Debate 1988, President, Republican; Election 88, The Des Moines Register Presidential Candidates Debate; George H. W. Bush, Vice President, Bob Dole, U.S. Senator from Kansas, Pat Robertson, televangelist from Virginia, Jack Kemp, U.S. Representative from New York, Pierre S. du Pont, governor of Delaware, Alexander Haig, former Secretary of State from Pennsylvania.

Like spills. And he also voted against the windfall profit tax law thinks deflation allows but many of them will get into that later. But I want to ask Pete DuPont a question about about the Contras. The freedom fighters. You know if we don't get more funding from Congress and in early February I think it's about the fourth. And what would you suggest we do if Congress votes down money the liberals are opposed to it. What would you do for the Congress at that time. Well first we've got to go out as political leaders and work with the American people to change the mind of the Congress of the United States which is making serious mistakes in not helping the Congress. We have three interests in Central America. The first is to make sure the people of Nicaragua get their civil liberties restored their radio stations back on the air their newspapers allowed to publish. Secondly we want to make sure that that communist Sandinista regime stops undermining freedom in El Salvador and once they get through there they'll undermine it in Honduras and Costa Rica. And we don't want that to happen

but Third and most importantly we don't want Communist missiles Meigs tanks submarines and soldiers 22 hours of hard drive from Texas so we have got to persuade the Congress which is lagging way behind the people of this country to help get the communists out of Central America and bring freedom to the people of the country of Nicaragua. And as a spokesman I've worked very hard to get that done. It's an excellent answer. Mr. Robertson. Thank you Richard. A question for Mr. Hague in the press we have seen some charges and countercharges among the front runners silk or missiles flying in Washington this is as I said at the Georgia who is a leader you were secretary of state a very good friend we sat in on cabinet meetings. Tell us about the leadership of the vice president was he really the leader that he says oh did they. The president looked to. Pat.

Pat pat. That's why I ever saw one. I think confidentiality. Like a secretary of state never gave the vice president. Seriously I don't think it's my role to. Offer report cards on the vice president and I don't think it's right or any army either. On the other hand I would use this opportunity to make a brief observation about. Confidentiality. George as vice president you do have a right to protect your advice to the president and you should do so with whatever fervor you can muster. But you are now. Seeking

the office of the president. Two young men are facing trial and possibly in prison for doing the policy of this administration and I think the American people do want to know. What you said and sooner or later you're going to have to do it if you can answer your friends. What in heaven's name is going to happen next November if you are standard bearer and these Democrats get after you on the subject. I would take it that that's your question Your final question to the vice principal I have one right. So you might want to guess what I wrote. Fair play at our establishment to respond I just respond briefly to that. Yeah. I don't think anyone's going to ride to the White House on credit. Anybody here are knocking me or knock on the President on Iran. The facts have been found by a committee of Congress that spent 10 million dollars. By hearing of the Tower Commission that did a

very good job. I have spoken publicly about the fact I had reservations and now it's been released as to what they were mainly about and that was getting too much of an operation in the hands of a. Third party a third party another country of course we had concerns as this went forward. But I supported it and I don't see a vulnerability to be in the standard bear. I don't see it. The president explained it. He lived through it. He did what he thought was right to free these hostages. And I don't feel anything other than a willingness to answer a direct question. Except on that. So let me turn it around. What did you tell Mr. Nixon during the days of Watergate or did it take you 15 years before you felt like coming forward as the chief of staff. You were there. You were the chief of staff. George. And I wasn't asking the Republican Party to support me as a candidate. You have a novel I'm asking you now expel a little lighter. Your last I read the other day George

you know you're great at telling here and here you were shot down as a young teenager floating in the Pacific. And your mind searched the question of the separation of church and state. Now I think that I would like to know. Just what in heaven's name brought that to your mind at that time. That you know I was shot down. I was a 19 20 year old kid shot down and scared to death. Lost two comrades in arms and the government fell I did the mission pretty well. And. What I said was that my mind turned to faith. My faith in God and to family and so I think to be cynical and to make some. Little political hay out of somebodies misfortune or something I didn't say I happen to believe in separation of church and state. I happen to believe in tolerance. But this seems like a kind of a low blow to me like you're. Too nice. Talk. Politics distorted what you said. I gather that your answer.

