Debate 1980, US Senator; Democrat John Culver vs. Republican Charles Grassley; Senatorial Debate: Culver-Grassley

This program is made possible in part by a grant from friends of IPB. The following program is a public affairs special with. Iowa public. Right. What. Campaign. JD the senatorial debate between Democrat John Colbert of moderator and Republican Charles Grassley of new hardware. Sponsored by the Waterloo courier. The debate was taped in its entirety earlier today at the National cattle Congress. Waterloo line. There was moderator. Stuart Hart. Welcome. I am Stuart Haas managing editor of the Waterloo courier and your moderator for this

debate. We are gathered at the site of the National cattle Congress where people from across the land are competing for top prizes at this great livestock exposition and here of the Waterloo courier is proud to sponsor this debate between two candidates for a group a great political prize to determine who will represent the people of Iowa in the United States Senate. Our participants are Senator John Culver a Democrat. From McGregor. Congressman Chuck Grassley Republican from New Hartford. We will begin with the three minute opening statement from each candidate a flip of the coin determine the order of the speakers. And Congressman Grassley will deliver the first opening statement as well as the first closing statement. We ask that there be no applause or cheering or booing from the audience in order that this debate may be as fair as we can possibly make it. No signs are permitted in the audience. Candidates are asked to observe time limits timers Mary cast Mazak and Kevin Shabir all University of Northern Iowa political science students are stationed in front of the

candidates and what hold up signs telling them when there is 30 seconds left then 15 seconds. And then when it is time to stop. If the candidate does not stop speaking at this point it will be my duty to further remind him. Let's begin. I call on Congressman Grassley for the first opening statement. Thank you Stu. The courier and IPB and deserve our things for sponsoring and covering this debate. Tonight many voters will see for the first time the real differences between Chuck Grassley and John Colver to start with. We differ dramatically in our work backgrounds as a farmer I've had to overcome the perils of hail drouth inflation and even embargoes as an assembly line worker for 10 years I attended union meetings been on strike been laid off and even stood non-climate lines because of a factory closing. I taught school at half pay when there wasn't enough money for full pay. I understand the problems of violence because I have been here on the job with them. John had none of those

experiences other than being a lawyer for a short period of time. John has not been in Iowa has not worked and I want his adult life I have. We have served in the same Congress and I can tell you that because of our backgrounds John and I differ dramatically on how we will vote. I voted to stop. Cutting Social Security benefits for retired people who must work to make ends meet. John voted to keep that unfair penalty. I have voted consistently to cut spending and to balance the budget to stop inflation. John you voted 22 times to increase the national debt. I co-sponsored legislation then Jimmy Carter's grain embargo John is one of the few Midwestern senators not to co-sponsor that bill. I fought such wasteful government spending as a $13000 congressional pay raise. John you voted for that big pay raise. You voted inflation proof your own salary with automatic cost of living raises. Then he voted against indexing your income taxes to protect you from inflation. The record shows that I voted on the side of the

majority of Iowans. And John is on the side of the New York City's and the Washington bureaucrats. But we have done more than vote. Well I've been a member of the minority party. John's been a member of the ruling party. Yet on the issues of importance to the people of Iowa I have taken initiatives and seen them become law. I have fought the bureaucracy and I have won. Senator Byrd joined me in writing the only law on the books requiring a balanced budget. My legislation force the IRS to honor investment tax credits for livestock facilities. Twenty five percent of the Urban Development action action grants now go to small cities because of my initiative nitrites which prevent botulism in meats will not be banned because I fought two government agencies over bad research. I believe John is sincere in the pursuit of his policies but his policies of big government and big spending did not work in the 60s did not work in the 70s and John we all know that go work in the 1980s either.

Senator Coleman the fundamental issue in this campaign for the United States Senate is which candidate possesses the capacity and the caliber to most effectively represent our state and deal with the great issues at home and abroad that we will face in the 1980s. Congressman Grassley and I have both served in the Congress for the past six years. I urge you to compare our records. I have a record of initiating legislation and persuading the Congress to pass it. The result has been improved combat readiness. More revenues to revitalize our railroads reduce paperwork and red tape for small business people and farmers. A new soil conservation law also greater protection for our senior citizens and a tough child pornography law. These among just a number of others. At the same time I've been successful in convincing federal agencies to deal more fairly with Iowa citizens concerns in terms

of more reasonable credit rates for our farmers and small business people. Better fuel allocations for motorists and more reasonable EPA standards for our industry as well as our agricultural interests. I've also been successful in obtaining much needed funds for bridges for flood walls and community projects in every corner of our state. I led the successful fight that stopped a 30 billion dollar B-1 bomber that was wasteful and unnecessary and we have a stronger defense because of the cruise missile carriers that I supported and introduced. Congressman Grassley I know has worked but the real test is not just good intentions. We all wish and we all work. The real test is genuine achievement and solid accomplishment. And I think he asked us to tell us specifically where he has done work for Iowa and how effectively. If you look at his voting record unfortunately he's out of step with the majority of Iowans in a number of areas. If we had voted with him in the Congress we would be curtailing our China trade not expanding it. If he had voted with him there'd be no law

