Debate 1980, US Senator, Republican; Republican Candidates For Senate; Grassley-Stoner Debate, 1980

This is a public affairs special report from the Iowa Public Broadcasting Network. Live from the morning. The Grassley Stoner's debate. Sponsored by the I work college Republican. Here is moderator board. Good evening. During the next hour we'll become better acquainted with the views of two candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the United States Senate Charles Grassley and Tom stoner. In this debate sponsored by the Iowa College Republicans in conjunction with the University of Iowa College Republicans each candidate will first make a three minute opening statement and then will be questioned by a panel of newsmen. Charles Grassley a native of New Hartford is completing his third term as a representative to Congress from Iowa's 3rd Congressional District. Tom Stoner is from Des Moines he's a businessman former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. Toss of a coin earlier

tonight determine the order of appearance and Mr. Gresley will speak first. Good evening. First of all I'd like to hope that all mothers out there ever had a happy Mother's Day. I'd like to also thank the college young Republicans and I will public television for sponsoring this debate. Well Tom Stoner has been campaigning full time. I've been in Washington fighting inflation and trying to cut government waste. Well John Calderon has been voting to spend even more. I've been working to strengthen our national defense while John Carver's been voting to weaken it. But there's another issue in this campaign that I feel compelled to visit with you about. You know in politics there are two ways to get votes. First you can tell people what your record is and where you stand on the issues. If the voters agree with you they'll probably vote for you. That's getting votes. The

positive way and that's the way that I run my campaign. The second approach is the negative campaign the negative candidate spends his time and money attacking his opponent distorting his record and making innuendos about his character. The negative candidate thinks he'll get elected if he makes his opponent look badly you know. This is the kind of campaign that my opponent Tom Stoner has been running tonight. We're going to set the record straight. Tom Stoner has produced at least eight expensive commercials attacking me personally and my record and every one of them contains factual errors or half truths. His press releases also have attacked me. In the May 3rd Des Moines Register an editorial entitled lone blow by stoner appeared. These are not my words but those of the new morning register and I quote Tom Stoner has a lot of explaining to do for

his nauseatingly attacks on Grassley. The editorial says that Tom Cole is an apology to Grassley and to the voters of Iowa. Now Tom don't apologize to me. But tonight I do expect you to apologize to the voters. Iowans frankly expect more from a candidate for the United States Senate than a gutter type campaign. Does success mean so much to you Tom that you are Keisha in your character to achieve it. Einstein once said try not to become a man of success. Try to become a man of value. As I said earlier I know there are other important issues in this campaign but I also think the kind of a person the voters select is an issue as well in this primary campaign it may be the issue. The question is Tom are you a big enough man to

apologize to the voters of Iowa. Starting tonight I hope you're prepared to drop your negative campaign and get back to the real issues of this campaign inflation. Military prepares to grasp your hand your time is up. Thank you Mr. Stoner. Opening statement. Good evening. I'm Tom stoner. I represent your only opportunity this year to elect a Citizen Senator. The race for the United States Senate in Iowa boils down to one fundamental issue whether Iowans want a real approach to solving problems in Washington. That is why the June 3rd primary is so important important to all Iowans and all Iowans have a critical stake in it. I bring that real world experience of helping people as the first state fund chairman for the eye of association for retarded children. The real world of community service as a founding director of living history farms that focus the needed attention on the history and the future of Iowa agriculture. The real world experience of free

enterprise and building a successful business and meeting a payroll and creating jobs and dealing with the bureaucracy and regulation that stifles initiative. The real world of volunteer citizenship. As a state chairman of the Republican Party I helped put that take that party out of debt and make sure that we had the kind of leadership that was necessary to bring unity to that party. In short I'm used to setting goals and taking positive action to achieve them. I want to tell me that that they want that kind of approach in government. They realize that today's problems demand real world answers not the inaction and buck passing. We have seen come from Washington people tell me that they want to stop inflation. So let's live within our budget. Let's balance the budget by constitutional amendment index taxation and cut spending. People tell me that they want to move toward energy independence. So let's cut government red tape and do away with the costly and ineffective Department of Energy. Set up a structure to develop

increased resources not allocate diminishing resources. People tell me to foster the development of job opportunities. So let's take a real world approach to foster savings and increase investment and get the government off the back of those people who really want to produce. People tell me they want a stable farm economy and a fair return for their efforts and investment. So let's stop the embargo now. Re-establish America as the grain rhe of the world. Renegotiate trade agreements so we can increase our exports of commodities and red meats. These problems and others require a real world approach. Many have lost this approach because they have sat in Washington too long. That is why I favor a 12 12 year limitation on service in the United States Senate and House. And I'm committed to providing this type of approach for you. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. And now we're moving to the second phase of our debate tonight the questioning by a panel of political reporters. Steve hedges of the daily I won at the University of Iowa.