Well if they said that I said that they distorted what I said I can't believe they said that. That's fine. That's good I'm not sure what we said but you. Still feel. That ends our rounds of CROSSFIRE among the candidates. We go on now please. In planning this debate we wanted to inject a new element. Our idea was to have a leading Democrat give her a chance to question these Republican candidates. And so we turn now to the loyal opposition to test the ideas of these Republican Party contenders. Please join me now in welcoming our Democratic guest questioner natural. Thank you. Tricia Schroeder is a graduate of the University of Minnesota and Harvard Law School and worked as an attorney in Denver before being elected to Congress in 1972. After 17 years she is the senior woman member of Congress. Mr. Schroeder serves on the armed services committee the

Judiciary Committee and the post office and Civil Service Committee in the house. She is recognized as an expert on military affairs and foreign affairs as well as being a leading advocate of women's rights and family issues. She also has ties to Iowa. She graduated from Roosevelt High School right here in the morning and earlier this year she came to Iowa to explore running as a Democratic candidate in the 1988 Iowa caucuses. She decided against running for president. But we're real pleased she can be here with us tonight. Congresswoman welcome. I yield the floor to you. Thank you thank you very much Jim and thank all of you I want to thank that one register for having these debates and for asking me to be here when I was trying to get into the race that they thought were going on I couldn't get into and now that I'm not I'm delighted to be invited in that. Town. It's a little confusing. I also want to thank the. Candidates here because many of them are very special friends of mine and I know what they're going through. Kind of bring me in as the democratic will

tell you I am not democratic. And when I think it'll. Mean when I think of your family when I get out of bed I thank you and I thank you for going through this process that we have. And let me get right to the point because that's what I'm supposed to do first of all we don't know where we're going we may not get there. So I have been listening to the debate and one of the things that I have heard mentioned by all the candidates is how important this deficit is. I think it is a very. I think we all before it. What are we gonna do about it. I think that's very critical when we talk about the 1.3 trillion dollars worth of growth we've had since 1982. The tragedy is we've had 1.3 trillion dollars with the debt. So it's kind of a wash. When I got up this morning the paper said the debt may be thirty one billion dollars over the estimate.

And tonight we heard the market dropped a hundred forty point so I think it's very contemporary. So let me start with DuPont. If you're elected president you're going to be chief officer you're going to bring that budget over to us first. You can put in anything to take out anything you want to listen to this debate. I've heard that you have a an idea on tax free IRAs that you would like to do vouchers for school others as much and more money for AIDS research for long term health care. What are you going to put in and what are you going to take out to. Do something other than deplore the debt. As chief fiscal officer. Well pap good question let me say first of all in this process I'm not going through anything I'm loving every minute of this is the biggest opportunity I've ever had and I like the process it's not a it's not a drag. The first thing we know about the deficit is we're not going to try to solve it by raising taxes because that doesn't work you will in the Congress have raised taxes five times since Ronald Reagan cut them in 1901 the

deficit hasn't gotten any smaller didn't get any smaller until last year. You limited spending. So we've got to limit spending where by phasing farm subsidies out over five years and that'll take 23 billion dollars off the deficit when that's complete. There are 30 military bases as you well know that the Pentagon says we don't need right here in America to defend our freedom. If we close them that'd say some 4 billion dollars a year but the Congress won't allow them to be close. We ought to give the president a line item veto. He could have used that to take 24 billion dollars out of the highway bill and the clean water bill the amount they were over budget when you overrode And finally a constitutional amendment that says if you want to spend more money then the country has you in Congress. You have to do it by a two thirds vote in each house and not a simple majority. And then the deficit problem will begin to be solved. Well I would like to have a follow on to that but we won't get through. So let me move on because I think it's important that everybody gets their say.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH You have been very very prominent in international affairs during the last seven years and one of the things President Eisenhower said was the reason we rebuilt our allies was so they would pick up more of the cost of defense. Last year. We subsidized Japan and European defense at the tune of about 175 billion dollars which is more than our deficit. Why hasn't the administration been more successful in getting our allies to pick up more of this in the Eisenhower tradition. I think we can do better on that. I don't know the answers to why they've been unwilling but I won't point to the Persian Gulf today. And some have a feeling we're doing that heavy lifting all by ourselves and the Dutch are there the Belgians are there the Italians are there the French are there the UK is there with a higher percentage of the fleet. So and I think NATO's probably as strong as it's ever been. And I think our relationship with Japan who has impediments as you know on it what it can do militarily because of. Constitutional constraints.

But I think we ought to keep trying keep working and get them to do as much as they possibly will. But you and I might differ because I don't think we ought to do what the previous administration suggested it first and that is take our troops out of out of Korea. I don't think so I think that would be a risk destabilization of the peninsula and of our major interests in the Pacific. I don't think we ought to pull back out of. Clark Air Force Base or so and I don't think that we ought to take our troops out of drawdown. And a good way to go about it is to have asymmetrical reductions on conventional forces. If we can get the Russians to do asymmetrically what they did in the force then we'll be able to take some people out but we shouldn't do it unilaterally. They have us out man. But I think we also have to point out that they can pay nothing in the Constitution. They can't pay and their economies are booming. We really have to get on that it will never touch the debt. Mr. Robinson interesting question for you. I bet you do.