to prohibit the chemical companies from polluting our rivers and streams our So security system would go broke and there would be no federal funds to help with the high cost of fuel bills and to winterize our homes and at the same time we see a situation where his votes in my judgment are sincerely held as well but they aren't reflective of the majority of our people. The tax proposals he favors would result in 100 billion dollar deficit and Bonanzas to the wealthy but little for the poor. My wife and family in mine have deep roots in this state. Our forebears farmed the soil taught in the schools and also ran small businesses. They taught us our religious values and concern for humankind. They inspired me and a desire to serve in public life. For the last 20 years in the Marine Corps and in the Congress this is what I've done. And with the cooperation and support of the people of Iowa it is something I will proudly continue to do. Now we will have questions from our panelists. They are Bob Casey political writer for the Waterloo

courier. W Dale Nelson head of the associated press staff covering the U.S. Senate in Washington. And Bill Severin columnist for the Waterloo courier. Questions will be rotated among the panelists. Each will be asked to direct a question to a candidate who will be given two minutes to respond. The other candidate also has two minutes to respond to the same question. If the panelist is not satisfied with an answer he may direct a follow up question to either candidate who has one minute to respond and the other candidate also will be given a one minute response. If the newsman does not elect ask a follow up question then moves on to the next panelist fraud case. May I call upon you for the first question to Congressman Grassley. Congressman Grassley Governor Ray has said there is a great potential for increased trade with the People's Republic of China in view of the importance of exports to Iowa farmers. Why would you have voted against granting China most favored nation trade status.

Well first of all the issue is government spending not green exports because China is already purchasing grain from the United States and they have been since one thousand seventy two. The truth of the matter is that that that seems to be John Culver's answer to every problem to spend and spend and spend and when John voted for most favored nation status for China he was holding have I would taxpayers subsidize low interest loans to China primarily for non-A recalled products. I was not willing to do that. So I voted no on that mail to prove how wrong John Colver is on the export argument. I'd like to have you look at the facts. The Soviet Union has not been granted most favored nation status and yet that. Country is our number one customer of green or at least it was our number one cunt customer until Jimmy Carter's grain embargo. The fact is simply this that the single most effective tool at our disposal when it comes to increasing grain exports is the agricultural trade act of 78 which I co-sponsored.

Now if exports is the issue here then I'd like to ask Senator Kohl over why he isn't taking a more active role in lifting Jimmy Carter's embargo. I co-sponsored legislation to do that and so is Senator Jepson and some of the senators of Oklahoma Missouri Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Montana and even Wyoming to lift it. John says he doesn't like the embargo I have a newsletter he sent out to us farmers as a farmer I receive it right here and what he says he wants to raise a grain embargo. But I don't see much being done. Even his friend Teddy Kennedy has cosigned that old mail. I'd like to know where are you on the grain embargo John. I think it's most unfortunate that Congress and Grassley voted against normalizing trade with China. In 1079 we had 2.5 billion dollars worth of trade with China. This year after normalization 4 billion and it's expected in 1905 to reach levels of 10 billion dollars in one thousand

seventy nine Iowa farmers sold soybeans and corn and other produce worth eighty eight million dollars. That comes to seven hundred thirty dollars for every farm family in our state. All a hundred twenty two thousand of them. Clearly this trade opportunities important not only in agricultural in terms of commodities but also in terms of the tractors and other agribusiness equipment that we produce in the state of such high and fine quality. That's why Governor Ray was in China. Seeking every opportunity to expand and explore those trade opportunities for the future. Now in my judgment nothing could be more contrary to the interests of our state economically or certainly in terms of farm income. It's also important that we normalize relations with China because it's critically important in the strategic balance that we have a relationship with China that helps offset the Soviet aggressive tendencies that we are unfortunately witnessing not only in areas like Afghanistan today but even threatening along the Polish border and of particular

concern at the moment. But the increased cooperation we've been experiencing with China is critically important strategically as well is of great importance to Iowa agricultural economy. And I think it's clearly an indication once again where Congressman Grassley is more interested in maintaining his credentials with the far right and the New Right who favors recognizing Taiwan and setting back all the advances and improvements that we've had. I also oppose not only this in Bargo which I think hurts the farmers but I impose the two in Bardos that were imposed by Mr. Butt's and the Nixon Ford administrations twice on soybeans. I fought those hard I'm opposed to this one. But I think it's better to be done by executive order rather than through congressional action which was defeated in the house two to one. Do you have a follow up question. Annoying next questions. Mr. Nelson to Senator Coburn Senator there have been charges recently that racism has been injected into this year's presidential campaign. Are

you disturbed by the tone of the presidential campaign. And if you are disturbed do you think that President Carter is responsible for lowering the tone or that Governor Reagan is responsible or that they have to share the responsibility. Well in my judgment it is unfortunate the level of the dialogue that we have experienced in this campaign. Unfortunately I think at the presidential level there's probably enough blame to go around. I know that there was initially some suggestions with regard to the Ku Klux Klan that came out of one of Governor Reagan statements when President Carter opened his campaign on Labor Day. And then as you suggest more recently there have been these references to suggestions of racism being near juiced in the campaign on behalf of President Carter's statement. I think it's regrettable and deplorable unfortunate. I think we have very serious issues before the country today the problems of the economy problems of energy the problems of our foreign policy. And I think that the people that are seeking the presidential nomination

