to reflect the kind of times we're in and set the priorities as best we can with the revenue that's available. And if we determine that we can't meet. The absolute needs of our people then we'll we'll have to look at that as your last resort but I don't think I can give you a specific point or put a percentage on it. Is there a point beyond which the state cannot keep tightening its belt. Education you want to do without forcing out a property tax increase on the local government change the cities and counties are so dependent on a certain amount of state debt assistance.

That's true. If the state merely cuts our share and the responsibility is passed on to local governments then they have not. Not much of a choice because most of their revenue does come from profit why we end that kind of center you can get you that misstates been getting cut off by the federal government. If the state continues to pass these cuts on aren't you aren't you inevitably forcing revenue increases onto the local government so you can say that you have kept your pledge against increased state taxes without you passing it on to them to the local entities. We've been trying to avoid that and I when I think we've done pretty well so far this year when the federal government cut back dramatically on some of the social programs the state came up in a very difficult year in 1992 with supplemental funding for Title 19 in Title 20 could you say that it's a goal of yours to try to do whatever is necessary to state level to prevent forcing tax increases on the cities counties. Yes I met with the Commission on the intergovernmental

relations. You will do whatever is next. Well and I I told them that my goal is to implement the concept of fair play where the state when we mandate a service or responsibility also provides the funding. And if we don't provide the funding we should not be mandating the services. And I intend to work very closely with local governments to implement that policy. In the past we've talked about it but we really have not fully implemented and it's my goal to to live by that and to keep in close communications when in fact I have made the commitment that I intend to as governor not only go out myself but bring some of the other department heads of state government and go out around the state and meet with the locally elected officials as well as the citizens to get their input and make sure that that what we're doing at the state level is in concert with with what they have responsibilities they're meeting at the local level governor minutes ago you said that you were a betting person and yet that made me think of parimutuel

betting and as a way for the state to bring a little bit more money in but that has been criticized also as a cruel way. To extract money. I know that's the person's own choice but people now. Some people are very desperate and they're willing to gamble to maybe to get in and they wind up losing the two. Is that really a good idea at this point in time. I would never recommend that somebody go out and place a bet in order to try to make money. You should never bet anything that you can't afford to lose. But the question is whether or not we should have parimutuel betting in Iowa. The fact is Iowans are betting they're going to the horse races and they're betting at various places they're going to Omaha they're going to Moline Minnesota has now. Past an authorization for a parimutuel betting there. I have been on record in support of legalizing parimutuel betting provided it's tightly

restricted and controlled by the state. See that it's run in an honest manner in that we keep organized crime out but it will bring in some revenue but it will bring in more indirect revenue than it will direct revenues. And I think that there is a possibility that you can see that passed by the legislature but for us to try to say that we're going to meet the economic problems of our state by the revenues coming in from parimutuel betting is a mistake because it will bring in some additional revenue but it will take some time. And I don't think we can say that it's going to solve all our economic problems. There's some argument by some that the state should be doing more more vigorous promoting in the selling of liquor which it has a monopoly in this state in order to increase revenue. What's your feeling about that. Well there is a lot of different viewpoints on this some say that we ought to be promoting it in the state stores. Others say the state has no business being in the liquor business. What do you want to do. Well I feel that it's time we take a serious look at

the entire a liquor set up in fact that beer and liquor control commission is asking that we go to agency stores and some of our smaller communities which would mean that the state Woods would remain in the business. But in some of the smaller and less profitable areas they would farm it out. They would have a contract with that with a local business that would would sell it. Some states have gone much further into that already and I understand that in the state of Oregon this state is a controlled state like Iowa but they're all agency stores except to what I intend to do as a point at some point sometime in the next several months. A top flite group of individual citizens. You know our state that will take a look at our whole. System State owned looker stores were we should continue in the business or whether we should go to private sales or in some kind of an intermediary where the state would be involved.