George mills of W H O TV in Des Moines. Norman Sadler who was with United Press International. And David the Epson of the Des Moines Register. The candidates will have two minutes to answer each question posed by a reporter and follow up questions with one minute answers are then optional Steve hedges will question first and that question will be directed to Mr. Gresley. Mr. Gresley. You have held office for 22 years. Mr. Stoner. You're a multimillionaire who has never held public office before. Why should i Republicans vote for either one of you since you've either poorly been part of the problem or have never been confronted with the problems of the nation. We've experimented with Jimmy Carter's on the job training. That doesn't work very well I think experience in Washington I have. Plus my background as a farmer factory worker teacher before I was elected to Congress.

My seniority in the United States Congress is evidence of this experience. Seniority is important in the United States Senate and my seniority in the House will put me at the near top of the freshman class of senators whereas my primary opponent will be down to the bottom of that class I think that's a significant advantage. But most importantly I've shown leadership being ranking Republican on the family farm Subcommittee ranking Republican on the Aging Committee regional whip and co chairman of the balanced budget caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives. I got the bird Grassley balanced budget law through. I understand the problems of farmers. There are only three farmers in the United States Senate. So I feel that with my record in the House of Representatives as well as my record of experience in the U.S. House before I went or in the legislature before I went to the U.S. House is evidence of experience that's badly needed in these troubled times in America.

Mr. Stoner. Well Steve I believe that the experience that a person gains in this real world. Of building a business and dealing with the problems of the bureaucracy. Are the very kind of experience that a person needs to get your arms around the most difficult and unmanageable business in the whole world and that's the United States government. When we look at the bureaucracy like an agency like oh shit I've had the experience of an ocean inspector walking in with a bundle of federal regulations that really are meaningless. And I believe that is necessary in this in this country that that kind of experience be translated into the Senate so that we can unravel this bureaucracy and make sure that America can be it can begin to produce again. I know what it's necessary to deal with tough negotiations and very frankly been out negotiated by Japan and other nations in terms of bringing about a better foreign policy in a more sensible economic policy so we can increase our exports of commodities and red meat. These are the kind of experiences that you gain in the real world. As a

leader of this Republican Party for two years I gained the knowledge that necessary to unify this party and deal with its full spectrum and take that kind of unified approach that's going to be necessary to win against John Culver and those members. That kind of experience plus the experience of rote running two campaigns for governor a lead me to believe that I can best lead this party in the in the charge to make sure that we do unseat John Culver in the fall. MR I just you have a follow up question. Yes Mr. Stone you mentioned foreign policy. Some people have argued that Mr. Carter's and Washington background. Has brought about any happiness in his foreign policy. Mr. Culver and Mr. Grassi both have experience in foreign policy in Washington. You don't. How do you respond to that. How could you. Say that our foreign policy. I think it's a matter of having the ability to look over the hill. We have a number of problems that have occurred because we have not strengthen our national defense. I don't think

that you have to sit in the halls of Congress to see that. Certainly Governor Reagan has not sat in the halls of Congress have said has seen that and I believe that what we need to do is to strengthen our foreign policy through increasing the capability of our ability to move our our defense establishment throughout the world by constructing a first rate bomber in this country for example like the B-1 bomber which my opponent here a congressman Grassley is opposed as had John Culver I think we have to strengthen our defense and I think you can see that perspective and it's obvious to all Americans. Mr. Ashley do you have a response. Yes. Talking about the real world one of the misrepresentations of Chuck Grassley that my opponent Tom has suggested to the people of Iowa unfairly and wrongly is that as a farmer for 16 years as a factory worker for 10 years and simultaneous with my being in the state legislature I don't want