have a clear obligation to pursue in-depth and fully all those questions so that the American public can make the most informed judgment. I think it's critically important that people seeking public office of any level run positive campaigns based on the records based on the issues. And in my judgment that's the only way to run a campaign that's worthy of the office that you're seeking. As well as the people that you're seeking to represent. Well Dale I think that it is unfortunate that other issues have been brought into the campaign other than the real issues of the campaign which are the economy and the big spending policies of the Carter and the Culver's. But I'm happy to say that Senator Calder likewise is saying now for the first time that he's sorry. That these ratios have been brought in the campaign because Senator Corker has been running up and down the state of Iowa. And a smokescreen telling people that you know there's this issue and there's this

issue and every issue is being discussed. But the ones that he says the presidential candidates ought to discuss the issues of his big spending policies and he is voting to increase the national debt 21 times. He has brought up the issues of the so-called new right. Making out that my or my campaign isn't supported by legitimate organizations I'd like to tell you some of the organizations supporting my campaign sportsman's groups like the National Rifle Association business groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses national groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the National Cattlemen's and the egg producers and fund PAC and various professional organizations like the realtors and the engineers and the insurance agents and workers in the state of Iowa are representing John deer's and Maytag and Collins radio all olds. But you wouldn't know it from Senator Culver's rhetoric because he for the last three months when he launched his campaign

has been zeroing in on a lot of peripheral issues that are related to this campaign very on related. And so I'm telling you Senator that you ought to practice what you preach. And if you think it's wrong for the presidential nominees to be speaking about peripheral issues and stay on the main issues and you want to do it. You. Know when you use the words regrettable deplorable and unfortunate you speaking of both President Carter's remarks and Governor Reagan's I think the extent to which there's been suggestions of racism in the campaign it is most unfortunate. I think it is true that Governor Reagan opposed the 1964 Act the Civil Rights Act and just as Congressman Grassley has opposed the Fair Housing Act. In this particular campaign. But in my judgment in neither case can one properly imply that someone favors discrimination or is really opposed to full opportunity for all our people. So I think it's equally regrettable on both sides. I might just quickly say that with regard to the new right. We have run a campaign based on

the issues doing nothing but comparing our respective records and urging the people to do that in all these areas including the economy formals. And in my judgment it's clear that examination of those records will show that Chuck Grassley is the big spender rather than John Colver in terms of actual savings achieved. And in my judgment some of his recommendations such as repealing the 16th Amendment to the Constitution for example which you have not disavowed that you support indicates the kind of irresponsible economic policies that you would be supporting. When I call over I have a minute. Yes I say again I'd like to say that Senator Corker again is now talking about the issues but in his first debate he went through a litany of extremist groups that were supposedly supporting me I'd like to raise some issues about some of the groups that are supporting John Colver. One radical organization recently sent out in their

newsletter and I quote John Carver is wonderful. Chuck Grassley may be worst since for human rights since Khomeini. Quote and listen to this the so-called Council for a little world in a recent fund raising ad on John Coltrane's behalf read and I quote heavily what you're about to read will align you unless substantially strategically directed moves are made to prevent it. Some form of nuclear war is likely to occur in the next 25 years and quote. Well there's ads like these in support of you and so I think you better sweep out your own doorstep first. BILL SAMMON You have a question for Congressman Grassley. Congressman do believe the federal bureaucracy is out of control and that various agencies frequently gold that go beyond conventional in Tampa and drafting rules and regulations. The answer to your question is yes. And the solution to the problem is

not the bill that Senator Corker just got passed. That changes no substantive law. The only way we're going to bring the bureaucracy under control is to do the things that Senator Carver doesn't want to do and he wouldn't include in a regulatory reform bill like for instance the congressional veto so that Congress will have some say over the enactment of rules written by the elected bureaucrat. And like the bill that Senator Bumpers got through the Senate that Senator Corker voted against September the 7th last year that bill would put the burden on the back of the bureaucrats to prove that they followed congressional intent. But Senator Carver doesn't like that either. Or having if you're sued by the bureaucracy and you feel like you want to fight it presently nobody fights it because they can't stand up against a big bureaucracy. So legislation that would have the government pay the successful. Legal fees in a case would be a good

way. Of bringing those on elected bureaucrats under control and most importantly most importantly sunset legislation meaningful sunset legislation not the kind of sunset legislation that Senator Culver supports that would bring. That would bring the bureaucracy to automatic review. Those four things are the things that are going to have to be done to bring the elective bureaucracy under control but right now Senator Carver is working on another major mail that's going to give the bureaucracy new controls new controls. So there is no end to where the people like John called wants to go. They want to give the bureaucracy more control to write regulations by the unelected bureaucrats because they don't want the responsibility for making those decisions and is easy to blame the bureaucracy. In that case. First of all let me say it's one thing to talk about regulations and it's another thing really to