I have and I've heard a surprise and I've even heard of and I. Can't remember where. Doing some questions on the deficit. I found it interesting. I'd like to have you explain. You were asked about the economic problems of the U.S. and how they could be canceled to death. I know you're going to help me win the election because most of the people. Seriously the trouble that we run into economically if you use the term Kondratieff long wave cycle is a cycle of debt accumulation which we have in our country 10 trillion dollars. We have it about every

54 56 58 years on an exponential basis and the last time we had it 26 we began to see a falloff in the farm economy that in manufacturing the stock market crash. Then the people in Congress saying we should raise tariff barriers the Fed began to pull back on the money supply and the Democrats came in under Franklin Roosevelt saying we ought to raise taxes. We're saying the exact same cycle all over again. Precisely. But what we must do is recognize that many of the debts in the Third World are uncollectable in the farm situation. I want to write that down to the underlying value of the assets that secure those debts give the farmer in possession a new break with a lower interest rate and let that man keep on farming instead of trying to throw him out with foreclosure and sell his land out from under him. That's the modified kind of jubilee that we're going to have to have one way or the other to get us out of the economic problems we're in. Thank you. To my colleague Mr. Kent

here and this is probably unfair because I know you're one Republican candidates and you don't worship at the altar of a balanced budget. We also are talking about additions. We haven't seen the cuts that we really need to get there. I like to read you a bit about the fact that I have a better fiscal conservative writing than you do when the Congress when it comes to voting on spending items on my head and I know you know I know what you're going to say you're going to say well the Democrats tax and spend but I must say spending isn't any better. In fact I think it's worse. And it's really what we're doing to our children by continuing this. So we haven't grown out of the deficit. What would you cut. Where would you go and where would you start to get this deficit under control. Well Pat first of all the run rate which you have done better is the National Taxpayers Union. They consider voting for defense to be

anti tax payer. It's a Libertarian group and believe in voting for defense I've always voted for defense will continue to vote for defense notwithstanding the fact that on that one makes me look like I'm a spender or I'm a spender for the defense of this country because I believe in the true strength. And I'm not a hawk I'm a dove heavily armed. There's only there's only one answer to debt. There's only one answer to debt either for a family a farmer a businessman or woman or a country that's growth more income. So a freeze on spending for one year other than national security or Social Security a line item veto. Most of us agree on more growth lower unemployment that. And certainly lower interest rates. We're spending one hundred fifty billion dollars a year servicing debt. I think the rates are probably in the range of nine to nine and a half percent servicing that debt. They're

higher than they were in the Civil War making the dollar sounded honest and stable again making it is good as gold. Bring interest rates down. We can reduce the debt service of this country by 80 billion to 90 billion a year. I think I'd be good not only for the deficit but farmers in Iowa and throughout this country. Mr. Hank. You've had a lot of experience in the executive branch and again let me say you're the only Republican candidate that I've been able to find out that's been willing to characterize the deficit problem as a Republican problem. I salute your courage on this and I'll correct that in the. Past. Well I also understand I think you also know that since the president writes the first budget there's no constitutional for saying it must be in balance. They can put anything in or take anything out. So again I would ask you the question What would you do about the deficit if you're elected and how would you really start to wrestle that buried in the ground. Well incidentally I I didn't blame it on the Republican Party. But the Democratic House as well for the. Budget busting proposals. On the other hand

if you don't know whether the deficit came from that's very difficult to know how to reduce it came from two directly contrary schools of economics theory applied simultaneously. Supply side a growth theory Jaques. Monetarism. Paul Volcker Siri type money high interest to squeeze inflation as the economy was like putting the engine in first gear in reverse at the same time in the grinding here was a mounting national debt. Now a line item veto of course. We're really talking about 3 to 4 percent reduction per year in the growth. Of our federal budget. We're not talking about gutting existing social contract programs. And that seems to me a very simple thing to do with discipline instead of the kind of disaster this. Recent budget compromise was a real 9 billion dollar tax increase and I smoke and mirrors reduction of things that are never going to happen. We are going to have to get some courage on this deficit. And if we don't do it even before in 1998 we're going to find the rest of the world losing confidence. We're going