what closer relationship to the grassroots of Iowa a congressman could have prior to going to Washington D.C. not only to represent agriculture but to represent those eight out of 10 jobs in Iowa that are associated with a healthy agriculture. I think this sort of broad based economic background that I have to offer the Republican voters of Iowa in opposition to John Carver in the November election is nothing that my primary opponent has to offer the people of Iowa and the Republicans of Iowa. George Mills has the next question and that will be directed to Mr. Stoner the time you've come under criticism as you know from people within the Republican Party and outside of it for your purported guilt by association comment that Mr. Grassley Congressman Grassley has with the Trilateral Commission. The issue appears to be playing to a specific group of conspiracy theorists your own

campaign manager admits it is damage to your campaign to some extent and it has triggered a reported backlash of some proportions among moderates who who represent your natural constituency. Do you regret having. Made that an issue. Are you having second thoughts on it. Do you want to withdraw on that. No I think there are some who have said that it was a political mistake. But I think it's very important irrespective of that to make sure that the record is set straight on this question as well as many others. I think it goes to the question of sensitivity to the voters of this state. I think for example it's insensitive of Congressman Grassley to take money from the big oil companies over $5000 at a time when diesel prices are going up 84 percent. I think it's insensitive of him to take what appears to be an illegal corporate contribution or it's only one hundred seventy dollars but I brought it to his attention. I think

that when there are people in the state who are concerned about the problem that that you are addressing that I think it's insensitive of him to take money from David Rockefeller's at Chase Manhattan Bank pack. And very frankly I think it's important to note I'm like what Congressman Grassley staffers stated and Congressman Grassley that this money has come from David Rockefeller incidentally. Forty two cents out of every dollar that's in the chase PAC came directly from David Rockefeller. Now as for myself personally I don't see I don't believe that there is a conspiracy in the Trilateral Commission. But since the meetings aren't open to the public we really don't know. What's the difference between the money from David Rockefeller and from others executor mails from Mr Grassley has time to respond to that first. Well I think that this charge is one more of those that. Where there's guilt by association where he's trying to buy a new

window. I. Tell the people that Chuck Grassley is something other than an honest person which I have a reputation for answers and I have a reputation for. I think if he thinks there is any conspiracy that ought to be that's involved he ought to turn that information over to the Justice Department. That's what conspiracies are all about their criminal elements. I think this is one bit of evidence along with many others. Wasn't long ago you received in the newspaper this chronicle of inconsistency is the Grassley record. He says that he would give me a thousand dollars if I could prove any of these statements in a read on here were wrong. But you know that's the kind of a campaign Tom stone is running because in red on here is only about 20 percent of all the words on here. That's a sure bet for Tom stoner. My judgment is that I would offer if he would. Apply all of the words here. And a $5000 bond.

I could guarantee you that that $5000. Could go. To the Republican party there'd be $5000 for them that I'd be glad to give to him because if this were all in red. There'd be a lot. That could be found wrong with it. But we the people of Iowa these are more than a. Senator potential senator who's willing to put just 20 percent of his words under bonds. We need a United States senator that's willing to put 100 percent of his words under Obama. Mr. Millet you have a follow up to Mr. Stonor. You said that you wouldn't take any of David Brock feller's money. What distinguishes that money from other contributors of like caliber. I think it goes back to the end of the question of sensitivity. I said long ago for example that I would not take money from the oil companies just particularly because of the tremendous increases in and oil company profits at a time when I

was farmers and I was generally are paying really unusually high exorbitant prices for oil. And I figure that that is just not the right thing to do. When I am aware of the concerns of some people in the state then I think to raise that question would be a mistake and thats why I feel that way about the impact. Mr. Grassley you have one minute to respond. I wish I had the leeway of deciding which money from out of state I could take now my primary opponent is taking money from out of state. I don't find any fault with that monies taken from out of state. I wish I were as wealthy as he were so I could dump a half a million dollars of my own money into this campaign. But Chuck Grassley has been in the Congress six years. I know one nation only. I get a lot of money from people. Who want to contribute to the defeat of John call for people who believe in free enterprise. People who believe in limited government people who have the

conservative political philosophy that Chuck Grassley has. And in my judgment. Of campaign contributions is number one are they legal. Another number two are there any preconceived notions about those and I take no we all legal campaign contributions. And two there's no precondition put on any money that Chuck Grassley gets from any person Mr. Grass or any political action committee time is up. Norman Sadler has our next question and he'll direct that to Mr. Grassley. Mr. Grassley both of you are loyal members of the balance the federal budget movement. You know at the same time you both talked about tax cuts and credits to stimulate the economy. A bigger defense budget more federal aid to the railroads and greater spending for a variety of farm programs including higher price supports. Skeptics like Congressman John Anderson say that the path that you want to take with the federal budget cannot be accomplished with anything but mirrors. How do you respond to that how are you going to increase spending in all those areas and at the same time achieve a balanced budget. Are