effectively do something about them. In my judgment I have voted and supported all those efforts to deregulate trucking. Airlines railroads and now banking and financial institutions and additional steps with regard to the federal communications system. I've also been a leader. Beginning in 1977 with the introduction of the regulatory Flexibility Act which was signed into law by the president States on Friday and was heralded by Mr. M. Stewart the advocate for the small business community as the greatest and most significant piece of legislation in the history of small business to alleviate red tape and paperwork from them. Small farmers and also small towns. Chuck Grassley was so enamored with this particular proposal that he saw fit two years after I initially introduced it to go ahead and put in the same bill over in the House of Representatives. I'm glad we were able to get that legislation accomplished. Secondly applying the efforts that I have made with Ocean. We have required them to make cost effective analyses with regard to their

regulations and actually save two billion dollars in investment capital as well as one hundred sixty million dollars in operating costs under their programs. As far as regulations in the area of noise control I received a federal warrant for my work and relieving federal regulations and moving it more to state and local control. Mr Grassley speaks of the legislative veto last year the federal government proposed several 7000 rules and regulations. His proposal would require unbelievably amounts of additional bureaucrats special interests flooding the halls of the Congress and the public interest would suffer and the work of the Congress would actually disappear. His approach to regulatory reform is to vote against the Clean Water Act that keeps us from polluting those streams. He has voted against the toxic waste disposal act to keep us from having marketed on our shows those things that are really not fit for human consumption. His approach is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Mine is to take moderate and balanced changes and improve

the system. You never know. OK our next questions for my case to Senator Coburn. Senator called when the Democratic National Convention approved the platform plank proposed by Senator Kennedy for a 12 billion dollar federal jobs program. Do you support that plank and if so how can a program of that magnitude be fine. Well I do support the Democratic platform and I think it's critically important to have a meaningful job opportunity legislation. I believe in the area of economy there a dramatic contrast between the Republican platform and the Democratic platform. I. Think the Republican platform that Chuck Grassley supports the so called Kemp-Roth bill. He would favor a one third cut across the spectrum of all income taxes over the next three years the result would be that if you made $200000 a year you would get a tax cut of $14000. If you had if you only made $20000 a year you'd get a hundred and you get one hundred eighty dollars. Now I

oppose that and in my judgment it will mean a deficit of about one hundred billion dollars. It will increase the interest rate 2 percent and the inflation rate two percent. I prefer the Democratic approach which is targeted to increase productivity and to bring about greater opportunities for employment. And at the same time will give relief to middle income and low income by offsetting the social security increases that will be anticipated this January. In both 1975 and again in 1978 I voted for meaningful tax relief for middle income taxpayers in the categories 10 to $50000. Chuck Grassley voted against them. He also voted with the oil companies to give a windfall profits tax loopholes of twenty seven billion dollars to those oil companies. And I think those are some dramatic differences in the areas of taxes between the two of us. I ask him whether or not he still supports that Republican platform which Ronald Reagan himself is now moving away from. Because both camp Ross as well as the accelerated

depreciation proposals in that as well as the increase in defense spending contemplated means that it would be impossible to ever balance that federal budget in the foreseeable future. The answer to your question is No I don't support the Democrat platform. I do I do support a lot of issues that President or that Senator Colver has voted against for instance he voted against increasing the personal exemption from $750 to $1000. Now isn't that support for the little person. No it's not. He voted against exempting from old farmers and small business people of 10 employees or last and yet he's standing here saying he's a friend of small business. There's a false assumption in what you say about economics John you've been studying your economics at Harvard and that's not a very good place to study it because taxes can be lowered in increased income increased. It's happened every time since 1946 we've had a tax decrease. You're a Harvard

economist has suggested that income to the federal treasury would go down and each time income has gone up. You voted against the capital gains tax reduction in 1978 and we were told that revenue was going to go down. Revenue went up. President Kennedy was told by those Harvard economists that. His revenue was going to go down 84 billion dollars with his tax decrease. You want to happen it went up fifty six billion dollars every instance. So you see by reducing taxes we can increase income to the federal treasury. We can take people off our welfare rolls and we can talk. Put them on payrolls. But you know what's wrong with your philosophy you think you need all that more money coming into the federal treasury. You know all of that. John Culver has not voted against a single spending bill to come out of the Congress. Not a single spending bill. Now isn't that a nice record.