to find our dollar continuing to fall despite all the liquidity pumped into the system and all of the help. From our allies. We've got to cut across the board. Time's up. Every day all. I want to say that I was very moved by your goals stated at the beginning and I want to make the party more compassionate. Those would be your calls if you went and lost money. And I must say Vice President Bush's deficit because you're the closest to the administration and the one who's phone calls probably got returned. Let me ask you what you think a lot of Reaganomics by getting into the Senate about the recent Congressional Budget Office report showing that what's really happened is the tax rate on rich people than it was in 1977. And it's higher on poor people than it was in 177. How does that. Fit the goals of

what you want to do as president and would you change some of the things that you had put through. Well I mean first date that we're happy to have you here. Keep in mind that the 1986 tax reform act that is in fact I haven't read that CBO report Congressional Budget Office was a bipartisan effort. It was forged by. The House Ways and Means Committee controlled by Democrats and assigned a finance committee controlled by a couple of votes by a Republican so it's a bipartisan effort. And I believe the tax reform act was good policy. We lowered tax rates. We want to continue to lower tax rates. But I think we have to face up you know we haven't talked many specifics here and I we've all sort of danced around the issues and said what we're against therefore I'm for a line item veto not raising tax rates balanced budget amendment. But whoever is elected president is going to have a tough job. And I think we just have to grab the bull by the horns and tell the American people and they'll follow us if we provide leadership

there we're going to freeze spending for a year no exceptions except low income Americans whether it be on Social Security or with program or food stamps. And if we do that we'll get about 900 billion dollars savings the first year A.D. the second year one hundred fifty six billion dollars in real savings no smoke and mirrors over a three year period. Well thank you very much as I say we're still looking for what you would call line item veto. But at the next meeting I didn't get it. You're right that's true. Present the next part that I. Heard lots of Americans be very concerned about is the government of laws not of men and very proud of the fact that we have had a government of laws that had very high never been corrupt and we have seen a lot of different people think that washing machine rather than the

type of process we would like to see and we are celebrating here as we celebrate democracy tonight on the stage. So let me start with 100 of the Reagan administration forced from office under an ethical cloud of one sort of another. That concerns me that their disregard for the public trust is our problem. It does bother me Pat. The biggest example of the most recent example of sleaze was Ted Kennedy putting a bill through in the middle of the night in the budget bill to make someone sell a newspaper without hearings without any process at all to tend them. There was 10 Democratic 10 Democratic congressman are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee the speaker of the House Jim Wright a Democrat has had charges placed

against or not placed against the charges made in the press about his ethical dealings. And there is a problem in Washington or right. And it's there. I want to tell you that when I became governor I accomplished something in the first half an hour but I tried in six years as a congressman to accomplish and that was sign an executive order requiring financial disclosure by judges and Cabinet Secretaries and everybody I appointed. I fired a cabinet secretary once because he wasn't running the prisons properly. I had an investigation I took prompt action. We set an ethical standard in Delaware that was extremely high while I was governor. I'll set the same standard as president when I get to Washington. Thank. You so much. Thanks Chris. President Bush I'm sure that concerns you a lot a lot of concern about Attorney General and some of the judicial appointees. But would there be a way that we could turn around on some of these ethical violations. I think we should set a standard for the Congress.

Absolutely. I've said I'd have a total change has nothing to do with the revitalization of the process bring new people in that's a good thing to do. Secondly I like what I favor full disclosure way back in 1968 I kind of led a band of freshman congressman for it. And I'd like to suggest here tonight. That every one of us. Lay out not these forms that you fill out a Congress that says I have assets between 50 and 250 million dollars 50000 but that. Your tax return. I think we all ought to do it for 10 years back now. And 10 years back. I don't like the idea because I think it's an invasion of privacy but we're at a different level there and we should set that example. For the American people and I hope that all of us sitting here on the stage will do it. And I think that would be a good thing and the last point Pat is this it's find a 100 people are being driven out by the member one of Ray Donovan. Convicted in the press.

Convicted by the political leaders and he went to trial. He's back. You know I think that's right. I didn't like her and her family before the final verdict was out. Politics should transcend that. And I found. Out I went to Harvard too.