you going to increase revenues in some areas make cuts in other areas and if so where. Let me assure you that that's a very legitimate question Norm. It comes to me not only from news people like you it comes from constituents both conservatives and liberals and a very legitimate question. And just this Wednesday it was a subject of debate in the House of Representatives. I had the opportunity of voting for the last amendment. I won't go into detail on the latter Amendment but there's a. Synopsis of it here that I carry with me to answer some of these questions. The point of that a lot of amendment was. That it was a Republican responsible approach to doing just exactly what your question implies can't be done but it can be done and practically every Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives along with me and as a Republican whip for the Republican Party in the U.S. House of Representatives. I have a responsibility

to help get this Republican program through. We lost because the big spending Democrats want to use the argument. Your question implies. And not admit because they believe in massive government spending without regard for the cost to the economy the cost to the taxpayers. And the cost inflation down the road. Mr. Stoner you may know answer the question. Well we have seen since John Culver has gone to the United States Senate at three hundred forty billion dollar deficit that's on budget and off budget. It's been a major cause of inflation and has harmed people throughout this country and throughout this state. And I think we have to realize that priorities change in the history of this country and priorities now it seems to me. Indicates that we must balance the budget because it is fueling inflation at the 17 18 percent level and it is harming our institutions and most importantly of current course of all it is harming our people. And so we must set

that as our first priority and then work backwards toward setting the priorities within a balanced budget in the most intelligent way that we can. And one of the things that we've done here in Iowa which has worked very well is an economy committee and I have proposed Wednesday of this week that we have approached the federal government on the same basis that we try to get the efficiency out of the federal government that we have been able to do here in Iowa. And if we do that we in that case will many of people from government and labor and business have been brought in to take a look at the situation it's been 25 years since that's been done for the federal government. And I think that real world approach would work very well in bringing about a balanced budget and more effective effectiveness and more efficiency from the federal government. Mr. Sandler do you have a follow up question. Yes Mr. Grassley you've you and Mr. Stone are both of just assured the voters of Iowa that you could achieve a balanced budget without telling them how you're going to do it. Let me just ask you to try to gauge how important this goal of a balanced budget is. If necessary would you defer balancing the federal budget to increase

expenditures on farm programs. No I would not. That is not necessary because one thing you want to remember there is economic growth in. The budget each year just because of the normal growth of our economy. So it isn't a question of having to cut. It's a question of restraining increases instead of going to the tanner 12 percent increases that the Democrats traditionally have done for the last 10 years of the twenty five years they've controlled the Congress. We ought to go with five six percent increases and we wouldn't be in the hole we're in now. Just this week I joined in debate on the floor of the House of Representatives support of the Coleman amendment which would cut 600 million dollars of duplicate expenditure out of the food stamp program duplicate expenditure not taking food out of anyone's mouth just money that's being duplicated. The General Accounting Office has directed Tannen eight billion dollars of waste fraud and mismanagement. I would trigger

nose to help government a raid to get some money from the federal treasury to help the railroads and I will that 10 and 8 billion dollars could be used for that. Mr. Grassley thank you. Mr. Stone are you have one minute. One of the things that we've seen in the in recent months is the new Chrysler bailout something that has become more and more on the lips of Iowans and Americans. We're talking about a billion and a half dollar loan guarantee and one that may well cost the Treasury and the taxpayers of this country a billion half dollars. Both John Culver and Chuck Grassley voted for that Chrysler bailout. Today just yesterday they're talking about 500 billion of that coming forth and a loss of a billion dollars is what they're projecting in Chrysler Corporation this year. If we just took that the of that alone that would be more than enough to pay for the projection of increasing loans for loan rates and loans for farmers that Senator Jeffords

proposed in the Senate. It's half the cost nearly half the cost of the land aversion program. So I think it's a matter of allocating resources toward the interests of the people of the state. And I still believe that that can be done within the within a balanced budget. David Epstein has our next question and that will be directed to Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone are the recession and layoffs all throughout. The nation's economy have spurred calls for greater protection in view of the continued slide in the economy. Would you favor higher tariffs or other measures to protect U.S. industry from foreign encroachments. If so specifically what. No I would not. I believe that what we must have in this country more than ever before is an aggressive foreign policy to increase our exports and increase savings and investment and increase productivity in America so that we can be more efficient in our industry and business. Certainly agriculture has led the