The national debt has gone up from three hundred twenty five billion to nine hundred twenty five billion. Since he's been in the Congress 16 years you know what that average national debt is is twenty one thousand dollars per family. Oh yes just one follow up. I did ask about a jobs program not taxes. Do you support that. Yes I am. Yes I'm for a jobs program a jobs program in the private sector a jobs program where it's going to be meaningful jobs where people are going to be paying taxes where they're going to be jobs that are people are going to be happy to have. Not the kind of jobs that Senator Corker would create where he'll run the printing press run off more money. The value of your savings are going to be devalued from a thousand dollars down to eight hundred fifty dollars if you save a thousand dollars at beginning of the year and put people on the public payroll. Now a jobs program on the public payroll is good for a short term solution to a non employment problem. But you know what happens when the Democrats who have control or control the Congress for 25

years what happens to a program they set out to take care of short term unemployment it becomes an institution that you never get rid of. And that's why we've got to put our prime emphasis on private sector employment. Jobs jobs jobs. So. But when Congressman Grassley speaks about spending let's just stop sloganeering and look at the record. I led the fight to stop the B-1 bomber that's 30 billion dollars six times you voted with me and called it a federal boondoggle. Now you advocate building it and it'll cost 60 billion dollars today. I led the fight against the Clinch River breeder reactor two point five billion. I led a fight for hospital cost containment two billion. I led a fight against the Tellico Dam. Ninety million dollars. I led a fight against wasteful spending and commissaries which was 300 million. You voted for all those programs and now you are telling us that you can increase the defense spending over and above the record requests of the

Department of Defense itself. You can cut our taxes by a third across the board. You can fight inflation and balance the budget all at the same time and I hope you will tell us how you're going to do that. Mr. Nelson you have a question for Congressman. Congressman is it true as it's been reported that you intended to endorse the state Equal Rights Amendment at the first debate and then decided not to. If that is true why did you change your mind. And in any event what is your position on the state. Well of course it isn't true. My position on the matter of record I've had an opportunity to vote on this issue and I voted to ratify. I voted for it the same number of times that John Hantz doesn't surprise me that this campaign is kind of gotten off on a lot of peripherally because John caller kind of likes to keep the. Public's notice off of his big spending habits. But you know I don't happen to believe that the people of Iowa want federal office

holders dictating to them how they should vote on state ballot referendums. And I want you to know that in equal rights. I go beyond even what the Equal Rights Amendment will do because there's a lot of things equal rights amendment won't do. And one of them is it won't take the female bias out of the estate tax laws. You know a wife's got to prove she's contributed to an estate. I think that's wrong it ought to be presumed that a woman contributes as much to an estate as I am. John I'd welcome your co-sponsorship of that bill I'm co-sponsoring a whole maker's retirement Bill do you know that homemakers don't have the same rights even with the Equal Rights Amendment that Manahan. And retirement and a woman ought to have that a homemaker ought to have that right now I'd like to know what you think about that John. I think it's important that we practice what we preach. I'd like to hear have you know that three out of the top five positions in my office I have women. Two thirds of my staff is women. I'd like to have you look at John's record according to the most recent

report of the secretary of the Senate. Your five highest paid staff members are all men John. Here's the list and what they're paid Richard. Thirty nine thousand. Peter Smith forty one thousand. Michael Naylor thirty three thousand. Charles Stevenson forty three thousand eight hundred fifty thousand. John your highest paid woman on your staff is your personal secretary. I would like to say that I favor E.R. A I favor it at the state level. I favor at the federal level. And frankly if it were available I'd favor it on the county level. In my judgment it's a matter of fundamental justice and principle and not a question of geography. When Congressman Grassley was in the state legislature he voted against even considering he Areva even bringing it up. He then voted for it when he went to Washington. He voted for it but then he voted against extending the time for its ratification. And in this campaign he won't tell us what he's for to against it. In my judgment public office holders and those seeking public office have a responsibility to the public to make their

positions clear particularly on matters of this kind. I notice Congressman Grassley you weren't at all bashful telling the federal government what to do when you were a member of the state legislature and you recommended the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The amendment that would provide for all federal income taxes. And you even urge the Congress to have a constitutional convention for that purpose. So you really have not been reluctant to cross over into other government areas where you felt it to be appropriate. I think it's appropriate to tell us where you do stand on it. As far as for women are concerned I think I have one of the strongest records in the whole Congress on all issues involving women's issues. And as far as my personal staff is concerned I think you're in err if you take out some of those congressional committee members that you make reference to. You will find that the staff of both and salary job position and role in our in office is one of the highest in the entire Congress. I might add that's also true unlike your campaign. The top people in terms of the leadership of our own

political campaign here in Iowa also have some of the top positions filled by outstanding women. But I think you owe it to us to tell us where you do stand on ERISA this matter of fundamental justice. Governor Ray hasn't been reluctant to tell us he's for center Jepson has been reluctant to tell us he's against it. And it seems to me that when you go to Washington you better take the courage to take a position on a matter of this importance before you go down there. It's awfully hard to find it on these controversial issues after you arrive. You know follow me. I do have a follow up question for Congressman Grassley the Republican candidate in the 3rd Congressional District. Cooper Evans and support has announced his endorsement of the state already. Why is it more important for you to remain neutral than for him. Well apparently I'm not getting through. And I'd like to have you watch my lips while I repeat it. I believe I believe it's wrong for federal officials