But it's always been a concept of a judge decides a case before him that is brought by two litigants and that that decision primarily binds those parties and then with the Supreme Court it obviously is binding throughout the federal judiciary system and should be given enormous credibility in the relation to the other branches of government. But we have a government set up of checks and balances. We have a Congress that in my estimation is the most powerful branch of the government we have a chief executive and we have a judiciary system. And the thing that has appalled me is that the Supreme Court has taken on itself the role of the legislature and I of course would respect their rulings and decisions but the Constitution says the law of the land has to do with the Constitution. Laws duly elected by Congress and treaties and not supreme court decisions and I just want to follow the Constitution. Furthermore I want to

appoint judges who feel it's the task of a judge to interpret the Constitution and the law and not try to rewrite them. Thank you. Mr. Camp you've always been very ethical in our foreign policies to standing up for human rights and every other such thing you've been a very strong supporter of Israel. Do you support what we're doing now in the Palestinian conflict in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are we doing the right thing. What we're doing. Yes the United States well pad it is a terrible problem not withstanding the vote in the U.N. we have to recognize that the United Nations is not only hostile to the United States it's hostile to Israel. They passed a resolution of years ago where they said that Zionism is racism has never been repealed. The Soviet Union six months ago voted to expel Israel from the United Nations. So I don't favor putting policy in front of the

United Nations when it comes to the United States supporting its friends whether it's Taiwan or Israel or any tiny little country that needs a good friend. Number two the Palestinian problem is a problem that has been vexing to that part of the world for a long time. When Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and when Jordan controlled the West Bank they did nothing to solve that Palestinian problem. I think we should be not tolerant of mistakes but tolerant of our friends who have very tough problems. And I would have vetoed it in the U.N.. Any attack on Israel for trying to deal with the problem that I think has been exacerbated by terrorists like the PLO. Mr. hack. I think one of the great tragedies is been a lot of defense contractor seem to think that defense administrations can be ripped off for excessive profits and shoddy materials. We've got the great commission the Packard commission we've tried a new Pentagon pick your MIT system and we can't even keep the job of the assistant secretary for

there. I know that when you left office you went to work for a defense contractor and and things are yours a little better on that side. Do you think we should continue that type of. Do you think that there is any way that if you got re-elected if you got elected that the defense contractors wouldn't be silly Happy Days Are Here Again. Well. Pat first I didn't go to work for a defense contractor I was president of a company that did 60 percent of its business and commercial side and 40 percent defense contractor. And I'm not one that goes around the country accusing everyone in the defense industry of being some kind of a crook. It's just simply not true. Now secondly let me say it takes a graduate of that five sided Puzzle Palace. To understand some of the problems. The first order of business is to get a manager. I would pick a man like Bill Simon and say Bill you give me a year of your time get in there and clean that mess out. Dave Packard came in the late period of his life and

did a very very substantial study on procurement in the Pentagon a host of other reforms which sits now languishing on the desk of the secretary of defense without implementation and that's a disgrace. No this is a major major problem facing our next president to clean up the abortionist and let me tell you as one who knows it I do it. But her. And Senator don't let me say I think campaign financing has become a really major major issue and this year you let a filibuster that kept the Senate from voting on legislation that would limit spending in Senate elections and also cut political action committee contributions by two thirds. Now Goldwater had back before he retired. I think many people think it's a good idea there even the Des Moines Register endorsed this if you can believe it saying how much more sleazy this campaign financing activity for the Congress. Why wouldn't you let it come to a vote. Why did you leave the filibuster and as president of the United States would you continue to have the same opinion about campaign finance

reform. Now I feel very strongly about campaign finance reform have said so and introduce legislation to do it. But I think we're getting a lot of these liberal democratic questions thrown at us and I think we have to address it. It's not campaign reform. In 1986. The Democrats talk about campaign reform limiting them out political action committees could give to candidates. But in 1907 they took back the Senate they didn't change the PAC contributions still $5000 for each election cycle. Five thousand for the primary 5000 for the general. So that's one it's not campaign reform a dead even cut back spending. Secondly it's public financing which I think is wrong for five hundred thirty five Senate and House races and thirdly. I'm a Republican. And I want the Republican Party to grow. And this bill put a cap on how much you could spend for Senate races that it's an incumbents protection act in the south and Republicans are outnumbered eight to one for one. Ten to one you put a limit on how much a Republican candidate to spend in the south is going to be Democratic forever.

So it was a Democratic incumbent in perpetuity bill. And we're not going to pass in the red for campaign reform. We need quick questions and quick answers on this last round. All right. Mr. Pottle we served together in the house or one of my good friends and one of the Republicans I respected very much I had a strong moderate voting record. What happened. Unlike people who serve in the Congress Pat I went home and became a governor and had learned leaders. Feel When You learn really. When you learn to lead you know things have to work they don't just have to sound good. And the budget has to balance it just doesn't have to sound good to people in one congressional district in Colorado or anywhere else. You learn you've got to put forward proposals. That will increase opportunity for people like cutting taxes in our state 30 percent for every family and

thereby increasing jobs by 20 percent for every family. I don't suppose I really don't know a lot of people and Democrats in the Congress don't like tax cuts. I think people ought to pay more just because it's good for him. You know if you. Cut taxes. You create growth and that creates opportunity I learned that in leading as a governor. That's why I'm a better person today than when I was a Congress. Price president. Your courage in standing up among these candidates and supporting family planning you have done a very good job long term both internationally and nationally. I must say I was a little disappointed recently programs were cut back so they could only push the rhythms of broad which the best family ever. Your thumbprint on that. But I assume that you will go back to the family planning for throughout your career support international family planning and I support family planning.