But we would be the wholesaler and the retail establishments would be licensed by the state and would be sold there. Another alternative has been offered by someone deciders would be the private sale of wine. But keep hard liquor in the liquor stores. I'm afraid if we did that we would make our present lighter stores less profitable and some but I think that is one of the options that ought to be studied but I think rather than move into this area which is this is this is a difficult area. As you know state the prohibition ended 1932 or something there about 50 years ago. No state that is in the liquor business is got now no state that one private sales has ever gone into state control so we have no no way to know how it's worked in another city may change last for you Do you think the states should be concerned with discouraging or encouraging their drinking again. Well I don't think the state ought to be encouraging the consumption of liquor. And Iowa is a relatively low consuming state. I think we

rank like 46 of the 50 state trying to maintain at least maintain that here. At St.. Well I I personally don't think the state audit encourage it. The question is should the state actively discourage it. The fact is a looker is legal and we have to determine what is the proper role for the state to be involved in. It is a social problem in many cases and in this is an area that has become a very well it's a very controversial subject in the legislature and I think rather than get involved in whether you're a wet or a dry as as a as the saying goes we ought to look at it in terms of an objective group of citizens to determine what should the state's proper role be. And I really don't know at this point what is the best role for the state to play in this. But I do think it's time that we we give this serious consideration and decide should we go on with our present system which has been changing over time or should we adopt a new system where we go to private sales or something in between.

Since I since we can't get you to come out for a tax increase on the program. I wonder I don't ask you to apply so well. DR I'd like to ask a broader question and that is as you sit here now looking at four years in the governorship What would you like to be remembered for at the end of that four years. I think that the primary thing I'd like to be remembered for is is having turned around. I was economic picture in terms of our attractiveness to industry high technology industry other types of growth industry egg related industry and I said throughout the campaign my my goal was 100 80000 jobs over the next five years. I hope that we'll be well on our way to reaching that goal and that we will have provided job opportunities for those that are presently unemployed and for those that will be entering the labor force over the next four years now. I realize some of these things are of a national and international nature in terms

of the economy. But I want to do everything I can as governor to make I was attractive as possible and to diversify our economic base and bring more jobs to the state government asked that question a little different way I tried way after the election. You publicly rejected a proposal that you get a substantial pay increase but you really felt you were entitled to it which I'm sure you could have used. Another word you're showed a willingness to make a personal sacrifice for what you believe should be there in the best interest of the state. Are you going to try now to inspire other Iowa leaders to make those kind of sacrifices in the interest of achieving this goal you talk about. I'm thinking for example that lawyers want and want a new Law Center at the University of Iowa. And there are other goodies like that everyone's looking for. And you've turned down a pay ways what they're telling other people they should turn down. Well of course our state negotiator and bargaining with the state

employees said that considering the economic times we're in. We don't feel we can offer an increase in salaries now. We were that's a very delicate negotiations that we're involved in. And as we look at the budgets that are coming before me many agencies are expressing as they're making their presentation and they're cognizant of the times we're in and they're they're coming in with a very. Conservative budget to begin with and in fact is part of the inauguration. I have asked people to help and contribute to a fund this helper program designed to help the elderly and low income people with energy relief. We are people that do have an ability to pay will contribute and see that that money goes to help others who can't afford to winterize their homes and we already have a federal program in place it's doing some we can do much more if we get citizen involvement so I'm going to ask people to contribute voluntarily I'm going to ask people to make certain

sacrifices to try to improve the lot of the people and there are a lot of people that are hurting now and I think we have to be cognizant of that and that's one reason why I thought it was important that I take a very firm stand against a pay increase for the governor at this time. I'm just trying to determine whether that signal that you're going to be a pretty hard nosed guy about these hard problems that you had at the outset we are facing. Do you see yourself being. Wanting to be pretty tough to come across as a pretty tough guy you know. So I think I want to be one compassionate with those people that are in trouble and have problems and be cognizant of their problems. But I at the same time want to ask those people that are in a position to do something maybe better and on a higher position economically that we expect them to make a sacrifice and help. In other words I want to ask people I want these bad times or bring out some of the best in people and in having grown up in a rural area where I've seen people that