to dictate to the people of the state of Iowa how they ought to vote on a state referendum that's set out in the state constitution to accomplish that goal to be a check on the legislative process. I think that what we ought to do is go beyond. The rhetoric. Do we practice what we preach. I told you about a lot of the bills that I have entered to to bring out equal rights for women that even the Equal Rights Amendment won't do. I've said that. That's my position. It's a position that I'm very comfortable with because I believe that for too long Iowans have been dictated to by people in Washington like Senator Coleman. Well I really have nothing to add no one's really dictating anyone and I certainly respect the. Opportunity and do the duty of every voter to make an independent judgment on that. I simply wanted to express what my position is and I have been reluctant to do that. And I do

think it's incumbent on those of us in public life at any level on a magic or a matter of this major significance. I think probably the most fundamental human rights issue in the election today in the country that we should stand up and be counted. And that's all I believe and I certainly think that in no way does it constitute dictation to the people of our state No.7 your question Senator Coleman. Senator I believe the new farm bill is on the agenda of the next Congress. Can you tell us what direction this new program should take. Well first of all it seems to me that it's critically important that we take steps in a number of areas. One is that it's essential that we got of adequate farm income. Nothing's more critical important. So we have to adjust the price target support and loan rates to be far more compatible with production cost at the present time. And they are not at that level currently. We also have to take steps to expand export opportunities. That's why I've opposed Congressman Grassley as opposition to the China vote which really curtails that

opportunity and why I have supported the establishment of a CCC fund of 5 billion dollars to increase the export opportunities. We also have to take steps in soil conservation through voluntary incentives. And I'm very proud of the landmark legislation that we've been able to get through with some exciting pilot projects here that represent the most important breakthrough in soil conservation in this country in 40 years. I too believe we have to make some adjustments in the estate tax. We have to take steps there in order to raise the exemption. From the current level of 250000 to 500000. And we also have to have a change in that tax law in my judgment that will make it possible for a farm wife to receive the farm from her husband without paying any taxes at all. But what's really critically important here is to have a representative from Iowa who's able to reach out and build coalitions that will in fact get the necessary support needed to get this legislation passed. At the present time we are down to 4 percent farmers in

this country. We have only 40 congressmen in the House of Representatives. I was the first congressman in the country to start a program over 15 years ago to bring Eastern congressmen out to live on our farms. We had Mayor Koch of New York out there to live on our farms and Mayor green of Philadelphia. And I'm able now to go and build bridges and get support for Iowa programs and agricultural needs from these big urban congressional districts and constituencies. Congressman Grassley is approach is to pit the consumer against the Farmer Labor Against the farmer and also the East against the West and I don't think that's the way to get the job done in the future. Well obvious obviously to help the farm program you've got to go beyond just the farm bill. That means addressing the problems of inflation the problems of the state tax lifting the embargo and doing away with a cheap food policy of this administration. I'm glad to hear that Senator Corker says that he is for. Changing the estate tax he's flip flopped on this. On March the 21st 75 you

voted against a bill changing the estate tax and then on August the 5th 76 he voted for a bill change in the estate tax and then when we want to do away with a carry over basis this year he won there didn't cast a vote. But to solve this problem of inflation you've got to do things other than what Senator carvers willing to do it won't tell you save 30 billion dollars on the B-1 bomber. But he doesn't tell you that it cost nine between nine and 20 billions of dollars to update the 30 year old B-52 that he wants to fulfill the mission of the B-1 bomber. He tell you save your tax money. When he says stop the Tellico Dam costing 90 billion dollars but he didn't tell you that he took that 90 may be a million plus. Forty five more million to build the Hart Senate Office Building and then his K campaign literature is saying that he voted against a Senate office building. So inflation. Is the thing that's hurting the farmer Morny thing else. Farm income today in

1980s 9 and 7 billion. You've got to go back to 1934 when it was 9 into a billion. That's what the Carter call for farm programs are doing to Iowa farmers. My son is farming our farm. We want to keep it going we've got to change the estate tax to do that we have to lift the embargo to do it. Most importantly we have to get those cheap food advocates out of the Department of Agriculture who are more concerned about the consumer. We've got to get rid of a Secretary of Agriculture who prides himself in speaking for the consumer and the carol talker Foreman's who want to reduce the price of hogs by $10 because of their nitrate ban. We've got to get rid of people like that senator Culver and that only come with a new administration. And I'll be the second farmer in the United States Senate. That was evident. Of dollars in case your question for Congressman Grassley Congressman. How can we spend more for defense cut taxes and still have a constitutionally

mandated balanced budget. Well I address this point just a little bit. When I spoke to a point that was raised with Senator Culver I first of all there's a false assumption in your question that if you lower the rates of taxation you're going to lower the income to the federal government and then the other false assumption is that you can't cut government spending and I'm not talking just about domestic spending. There's considerable waste in the defense budget as well. I believe we can cut taxes. And balance the budget and shore up our defenses not only. Can we but we must. And that's fundamental economics. I spoke to how the 63 tax decrease of President Kennedy was supposed to reduce income by 84 billions of dollars and income actually came in. Fifty six billion dollars more the same way with a capital gains tax reduction of 78 that Senator Culver voted against. Because it wouldn't give you enough money to spend he