way in terms of our productivity in Iowa and across the country and if we had that same level of productivity in other parts of our economy would be doing very well indeed. So I believe that's what we must have I favor a free market economy and a free trade world. I think it is absolutely imperative for the United States of America and it is most important to the aisle economy where we export half our beans and a third of our corn and I believe we should do the same thing for red meats. These are the kind of things that I believe that a real world approach can bring to the United States Senate. And I believe that's one of the very first things that I would do when I get there. Mr. Grassley I'm for a real world approach to. I'm for free trade. But I'm for free trade. If it's fair trade and contrary to the real world free trade isn't always fair trade because so many other countries industries are subs subsidized by their country. So even though I favor free trade

and would fight for free trade. I would want the International Trade Commission to continue its existing authority to impose countervailing duties whenever that free trade is not fair trade when it's subsidized by the foreign government. And then that countervailing duties will be imposed to make the free trade really fair trade. I think we ought to promote more aggressively our exports. We don't do that very well when we start doing it then we won't have to worry about the export imports coming into this country. We ought to lift the grain embargo. It should have been imposed in the first instance. But quite frankly my opponent says he's for letting these imports come in and he is he's chastised me for not voting. For trade with China. That sort of trade that he approves of would have allowed more cheap textiles to come into this country to a cause more

on employment in the textile industry. Which on employment would have to be subsidized through the unemployment lines and the food stamp lines as well as those special duties. That employees on employed because the imports get two hundred ninety one thousand Automobile Workers are now getting those special unemployment benefits. And he complains about Chrysler. I would rather keep people working. Working not know our fair lines. If you have to do you have a follow up question. Just just a brief one Mr. Stone or what you say. Sounds good but it sounds like more of a long term approach. Is there anything specific that you would do in the short term to keep foreign competition from undermining this country's industrial base. Well I believe that we would first of all I think we have to lift the grain embargo and that's something we can do immediately. I have favored Yes I have favored giving most favored nation to

mainland China because the far American Farm Bureau favors it and I think that would increase our capacity to market grain there. I think that's very important. I think we have to increase productivity in this country so that we can be more competitive with foreign countries. I'm opposed to the dumping that the Japanese has done here in this country and I think that what we can do what we must do is be very tough minded about it and be aggressive in terms of our negotiations with them and I think someone in the United States Senate has a great deal of responsibility to oversee and to encourage a much more favorable balance of payment with Japan. You just can't do that sitting back you have to take a positive and aggressive action there and I believe that I could do that. Mr. Grassley you have one minute. I voted for the agricultural export Act of 1978 which is a program. That came out of the Agriculture Committee that I'm a member of. To promote agricultural exports overseas by getting the agricultural at caches out of the embassies and downtown of the major

industrial commercial centers of the world to promote agricultural sales. I think the principle used in the agricultural Tait Act of 1978 ought to likewise be imposed for commercial sales. Not too long ago our secretary of commerce went to Japan to promote sales. We're so behind in promoting sales overseas that the literature we talk over there about our products that we have to sale sell was not even printed in Japanese Now that's how far behind we are in promoting commercial products overseas. So we need an overhaul of that sales promotion like the agricultural trade act of 78 did for agriculture. Mr Hedges has our next series of questions handle directed first to Mr. Gresley. Both of you have said the federal government should address the problem of the failing railroad industry specifically Mr. Gresley. How should the railroads be revitalized.

Number one by. Making purchase of one railroad by another railroad viable railroad of a railroad that isn't viable. By eliminating the red tape that keeps from it's a third rail road from allowing all sales to be consummated. Number two. More money for Midwestern railroads to be diverted from the eastern railroads. Under the railroad Revitalization Act of 1976. And thirdly. The. If need be. And I want to emphasize only if need be and I'm not talking about nationalization of the railroads. We should allow those railroads to pay into a trust fund and then allow the good of the government to improve the road bed. Much as governments build highways and you and I as automobile drivers pay for the