had their barn burned down and neighbors came to help rebuild it and I've I've seen people that were were ill and couldn't harvest their crops and the neighbors came in and helped do that. These are the kind of things and obviously government as an institution has to be involved but we also need to get our citizens involved individually. And if there's one thing I'd like to do as governor is I would like to to try to bring out the best in the people of Iowa and ask those that are in a position. And to make a sacrifice by inspiring helping those by firing or arm twisting combination you know part of it is to set a good example. And part of it is to make a real effort to convince them of how important it is and how it's in their best interest as well as the best interests of the state. Do you see places as you look at those budgets where you know you want to make cuts because the other side of the coin here are specific agencies that you can tell if you want to reduce. Well at this point I have I haven't made any specific determinations but I've already noticed some areas that I want to to

investigate further areas where I think possibly we can combine some responsibilities or maybe we have two agencies that are both inspecting our various business for certain kind and if we can have all that inspections done by one agency we might be able to save some money. All right you don't want to raise big taxes you're not willing to lay out some real big cuts right here force today. Is it fair to say that these problems are just too big for us to solve here in Iowa. No I don't think these problems are too big for us to solve. And I also realize how can you solve them if you're not willing to do some of these dramatic things I mean infrastructure jobs high utility rates are not going to solve those with voluntary contributions at your inaugural. Well no but we can begin. We can help. There are number of things I think can be done and I'm at this point in the process of analyzing the whole budget situation and I think when we're putting our recommendations together we may recommend some dramatic things

but we're not going to recommend dramatic things until we've researched them thoroughly and feel that it's the right direction to go and you know something that I have to do on this program is to interrupt and cut people off and lot of time and I was sorry Governor we are out of time thank you very much for being our guest tonight and I will press you look forward in the next four years to having you back from time to time. Thank you. That's this week's edition for Davey Epstein and John McCormack. I'm Dean Borg thank you for joining us and good night. With. The excellent. With. The earth. I will Prouse was a public affairs production of the Iowa Public Broadcasting Network. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of IBM. Pressure number one thousand twenty Senator Gary Hart a.

Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. Our year from tonight in two thousand four hundred ninety five precincts like this a few thousand Democratic activists will help pick a so-called front runner for their party's presidential nomination. These people want that support. I will press a weekly news interview program for Sunday February 27

this week presidential politicking in Iowa with candidate Gary Hart. Here is Dean Borg. It's a wonder they don't bump into each other John Glenn Walter Mondale Alan Cranston Gary Hart. They've been in this state in the past among activist Democrats for their position for the Democratic nomination for president. No matter that the nomination is now 18 months away the candidates are starting. And that's why Colorado Senator Gary Hart this weekend. Hart's own political career has confused some of those who thought he would follow the philosophies of George McGovern in his presidential campaign in 1972. In the Senate to which he was elected in 1074 has avoided across the board liberal positions especially on economic issues. And has become known as one of the Senate's Atari Democrats for his attempts to rewrite the

so-called Democratic agenda. We live in a complex period of advancing technology and accelerating events. Government is the instrument by which we as Americans our collective problems as Americans and I include our president in this. We cannot claim to love our country and hate its government. His campaign formally began here on the steps of Colorado State House just 10 days ago. But he started running long before that beginning full time organizational efforts in Iowa last November. They are geared toward personal contact among Democrats and high visibility in Iowa's media markets and a candidate needs both of his running against five opponents. And he also needs ideas and that's what we're going to explore with Colorado Senator Gary Hart. The big question and I will press by our regular panelists David

a political reporter for The Des Moines Register and a columnist for the Harris newspapers there. One of your colleagues and competitors for the nomination Senator Cranston has said we cannot leave by our economy or save US society. I doubt we end the end credibly dangerous and shamefully expensive I'm just race. How do you differ from that statement of priorities here if indeed you do. I don't differ at all I suppose that's as good a statement of the of the cases could be made. And with very slight variation I would probably make the same argument. I suppose the difference is that I have laid out in some specific detail even before the nuclear movement began or the freeze movement began in this country a rather broad arms control agenda that goes beyond just stopping the level of production that's going on now too to include a lot of other issues.