I don't support abortion and as you know I let that. Go. So I don't know what fingerprints you're talking about but it's not my understanding that that is the only method I think you're better go back and look at the legislation unless on the stick. My understanding was that what it did was to permit another method of family planning was related tourism which had I think that ought to be checked to Mr. Robertson because I hear I wish we could see the time clock keeps running. I was sure that you would have women in your cabinet you for your husband is the head of the House and the head of the wife and I.

Respect that. But I was present and I think the relationship between the man and his wife is very very private. Sacred relationship between the federal government getting involved with anybody's married. A man and his wife. I cannot imagine the federal government such a private relationship. Mr. Kim you have been very strong talking about the American family and the American dream college kids all of us that we want for everybody are costing more and more and more and.

Our country compared to other countries in the world have done very little. Almost every other industrialized country has done more on childcare or on family medical leave and so forth. Many of us are pushing legislation on that in the house. And your name I think realistically for the government for the American family. One of the reasons you missed my name is some of the things that you've been talking about that were implemented both in 81 and in 86. I believe we need to take it further. We ought to totally remove the marriage penalty tax. We should totally abolish the estate tax on. Those women those small family farms those small small family businesses that was part of the 81 tax cut and that had a magnificent impact upon widows who heretofore have had to sell off a farm or sell off property or sell off a home in order to survive. We increased the the dependent exemption from one to two thousand dollars Dr. James Dobson

one of the leading authorities of focus on the family suggested that was the most important tax reform of the last 25 years. We increase the home care and the childcare tax credit to seven hundred twenty dollars I'm a strong supporter of that. I don't want to discriminate against a woman who in a home raises her own children so I think we ought to expand it but I I don't believe in unisex insurance because frankly that I think it would raise the cost of insurance for autos and and life insurance for women. And I think that would be discriminatory. Mr. Hanks if the Russians are to test and deploy depressed trajectory trajectory missiles they will be able to slip underneath the Starwars shield and wipe out our strategic bombers before they could take off. Democratic candidates seem to be supporting a bilateral ballistic test ban on both sides to keep the Russians from trying to do this breakout and maybe having a nuclear Pearl Harbor. Would you support that and if you don't support that type of bilateral Flight Test Ban How

would you propose to protect style. Well. First Pat I'm not familiar with that bill. I don't want to portray myself as an expert on. It's very clear that the whole issue of Star Wars is an issue which is going to be at the centerpiece of the start discussion is already is rocking the hill. I'm very very leery thinking we can legislate through bands of the kind you suggest the solutions to problems that we're unwilling to face in our defense spending and in our strategic concept. The real problem that we face today is a weakness in our strategic inventory which gives the Soviets about a 3 to 1 first strike capability today. The new START proposals as I read the recent communique signed the Grover child could threaten to aggravate that to a level of perhaps 5 to 1

strategic defenses become more important perhaps more than the short have because of our failure to deal with our counterforce capability. But time to study this. You're saying that you would hang a picture in the Oval Office because the union and one of the strong heritages of the Republican Party which I salute you think is wonderful but how do you reconcile that with opposing sanctions against South Africa on apartheid. When you also supported sanctions against other countries. Apartheid was our slavery. I think this is a great moral issue for this country and its president. To turn your head. To what's going on in South Africa. Well if I were president I might have a little different view of that but I must say as a Republican leader when Ronald Reagan vetoed that bill and keep in mind that President Reagan was willing to do everything

except one thing requested in that bill he would've done it by executive order. There wasn't any need to pass an effort to embarrass the president I fought to sustain the veto. Apartheid's repub. None of us believe in that. We all agree that it's repugnant. We all try to change it. We want to preserve the jobs for black people in South Africa. We want we're opposed to discrimination. I've been very fortunate in Congress to lead the charge for the voting rights bill for the King holiday bill. I've got a perfect civil rights record and I'm very proud of it. I've had a letter in my file from Gretta Scott King saying she'd support me in my 1986 reelection for the Senate. I haven't talked about this new thing I'm doing but. I feel odd about my record and I sleep probably not. Thank you Senator Dole Thank you Congresswoman Schroeder that completes that round of questioning and now it's time for the closing statements to keep this on time I'm going to ask you gentlemen to limit yourself please to two minutes and we will begin now with Senator Dole.