use of roads. But we need to help Governor Ray. Sell his. The bonds at the state of Iowa wants to sell for the purchasing. Of the Rock Island. And I am a co-sponsor of a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would permit those bonds to be tax exempt. This is bringing back to the states where it can better be done. Some of the railroad revitalization as has been done under a program that I voted for as a member of the state legislature which Governor Romney supported the branch line railroad Revitalization Act. If I can work for. Branch lines it can work for main lines and the federal government can help by this bill I'm co-sponsoring to make these bonds tax exempt So Governor Romney can get his program through. Mr. Stoner you have to minister respond. Yes I believe the first thing that we must do is to deregulate or lessen the regulation of the railroads so they can compete in the

marketplace. They're they're saddled with so many regulations that they very frankly can't adjust their their rates. Throughout the year and with different commodities so that they can really be viable in the competitive situation that exists for them. Secondly I believe that it must be rather it must be made very easy for one railroad to merge with another. This is something that has been brought about by excessive third party intervention and bringing about these mergers. And I also believe that there must be some source of new approach to the railroad so that more than one railroad can use a single road bed certainly with the airlines and with the trucking industry and with the barge lines they all use a common road bed. Now the railroads are the only industry that has their own road rail bed and I believe that it's in a fish inefficient and ineffective at this particular time. And therefore I would favor an agency of government be

it local governments city government state government as in the case of the Rock Island or for the federal government which could own rail beds and then let private rail companies use these rail beds for a user fee and I think this way we can upgrade the railroads and give the kind of new protection we need and availability we need for shippers and for farmers in Iowa. Mr. Hedges do you have a follow up. Yes and it's a stunner. First of all you call for regulation or deregulation of the railroads hoping to increase competition. Then you call for. Legislation that would. Allow a bigger railroad to take over small railroads. Isn't that a contradiction. And doesn't it give. Larger railroads more price control. We've had such it we have had in this state bankruptcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy. You have railroads with great hardship to the shippers and farmers of the state. We need a strong railroad system. The point is that they have not been able to

compete not among themselves as much as it is with trucking interests and other forms of transportation. They have to have that ability to set rates in competition with trucking and with barge lines so that we can have a more competitive environment and at the same time we will have a better and system of railroads that are capable of making a profit and that profit can be used to make. Make them more viable in the future and this is what I think we need as a viable railroads and more competition I think they're very compatible. Mr. GRAEF we have one minute. I've been in Primm GHARA Newton and Muscatine lately and the question you ask comes up continually. But I do feel that the approach that has been used and I will the branch line Revitalization Act. And if that can be broadened to. More major railroads there hasn't been a branch line that hasn't been improved in Iowa under the state program that hasn't had a better cost

benefit ratio end result than ever was in Tessa paid it in the first instance. So we should not underestimate just improving. Or what improving railroad bads will do because once are improved and usage picks up they become self-sustaining. And that's what we want. We want to do it in a manner that will eventually end up with no subsidy from the taxpayers. George Mills is next in our line of questioning directing this question to Mr. Stoner. Mr. Steiner Next there is the import tax goes into effect that will lead to 10 cents at the gallon increase in the price of gasoline. Is this unnecessary or unnecessary sacrifice. Is it an imposition upon low income people. And will it help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I think it is one of the most serious mistakes of the Carter administration although in the case of the Carter administration it's awfully hard to rank the most serious

mistakes that they have. This is highly inflationary. I will be on the put on placed on the backs of the people who can afford it the least. The Iowa farmer who has to use it has to use energy to get his crops in. We'll have to pay it and that will increase as production costs at a time when they're having difficulty making ends meet. I'm totally opposed to it. He's using it as a method of balancing the budget. And should we should be cutting expenses instead. I believe that we are far better off and it would be far better off have bringing an end to the Department of Energy which I have proposed throughout this campaign which is a highly regulatory agency which has not produced a single kilowatt of power or ounce of petroleum and bring about a Nassa type agency which the purpose of which is to develop energy resources and find new resources in this country. This is the direction that we should go is to increase productivity increase production. This is going to benefit the Iowa farmer the Iowa homemaker and all Iowans. And this is

the direction we should go rather than an increased tax as Carter has proposed. Mr. Grassley I oppose this tax. I voted that way last Tuesday on the roost alowe amendment to the first budget resolution. I'm a co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the presidential impose import fee. For genius Smith has a billion that I'm going to vote for she's congresswoman from Nebraska. Which would if it does go through would exempt it from agricultural for agricultural purposes. I oppose this whether it's imposed by President Carter who happens to be a Democrat or even from my good friend Gerald Ford when he was president. The first issue I had to face is the only Republican from Iowa elected in 74 when I went to the U.S. House of Representatives in February was opposition to a similar proposal suggested by President Ford I don't see it as a partisan issue. I think it is something I