If it is made that the main point McLean's to quote me and I want to start off with it is it has a sense of timing and he seems to be saying that we cannot. Successfully attack the economic or social problems until we first put a stop to the items that you know I could use and have that share that sense of urgency about life. I share the sense of urgency but I certainly don't think one precludes the other. And I think any incoming Democratic president in 1985 has to address first of all the arms question but simultaneously. Economic recovery and long term economic growth. And I don't think you wait for one until you've done the other. Senator let's talk about arms control in more detail for a moment. Everybody's for arms control. Now it's like motherhood and apple pie in the flight. So I'd like you to address the question of why you as opposed to some other Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Well so far they don't they. I think we have to assume the republican pres candidate for president will be the president who has the worst arms control record of any

president in my lifetime perhaps since the nuclear age began. For all practical purposes in my judgment he has no real commitment to the arms control process as we have traditionally known it. So I think we preclude him and then look at the Democrats I think most of us in the in the race for who will be in the race. Have the by and large the same commitment to. To the goal. The difference as I've indicated made a lie in in the degree of of sophistication and complexity with which we address the problem. I don't think we'll solve the problem even if today we froze over all levels of production because we still have the proliferation problem of nuclear technology. We have an increasingly serious problem of accidental or miscalculated use. We have the problem of plutonium production which is central to the production of nuclear weapons. We have proliferation of the technology to other nations that big that will join the club and we have the problem of proliferation to terrorist organizations. What would you do about those problems. Why

introduce something hold stop strategic talks on prevention that would begin with the United States and the Soviet Union. But then quickly become multilateral to address not only the question of overall levels of launchers and warheads between the two nations but would become multinational multilateral and would also quickly address the problem of preventing accidental or miscalculated use through joint monitoring facilities and a variety of other steps of that sort through negotiated agreements. The Senate right now has something to say on arms control in that it's considering the confirmation of Kenneth Edelman as the chief arms control negotiator nominated by the president. Do you expect that nomination to be confirmed. Not up if I have anything to do with it. We know who would join a filibuster. Absolutely yes and he is not qualified either in terms of commitment or in terms in my judgment of understanding of the issue. Senator what does the rejection of the Edelman nomination do to the United States bargaining position.

Very little. I was in Geneva and one of a series of trips that I've made there over the past number of years to sort of monitor how we're doing and what progress or lack there of is is being made. And that was in November. I there was very little if anything going on in the so-called strategic or start talks. There was curiously enough some some. Advances being made or attempts to break out of a deadlock in the so-called intermediate or theatre European range missiles. But our side as we found out later I think in January was systematically knocking down every Soviet initiative in this area and that that led to Mr. Ross style's dismissal. We have chaos in the in our own own arms control family here and it's largely a struggle between what I would call the the traditional hardliners and the super hawks. What kind of a message are you expecting to see and would you if you again would you hope to gain that is defeat that nomination of history. What message are you attempting to sit number one to the president and number two to the Soviets.

Will the president get serious. The Soviets that there are those in the Congress of the United States who will not continue to stand by while the administration appoints people to key negotiating positions we don't believe in the arms control process. As David said If I want to go everybody you know like motherhood and apple pie. But the Presidents position and to some extent it seems to me the Democratic candidates position is that we want to reduce our minds as soon as wage job and after that safe enough to do it. I recall in 1970 72 everyone is for getting out of Viet Nam as soon as we had one. And the candidate you were bandaging went a step beyond that and said we should we should get out of Viet Nam what. Had I do have the conditions are you ready to go a step beyond the pack here and some kind of unilateral no step toward you Saddam. No I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. I do think. Given the now an 8 1/2 year history of involvement in the Strategic Arms questions nuclear armaments and

all the rest and arms control. I'm saying that because I'm not a Johnny come lately to this issue that that opportunity exists for us to replace existing systems with less threatening less. Potentially first strike or anti hard target systems in a unilateral matter that will overall reduce the number of launchers and warheads in this in this continent but after four years you get a hardish page had it lead to soon we'd have about same size defense budget. No not at all in fact I am preparing an outline of a defense plan for the next five years that would be about one hundred and thirty or two hundred fifty billions of dollars less than the Reagan budget. Senator it's going to take some time. Most people agree before you ever get meaningful arms control in the world and what do you propose to do in the meantime to rebuild retool restructure the American economy. I would approach it on a three or four. Plane