Thank you very much. First I want to ask the voters of Iowa. Those in the audience and I was really. Feeling to support me in the caucus on February 8. I said at the outset I come from a small town I have small town traditional values and I have experience. I've sat all over this state in all 99 counties where Elizabeth I have traveled. That I've made a difference. I've demonstrated that I've made a difference I have a record. Of honesty and integrity and credibility. But I made a difference on tax reform tax indexing for example the best thing we've done. I made a difference on Social Security saving Social Security. I made a difference on voting rights. Oh yes I made a difference for farmers in this state with the 85 farm bill a market oriented farm bill. I was in Sibley a while back and I had a seven year old boy said Bob or Senator Dole I guess he said.

What's going to be like if you get elected. It was Bob after my answer but in any event. I looked at that young man who's going to be voting for his first time in the year 2000. And I thought very hard about the answer. And what I want for America and for that young man. Is a better opportunity for jobs yes education. Freedom whatever goes with that. And security security no family security their job security as a country. And if I'm fortunate enough to win the caucuses in this state I want to get on that plane that night and go to the next day. And I want to think to myself and I'm on board. That the people of Iowa looked at this guy from Kansas. Who came from a poor background made it the hard way. Just like many in Iowa did. And they said to themselves that you know Bob Dole is he's one of us. And that's why. You won the caucus in Iowa. Thank you.

Well first let me say I'm very proud to be with this group of distinguished Americans who. Unquestionably each and every one is qualified to lead this country in normal time. But let me suggest these are not. Normal times. Indeed business as usual in the White House will not be tolerable. First because America as a nation in relative terms no longer has the demographic. SS that enable us to survive incompetence malfeasance less than perfection in the conduct of our affairs. Secondly because as a nation we're now facing whether or not

America will continue on with this renaissance of the Spirit this Reagan revolution which I believe is essential. Or turn to Pat and her colleagues for a return to the mouth who's in self-flagellating self-depreciating attitudes of the seven. I hope that doesn't happen. But we have a deficit of unprecedented proportion. We have a Soviet leader of unparalleled competence in Moscow. We need a president in 1998 who. Knows. American government has served in the executive branch and exercised executive authority. We need a president who knows America. Who serves in the private sector in a large multinational corporation and build a small business of his own. We need a president. Who knows the world. Who's respected by foreign leaders friend and foe. We need a president.

Who knows how critical it is to avoid war. And only one who's seen it on two occasions knows it's stage. Finally. We above all need a president who can sit across the table from Mr. Gorbachev. And Machon every step. Way. Our party was founded as a party by Mr. Lincoln as a Freedom Party a party of hope a party of emancipation party liberation. Was a party that offered any man any woman of any color. Than a creed of any ethnic or social economic background. The opportunity to be what God meant them to be here was the one place on this earth from which any boy or girl could rise to the highest of their

ability based upon merit. We went through a civil war we went to a civil rights revolution to guarantee that those rights were available to all people. Very proud of the Republican Party not only played a strong role in helping create that type of an America but is continually root for reform to make it better. Two hundred twelve years ago Thomas Jefferson said the same God who gave us life gave us freedom. Those are the inalienable rights. He didn't write those words for one people but for all people. Don't write him just for whites but for all Americans and not just for one generation but all generations of your travel around the world. I believe people all over this world have two homelands their own and the United States. This is the only country on this earth in which people riot to stay in our prison camps to prevent themselves from being sent to a communist prison camp 90 miles off the coast of Cuba. Keeping this country strong keeping peace by making our defense secure by bringing

prosperity without inflation to every corner of this country and then exploiting that to the rest of the world seems to me that to be an American is to be special without being ostentatious. It means caring about the world it means it's about exploiting democracy and capitalism to the rest of this waiting world. And it seems to me it means most of all having a president who challenge us to be the best people we can be to help put in place a country that I think our founding fathers and mothers wanted to be a nation that serves as an example not just for just this time for all time to come. I think that's what Mr. Lincoln wanted from the Republican Party and of all the candidates. I really believe that my candidacy gives us the best chance in our lifetime of broadening the base of our party and moving this country forward to those high ideals of peace and prosperity for all. Thank you. I believe through the next decade America's going to be faced with some incredible