think of it of it as something patently unfair to the people of our America who have no other source of transportation other than the private automobile. My opponent supports gasoline rationing. I oppose gasoline racing not just because it cost too billions of dollars. But because it's unfair to all Americans this import taxes people in Washington D.C. can take subways and buses. But people I work can wear hook to the family car and that's why it's so unfair whether it's gasoline rationing or whether it is important to rural America. Mr. Millet you have a follow up question Ralph. Won't this isn't price the only way Mr. Grassley that we have achieved any reduction in consumption of gasoline and thereby reduced our dependence upon for our foreign oil to some extent. You are right George. But it's come from the

free market approach. And people willingly and voluntarily deciding that they can buy a smaller car or drive last or whatever they might want to do like carpooling I even find myself carpooling with Congressman sims from Idaho because of the high cost of gasoline. But you know what this import fees one cost. It's going to save only 100000 barrels a day and it's going to cost the taxpayers the consumers of America. Three hundred fifty dollars a barrel to save that hundred thousand barrels. That's why it's so wrong. If we're going to conserve there ought to be other ways more fair to the consumer to do it and to let them use their own free choice not have a government Lee imposed decision for them. Mr. Stoner response yes I want to restate the the critical nature of developing an asset type agency which I believe is absolutely essential. It is work for us in space. I believe it is absolutely essential to have

this creative type approach to the development of new resources in this country and I believe that's the best way to get moving in this area. Very frankly I want to correct the record I have not favored a gas rationing as Congressman Grassley has stated. I have favored the approach that both Jim Leach and Tom talky favored and that is for a standby program for gas rationing in the event of another major oil embargo which would catch us in a very difficult position and would cause gas prices to go right through the roof. So be our final question of this evening. Norman Sandler will direct that to Mr. Gresley. Mr. Gresley traditionally the loser in a race like yours supports the winner in the general election. How are you going to support an opponent who's accused you during this campaign of tripe. How will you support the opponent that you have accused during this campaign of trying to buy the nomination and of waging one of the worst cases of mudslinging in recent Iowa political history. And how do you expect Mr. Stone or his

supporters to support you when they have said it has deceived the voters of Iowa has been a professional politician who has an indefensible record and who possibly is even intellectually unqualified. To be a United States senator from Iowa. Let me assure you I hope that my primary opponent. Does what he said about one year ago right here in this very room when he was first on television as about the time he was going to announce his candidacy. He said he was going to run his campaign. Against John Calder when some of you gentlemen asking how he was going to get by Chuck Grassley the inference was that he'd He wasn't going to campaign against me he's changed his tactics for some reason. I find that as I expressed in my opening statement very distasteful. But he told Tom talky Monday on the phone that he was going to. Forget his negative attacks on me. And I expect him to say so publicly and withdraw all this vicious literature

he's putting out and the next three weeks we're going to spend our time running this campaign against John Carver because that's where my focus has been until the negative impacts of my opponent. And I want to keep it there because the Republican Party being the minority party has to be unified. And I want to assure you that it will be unified if Chuck Grassley has anything to do about it. Mr. Stoner. Yes. Chuck and I were in Fremont County. I believe about a week ago. And at that time I told Chuck in front of an audience and I think David you were there. That I would support him in the event that he won this nomination and I ask him to support me and we shook hands and I felt that that settled the matter. Since that time his people have called me a McCarthyist used half truth just another mudslinger And these are the words that the been coming out of the commercials attacking me in this last week. I

want to restate in spite of that again that I will support Chuck Grassley in the in the event that he wins this nomination. And in the event that I win the nomination I hope that he decides to support me as well. John Culver does not reflect the views of the people of this state and I believe it is absolutely essential that he be defeated in the Bamberg. Norman do you have a follow up. Is Mr. Stoner as you pointed out you've been the target of a lot of this criticism. Has this campaign not as many people in the Republican Party believe it has been highlighted by mudslinging that obscures the issues. I'm not sure how that you might perceive it Norm. But I have been talking about Chuck Grassley his record. I've been talking about statements that he has made in the press. I've been talking about Federal Election Commission specific statements from FEC reports. And I can document everything that I've said. And I think it's a matter for the people to decide. Mr. Grassley. With the proper attention between now and June 3rd. I'm John