bases first of all reemployment in the short term that rests it seems to me centrally with the rebuilding of the so-called infrastructure of this country. Labor intensive jobs that need to be done right away that will require substantial government and investment at all levels federal state and local and about which we have very little choice. Bridges are collapsing and people are dying in effect from this decay. As president right away I would seek. Expanded authority from the Congress to to contract with existing private construction firms on condition that they re employ unemployed Americans in that building process not only one year even three year basis but on the 5 10 or 15 or more year basis with some investment plan involving all levels of government. I would at the same time not sequentially but at the same time. Calling together management labor and capital. To develop a compact or agreement for the rebuilding of our automobile industry then our steel and then our textile industries among others that requires management to

reinvest capital that the federal government may have helped it accumulate in modernization of those plants and retraining of the workforce. And then third I would set in place a series of policies featuring primarily upgraded education and training in the society for stimulating the so called service sector which is providing 90 percent of the new jobs in our in our society. How much of this has to wait for Arms Control does any I mean on the way. No not at all. None of the day you mentioned something. On the stump about BP and a retraining Fund I want if you could explain a little bit about that. This is an idea put forward by many in Pat Choate who works for a company called TRW It's called an individual training account. What that would be is a an individual account for each worker who participate in the program from contributions from that individual's paycheck matched by employer contributions that would be set aside in that worker's own name. If dislocation occurred a temporary plant shutdown or retooling or transfer then that individual could tap that account for

private or public retraining or relocation or whatever was necessary to be maximum flexibility. But a pool of money available for the bridging the dislocation period. It's a segment of the economy one of the most and then out here is agriculture and all the candidates have been addressing that. And we've heard the comments about a lot of those. And. Isn't it misleading F-5 to suggest there is as everyone seems to be doing that the solution to this problem why is an expanded exports when in reality it's not that dependable for a bike. Well I certainly never in this race or any of my period of time in the Senate have indicated to farmers of my state or anywhere else that expanded exports are going to solve their problems. It seems to me that is a necessary part of a package. Of several steps that have to be taken and we can in fact expand our markets abroad through a whole lot of the more aggressive activities on the part of the

government the private market and I think you must link that with something like in the near term the president's so-called pick proposal I have supported the diversion plans or proposals in the Congress and I have also advocated acreage set asides fully funding existing. Programs of crop support and loan payment and so on. This problem of the American agriculture in the family farm particularly is not going to be solved by one simple simple single solution and that's true of almost all of our problems. How do you go about expanding world markets you in your campaign materials said we need to export more. Everybody wants to do that all countries in the world that have an excess food supply. How do you do that without starting trade wars. Well it doesn't necessarily mean I would preclude it but it doesn't necessarily mean the federal government subsidization of that is going on in European among European producers it goes on to a certain degree with our Canadian competitors the Australians Venezuelans and others who are grain

exports but that may be a necessary short term step to get an industry back on its feet. I think you have to add to that however it's a big commitment through our. Inus in extent and in effect our diplomatic outreach our embassies a much increased presence of experts trade experts agricultural experts who are prepared to help our private grain dealers in our private exploiters in in reaching into those markets both a government market through the governments but also into the private marketplace as what are you seeing that in the interim period here that we do run the risk of trade wars because for example the European Common Market gives huge subsidies to its exports. How are we expected to compete in the world market with that unless we subsidize. Well either force through the gap through the trade the existing trade mechanism a much fairer treatment and I know that get recently ruled against us that it

seems to me was as a result in part as a result of the Americans not making their case more vigorously. But if get fails they have to respond to what are what are in fact unfairnesses and disparities in practices among governments. Then it as I said indicated it may in fact require or or suggest that our government compete in that respect or a statement as part of the masts to be had and cat cats have a way of courage in their smug climate that somehow you kind of voice. Trade critically at agricultural products from other political element and for example a Pat Leahy. At the U.S. policy regarding Taiwan had its effect in this he didn't have the Chinese to buy wheat from your stated. How do you how do you get a cost to the farm and he can't expect. That kind of special treatment. Oh I don't think it's a problem. Every farmer I've talked to understands that the world market is is integrated that you don't treat some products or commodities separately from others that that there is

always going to be some trade off if you protect here you'll get retaliation over here. I think farmers understand that instinctively and I for one have never encourage them otherwise. How does that help if you given that it's labor unions in America they want some protectionism. How can you get the Democratic nomination for president by antagonizing organized labor. Well personal I don't intend to in paganism but I think failing to to agree to support everything that the AFL CIO wants doesn't necessarily mean that you're antagonizing him. I have found that working people and their representatives their officers look at our entire records and mine on labor issues over the course of the time I've been in the Congress has been extremely good particularly for my region of the country. So I don't think these are necessarily narrow one shot people they look at entire record an entire commitment on the issue of domestic content that's an issue where I just can't go on. I did about a time I ended up in a David is that a political reality at does that label you need voice. That the.