thought. But if you voted for it it would have brought in a lot more money for him to span. So these are the issues you you reduce taxes to encourage people to work because there's no incentive to work when taxes are high taxes take 44 percent out of the average. Taxpayers pocket 44 cents. Now Senator Culver says. That. Reducing taxes is inflationary. If you increase taxes or you want lower inflation you say. And if 44 percent is too high for the average American to pay. Let me ask you Senator Culver How high do taxes have to be before they're high enough to satisfy you when your big spending happens. Well first of all let me say with regard to the spending issue. Congressman Grassley has said that we can cut our taxes by one third across the board. That's the Kemp Ross proposal. He's voted for it twice. Across the board cuts would mean that if you

made $200000 you would have to pay you get a tax reduction of 14000 if you made 20000 you get a tax reduction of one hundred eighty dollars. I asked the Congressional Budget Office to do a projection. On what the cost implications of Kemp-Roth were as well as the accelerated depreciation tax cuts that you favor. And in addition to the hundred million dollars that you were advocating over and above the spend on military spending for the next five years than the record requests of the Department of Defense and their five year plan. They say that will total eight hundred and twenty billion dollars lost to the taxpayers and lost to the federal treasury. I think it's instructive to note that Ronald Reagan himself has moved away from camp Ross. He doesn't feel it's feasible. His own advisors have said it's totally unrealistic. It can't be done and you can't balance the budget. And as a result they are moving away from that but not Chuck Grassley. He's voted for it twice. And as a result in my judgment it's totally unworkable and it would

put us into an absolute chaotic condition as far as balanced budgets are concerned we had an opportunity to vote for a balanced budget just last spring. I voted for that con current budget resolution. I noticed you voted against it. With regard to carry over basis. You are very much aware I'm a co-sponsor of that legislation the day that it was voted on in the Senate I think you unfortunately are also aware I entered the hospital in Bethesda in Washington D.C.. I certainly didn't favor every estate tax exemption because one of your original proposals would not benefit the farmers it would benefit those of non farm trusts. And about over 95 percent of the benefits would go to them at a cost of about 3.5 billion dollars. And certainly it seems to me when we come to those issues we should look at them carefully to make sure they benefit the farmers that are intended and not non farm interests. Give me a final question monkey in your response Congressman you mention cutting spending. Can you give us a few examples of specifics you would

cut. Yes I have here at my desk a listing of one hundred seven programs collectively all studies done by the General Accounting Office. That would reduce expenditures by 34 billions of dollars that's in the category of fraud waste and mismanagement. I had an opportunity to propose one of those amendments on May the 3rd 79 to cut out money for overtime pay for federal employees where it was suggested was always too much travel by federal employees too much filmmaking by the federal government and to reduce federal employment by 1 percent. I voted for that and carried by a wide margin in the house that amendment I offered there. Senator Hatch offered the same amendment the Senate and lost by one vote. Senator Culver voted against the Hatch amendment he must like that waste. If he wants to follow the budget office on their suggestions of what to do with tax bills. I would suggest that you follow the General Accounting Office. Their studies are an older agency they have more of a handle on

it. And then we will get to the bottom of too much spending here. While no one of course runs on a ticket to being for fraud or waste or abuse. Legislation legislation must focus on problems meat axe indiscriminate budget cuts to curb abuse are clearly not responsible policy. Let's look at the record. I supported legislation to tighten food stamp eligibility and crackdown on program fraud and abuse. I voted to eliminate fraud ridden purchase requirements from that program that kept a very poor many rural elderly from being in that program. Congressman Grassley voted against that reform. I supported Well Congressman Grassley was the only I want to oppose the 1978 seed amendments which directed the labor secretary to eliminate the abuse in that program. I supported Well Congressman Grassley opposed legislation penalize the Medicare and Medicaid laboratories that were engaged in bribes and fraudulent claims. He opposed that. Congressman

Grassley was also the only island in the House to vote against the 1070 bill to improve the administration of the Aid to Dependent Children program and eliminate fraud and abuse and that every opportunity particularly you had in special cases to vote against fraud abuse you in fact haven't done it. Then I send you and me a question for Senator Corker. Senator I'd like to get back to this to a billion dollar jobs program you say that you endorse the other that you support the Democratic platform. But on that particular point President Carter has said that he was sympathetic to the objectives he does not endorse the specifics. And so my question is do you agree with President Carter about that or do you endorse the Kennedy 12 billion dollar jobs program and would you try to enact it into law. Well I think that what you recall Mr. Nelson on the occasion of the convention was really an accommodation and a resolution of some differences.