challenges. We have a trade deficit which is unprecedented. We have a federal debt which is now at two point three plus trillion dollars moving up toward 3 trillion. We have a runaway federal budget deficit. Underlying that though we have moral problems in our country we have the break up of the American family half of all the marriages ending in divorce. We have a million runaway teenagers each year we have a drug epidemic a crime epidemic and now an AIDS epidemic. We have an educational system which used to be the greatest in the world is failing. We've got problems in the farms in manufacturing. We are the greatest nation on the face of the earth. The question is what vision is going to move us into the 21st century. Are we going to have a vision of faith. Are we going to have a vision of freedom. Are we going to have a vision of self-reliance where we get back to those fundamental principles on which our founding fathers laid the foundation for the greatest nation that has ever been in the world's

history that we've heard many people talk about their experiences in Congress and in government. With all due deference to all of my distinguished colleagues I think the Congress and the government leaders are made pretty much a mess of things in the last 20 years. And. In my experience I took 70 dollars and over the few years built up a complex of companies in the private sector that had about two hundred thirty million dollars a year in income. I'm used to being goal oriented. I don't have the privilege of either raising taxes or running a deficit I've got to balance my budget or else I go broke. I know what it's like to meet a payroll I know what it's like to have people's lives depended on me. I know what it's like to make the hard executive decisions I've been the chief executive officer for 25 years. But beyond that I know what it is to be compassionate because I've walked the streets of the big cities I've seen the poor the brights the needy those to whom we much must reach out to with compassion. And I'd offer this nation a vision of

greatness during the next decade. It would take us into the next century. Thank you very much. Ah. Mr. Vice President you were about to were participating in a part of the process that leads to choosing a president. I was important. But we're a great country. We've earned our optimism. We've earned the right to be confident that we have an unfulfilled agenda. And I want to lead the country to the fulfillment of the gent I think people want broad experience and I've had it. Fighting for my country in combat. And building a business so I know what it is to meet a payroll. Running the intelligence community serving in a foreign country communist China and seeing they are coming back counting the blessings for the freedoms that I there to forward taken for granted. Served at the United Nations and then been vice president for seven years.

On vision you have to have a vision. Mine is that education should be the number one thing better education means better jobs. I want to be the president that wrestles the deficit to the ground. I want to be the president because I believe in public service. My dad believed in it. We've had honorable lives and public service that hold high the highest ethical standard. And I want to be the president that's not afraid to reach out for peace keep this country strong. I know enough about it so you know how to deal with the Soviet leaders or the Chinese or whoever it is. But don't be afraid to take a step for peace. When people go into that voting booth or the Caucus they're going to be saying Who has the values we believe in. Who has the experience we trust. Who has the stability the integrity to get the job done. I'm that man. I asked for your support.

Ah h. You offer the tunnel you've heard from all of us tonight and I'm proud of the choice that the Republican Party is giving to the people of this country. History says that one of us is going to be president because for the last five times the American people have picked a Republican but which one. Well if you want to Washington insider. You might choose George Bush. He's held practically every job there. If you want a congressional negotiator you might pick Bob Dole. If you want somebody to lead who's led a government and nobody else on this platform as. Somebody who's put forward a set of proposals to lead America where all of us understand it needs to go well I'd like your consideration on caucus night because I think that the Ponte campaign has put forward proposals that will push

more opportunity into your kitchen. This election is very simple. How do we make your family better off in the 1990s than you were in the 1980s. How do we help you steer your kids away from drugs and towards opportunity. How do we help you get a better education for your son or daughter. How do we make you and your spouse more secure in your retirement. Those are the questions of this election. And we've offered some answers. Now maybe you feel everything in America is just fine the way it is. But drugs are an alternative lifestyle youngster ought to be able to choose. Then we can ignore the ticking timebomb of the of the Social Security system that we can keep on spending 23 billion dollars a year on agricultural subsidies that. A failed welfare system trapping poor people in poverty is something too politically sensitive to deal with and we can educate youngsters for the next century with a system designed in the last. Well if you feel that. One of these other gentleman may be

fine for you is a president of the United States but if you believe America can do more I want you to remember tonight that I did too. If you believe America can do better together. Taking the opportunity that's here in these caucuses. We can make it come to pass. Thank you very much. I'm an America gentleman and. I want to thank Congresswoman Schroeder for being with us tonight. I want to thank all of you gentlemen very sincerely on behalf of the Des Moines Register all the people of Iowa for participating in this debate. I'm sure the people of Iowa while I have watched and listened with great interest and months from now you'll know the verdict and until then the jury is out. So from the civic center in the morning now I'm James began on saying thank you. See you next Friday. And good night. Sure. No.

Major funding for this program was provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding was provided by friends of I won't publish television.