Actually I'm not he lete my noisy album at work with a lot of the label you get is that it does but is it have as much political clout as it used to. Is it really that important to you. Well I would obviously rather have it than not have it. But on the other hand when you say it would be what it used to have the choral leadership of the AFL has with itself right now is that in the past it has not endorsed until in effect the the nominee was selected what they want to do is pretty endorse and there's a lot of concern inside the the movement itself as to what effect that's going to have that it may it may not lead to very much. So I went back up to max agriculture question a moment you know people can't buy anything if they don't have any money and the world's overseas customers cannot buy the crops produced in Iowa and Colorado they don't have any money. What are your ideas for solving the international banking crisis. I've seen some figures that say there's 700 billion dollars worth of debt out there.

How do you solve it. We don't solve it by backing away from it number one and dropping our obligations. I think it's a case by case question in the in the in the case of foreign governments which is really what we're talking about I think the overwhelming amount of that debt is with government to government not a private entity to a private entity and. I think we have to look at each country and decide whether that country what its long term economic prospects are. If private lending institutions private banks have overextended themselves where particular. Industries or governments are concerned and in effect made bad loans. That seems to me to be their problem. And on the case of the Polish debt for example I was perfectly willing to to see that those loans foreclosed without government in effect go into default. That was a problem for the Soviets to handle not for us to handle. On the other hand it is not in our interest to see the government of Mexico or for that matter Brazil or perhaps Argentina collapse or go into default that will hurt not only some private lending institutions but our own.

Stability and the stability of that nation in the region and the economy of that region then will end up paying a lot more for it in regional wars. Let a Jewish nation and many people let that be that taxpayers may end up mailing out the Rockefellers and how do you address and I have that concern. Not if I have anything to do with it but that is that is a viable option that the government may have assure that you obtain not hat in Baghdad as much as a limited education doesn't have to. It may choose to but my as I've indicated I would be very disinclined to have private or have public taxpayer dollars committed to bail out some private institution who'd also an idea that seems to be floating out there. Of somehow increasing the price of oil by putting a government levy on imports of each barrel of oil. I'm not sure how that relates to the question really of the International that I have supported that concept but not for the not for the in any way to solve an international debt

problem I think we ought to tax imported oil to discourage our own consumption of it. I'm not sure how that would address up there is the point that that we have again just as I get it we have an interest in keeping the price of oil high so that Mexico for example. Now that is I know if that's a suggestion I'm against it that's that's the wrong way to go about it. Absolutely Senator. Under what circumstances would you as president. Embargo the sale of grain. Only under the most extreme situation where either our national interests were involved or where it became literally immoral for this country to be dealing with a government that was involved in genocide or outright wholesale political suppression or whatever and obviously there are gray areas and it's and it's problematic. I supported the last embargo having to do with responding to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because I think it did to a degree involve a moral issue but I also said at the

time that my support for the embargo was totally conditioned on our ability to get our allies to go along. There is a pragmatic side to this and that is an embargo is symbolically important but it doesn't do any good unless it works. And in this case it wasn't going to work unless other exporting nations went along with us played a pleasant cottage Afghanistan of the action package wages the Abbado of the Olympic boycott and the draft registration. Now we've lifted the boy God would you be in favor of lifting the draft legislation. Absolutely. And not only because I disagree with it at the time but what worries me about it is I think it is very definitely a precondition to going back to what I would call the Vietnam style draft which I am totally and all terribly opposed to I think would cause chaos in this country. I think it would cause. Terrible Reston uprising on the campuses. It was an unfair inequitable unjust draft so if you have any ideas for modernizing and improving the effectiveness of the I'm force if you believe that could be done with a volunteer