There was given both the Carter camp as well as the candidate camp on that particular proposal. So what I think you realize that we have now is a consensus program for both the cadi and the Carter people are now in support of it. And in my judgment it will see enactment of some kind. In this next Congress Congressman Grassley has said on two occasions that we can't be too concerned about unemployment. We have 80000 Iowans in this state now currently unemployed. If we expanded that opportunities to go to China. We would have markets for our tractors and opportunities but some of these people back to work. He's been indifferent to that. He said that a Minimum Wage Law of Three dollars and five cents is too much. If Carson Kressley had his way as far as the economy of our state is concerned workers would have to make do with ninety two dollars a week in terms of a minimum wage he is opposed that. He's opposed every effort we've had to bring about greater opportunities for unemployment. And he's voted 15 times against the Sida

program. Which has very valuable programs at living history farms here in our state in terms of whether izing the winner ization of elderly poor homes another program he voted against. This takes workers off the dole at a savings of about 6000 each time we have one foot in those seated programs and at the present time we now have 25 percent of that see the program earmarked to take people off of welfare and put them on into makework good programs that will give them pride and satisfaction in constructive work. CONGRESSMAN Well I'm I'm satisfied that the solutions that Senator Culver and the Democrats. Proposed to the economy are long only going to exacerbate the problem. They're only going to do that because the only way you're going to finance those programs is to continue to run that printing press at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on the corner of 14th and Independence in Washington keep running off those dollars

devalued people savings and then create those jobs now. I have never seen in my life a more simplistic solution to our unemployment and economic problems. You know the really tough problems are if you if you really try to expand this economy make the economy work. I don't know how the Senator Carper ever thought this country got to its 250 year because only the last 15 years we've adopted this policy that you can borrow yourself into prosperity or to devalue the dollar to create the money. His big spending programs fit right into that. And his job program or might be all right very short term. But they've been institutionalized. See that was only supposed to be a program to get us through a short recession. And where we are now is practically into a depression. You know if I'm on employed it's a depression. If Senator covers

a recession I suppose if Senator Culver becomes our employed we're going to have a recovery. You have a follow up question. Mr. Nelson. No I think not. OK we're going to have to limit our responses to 30 seconds but we will have one time for one more question from Bill Sammon. I do feel that school busing and fruit of it is a proper answer to the school integration problem. It has not sent. Professor Komen suggested it in 1965. Professor Coleman now says that it will not work where it has been practiced. Both blacks and whites in polls disapprove of it. I do not vote for busing. Because it will not work. I believe in the neighborhood school. Senator Culver is for busing because he doesn't believe in the neighborhood school.

Yes there is that. Well first of all we have had perhaps in this state a longer practice of busing people to improve educational opportunities in any state in the union. We have done it historically for many many years to improve the quality of educational opportunity of those in our world areas. We have also of course as a matter of last resort found it necessary in order to achieve a breakthrough in the segregated efforts in education as far as our minority populations are concerned. And certainly as a last resort in terms of educational opportunity to redress historical grievances I would support it. OK. Now we move to the final portion of the debate two minute closing statements from each candidate. Again it's determined by a flip of the coin. Congressman Grassley will go first. Whenever I hear a political discussion these days I'm reminded of some of Lincoln's words. People will little note nor long remember what was said here today. That's

probably true but if you don't remember any specific thing either of us says I will consider this a successful program. If you walk away knowing that there is a great deal of difference between John Colver and Chuck Grassley a difference in our cultural backgrounds a difference in what we believe a difference in philosophy. A difference in how we vote. And a difference in how and where we will lead this nation in the 1980s both of us have records to prove that. I am an inflation fighter. John is not I fight big bureaucracies. John creates and I fight for balanced budgets. John balances them John votes to protect his own salary against inflation but he does not vote to protect your tax bill against inflation. John is a big spender. I am not in every instance. I'm on the side of a majority of Iowans. John is on his own side. 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 call over policies. And I have a record that proves it can be accomplished. Thank you very much. I've enjoyed this debate so called. For six years in the Senate and throughout this campaign. I have been visiting with us and talking to you many of you watching this program this evening from my neighbors in McGregor to farmers on the western slope of our state to workers in the factories and shop owners in their small business places. They have confirmed my face that this state a nation has the resources both physical and

spiritual to meet any challenge of the future. But we will not secure our future by turning back the clock. By succumbing to some radical economic quick fixes or above all by resorting to reckless foreign policies that could plunge us into war. We are going through tough times but we have the confidence to make it in the future. We have a rendezvous with recovery. But certainly not at the benefit of you and the expense of the many. We need strength. We need patience. But above all we need tolerance we need compassion. And we need vision. We need to recover the commitment to the common good that created this free nation that has sustained it for two centuries and is the indestructible foundation for our future. Because in a real sense the stewardship of the future is what this campaign is all about. The center you elect will serve until 1987. They will make the decisions that will affect not only how you live but in a real sense in the nucular age whether you live at all. We Iowans are proud of our heritage but we are also forward looking.

Eight years ago I proposed a program that became the Iowa 2000 program. It brought together 50000 concerned citizens from every corner of our state to consider what kind of state they wanted for their children and their grandchildren. One common belief united these islands and it's a belief that I share. And it is that we can shape our future if we have the will and the wisdom to move forward without abandoning our traditional Iowa's strengths of fair play hard work decency civility and courage. Thank you very much. That's it ladies and gentlemen. Thanks to the candidates and the panelists for an informative debate and to the members of the audience for your interest and cooperation. The judges for the big prize to be decided at the November general election are the people of Iowa themselves. It's in your hands now. Goodlife. Preceding program was a public affairs presentation of the Iowa Public Broadcasting Network

and was made possible in part by a grant from friends of Ari PBS.