totally voluntary police. Oh sure it could predominately could it doesn't require a nix any sort of conscription to carry those reforms out which would all change this nation's policy toward Israel military aid to Israel specifically not in fundamental terms but I might on the margin as to its amount or the type of equipment being provided. But in terms of substantial redirection of that policy no senator there are many and that's enough. That's because it's in our interest not because it's in a lot of hot my cat but still we put up with it. Thank you for that patient. Obviously I don't think we have to put up with very much. We're proud nation that but that doesn't necessarily link itself to arms sales. Senator some people my point is is that you know in the case of Israel or for that matter anyone else we ought to provide military assistance if it's in this country's interest and not as some weapon or tool to be used to get Mr. Bacon or anyone else to do what we want to do.

Just to follow of McCormick's question here is do you think that we might be putting up with too much arrogance on the part of Mr. Baker right now. Well the American Jewish community as you know thinks that this administration is becoming anti Israel because it is publicly critical and for that matter individual members of Congress I have been critical of Mr. Bagan settlements policies as well as as the activities of the Israeli military in the West Lebanon West Beirut massacres and so in my case I'm not unwilling to be critical where it's called for. You have a city that had Lebanon too long. Well that's a very serious problem frankly and I am puzzled as to why the Congress has not risen up and demanded some explanation from the administration as to how long this is going on. Clearly the explanation or the indication we had when this happened was it was going to be like a right step. What I've been doing ever since I've been doing it and I'm one voice a senator a lot of people think things are getting better in the country that Reaganomics is working place in the town the stock markets going through the roof. What's your view of that.

Too early to say. I think there is my own view based on not just my own judgement but fairly well-thought-out expert judgment is that if there is any kind of recovery it's short term a cello and it's narrow and it will not last. Is the president simply re inflating the money supply. I don't know he is not doing at the Federal Reserve Board is doing whether they are doing it in any way to help him or not is very very difficult to find out. How can there be a really Konami recovery in this country with a deficit as high as they can. That's why I think it's short term and shallow. There will not be so long as we're looking at two hundred billion dollar debts making a cognate rising at President over the weekend had proposed that the control of that gas has Congress going to stop that. Depends on what the what the facts are. I'm certainly not willing to take this president or his Department of Energy's word on what the market effect would be of the regulation will hold hearings will get some outside people in who don't have a biased industry or otherwise and will try to

find that out if obviously if the effect of deregulation is to cause prices to go down then that's going to be a good thing but I don't take his word for it he said about when I go you've got a filibuster of how an able man. Senator Tsongas in Metz Ababa but now they'll filibuster that gas control lead to Imam Ali it depends on what the facts are not not automatically or on a knee jerk basis no. If you've got time to be participate in a filibuster given the amount of time you spend it turns out as you know conducting a filibuster these days doesn't require you to stay up all night debating it just means a Everyone person there all the time the Senate's in session to threaten that Senator. Some people say that the Iowa caucuses in the New Hampshire primary starts so early that you have to make statements and promises and commitments but that later on when you become president the realities change and therefore you can't keep the commitments and promises that you make and a good example that uses one about embargoes. How do you view that. Well I think the American people whether I were Colorado or anywhere else

understand that the world is not static in the end and that no set of conditions or facts ever stays the same forever. And and one of the problems we've had with governance in this country or governing this country is that. Post-Nixon post-Watergate the the leverage of a president is in the margin upon which people are willing to give that president some latitude to make decisions has narrowed down to the beery narrow place. And it's partly because of the distrust of politicians in the political process and we'll get it we're going to have to work our way out of that I hope someday we will. I said after Watergate that I hope to take this country 20 years to get over it. And that was exactly what I meant that back to a point where people say well he's doing his best and we're going to let him work this out. Now in Reagan's case I think he may have compounded the problem because he came with some very simple economics promise to move some of us knew it wasn't going to work senator and said so and and we were now living with it.

In contrast to David's question on too much time we have too little here and we're out of it. Thank you very hurt you're being with us this week and I will press that's all for this week's edition for panelist Dave yaps and John McCauley I'm dien Board thanks for being with us and good night. A. Major one for Iowa was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television.