Colver. I have no doubt in my mind. That the Republicans are going to see Chuck Grassley s record of accomplishment as a United States congressman. My record of fiscal conservatism my record of trying to bring the bureaucrats under control my record for. Tax reduction through indexing as a kind of a Republican they will want to run against John Carver who has just exactly the opposite record. And with that proper attention between now and June the 3rd. I have no doubt that I'm going to win and that we're going to have a united party out of it because the questions didn't take a lot of time and the answers didn't take the a lot of time we do have time for a question from David Yes and that'll be directed to Mr. Stone. Mr. Stoner do you believe the United States senator should vote the dictates of his conscience or the wishes of his constituents. If as a senator you're faced with a situation where for example the two conflict in your personal beliefs are different than

say what polls show Iowans believe. Which would you follow. I believe in questions of fiscal policy question of the pocketbook questions of. Are they of a financial nature I think it is absolutely essential that a United States senator vote the wishes of the people of this state. During this campaign. Issues of another sort of issues are social issues and this is kind of this kind I have stated clearly my position and I believe people have to make a decision on that and once they make that decision then they will decide to vote for me or not. I for example I have favored the Equal Rights Amendment. I favor its passage at the state level. My opponent has refused to state his position on that. And these are the kind of things that I think that we the people of the state should know before they make a decision on voting on a person. So I think it is depends a lot depends on the kind of issue we're dealing with. Mr. Grassley you have two minutes.

David the question you ask is probably a normal question more dear to my heart and probably differentiates John Carver from Chuck Grassley more than any other one thing as it differentiated my good friend Roger Jepson. From Dick Clark. That difference is whether or not we ought to try to find out what people think at the grassroots and represent that judgment as best we can perceive it from our contacts. That's why I. Hold just. Several times a month what I call listening posts in my district for people to come in and tell me their points of view. That's why I personally read my mail that comes to my congressional office so I can get those points of view and let me say in answer to your question. I think I have a responsibility to represent the views of the grassroots constituencies as best I can determine it is on sophisticated as that might be. When I can determine that to be their position the only possible exception would be instances of international relations or military

matters where I might have access to top secret information which I have had in the past occasion to have. Where possibly my constituency does not know about it. But most issues do not fall into that category. Most issues fall into the category of slowly building public discussion and public dialogue of those issues. And I think a congressman or again a state senator ought to enter into that dialogue at the grassroots. That's what I've tried to do. That's what I'll do as a United States senator. I'll do what I can to make representative government work. Mr. Gibson Do you have a follow up just a brief follow up. I'd like an example from each of you of the kinds of things that you would feel it necessary to support because the people of Iowa supported that you personally disagree with. When you consider David that I won last time by 75 percent and that I've had over a long period of time such close contact with my constituencies.

I don't know why except on international affairs and matters like for instance maybe the question of going to war. That would even enter into that sort of postured question that you asked. In the case of war in the case of making the decision to help covertly through some CA A operation if I were a member of the Intelligence Committee those things might enter into it but only that category of things. Mr Stone or one of the things that I have been doing during the last four months has been going to the grassroots of this state through Main Street tours and I have been in practically every town and community of the state and I really have gained so very much from the people who I have with whom I have talked. And I really believe that I understand the feelings of the people and concerns of the people of this state. I think of one issue right now that that I believe is foremost on their mind and that is the draft. There is a majority the people in the

state I believe that favor the resumption of the draft. I believe that we should move more more close more carefully toward the draft and should bring about registration at this particular point in time after we've set up the apparatus to do it. I do not favor the draft at this point because I believe it might be divisive in this country and I'm so suspicious of the ability of the Carter administration to move us in the right direction. That might be an example. But this again is a military question and I think that that almost in every case one must represent the views of the people of the state. Thank you Mr. Stoner. And our time for questioning has now expired and we'll move to the final phase in our debate tonight. The closing statements and Mr. Grassley will speak first. First of all I would like to thank all of you for your very. Good questions. I feel confortable in my answers to them. I hope the voters of Iowa will feel comfortable with me as I now asked them for their

support in the June 3rd primary and in the November election. I would like to have them remember my seniority in the U.S. House. That's going to give me a jump ahead of any freshman who has never served as my primary opponent has never served. Remember that I've been a farmer and as a farmer I know the problems of Agriculture. My son is now farming our farm and he's paying 17 percent interest and he's going to have a rough time but I think he'll make it. Eight out of 10 jobs and I or connected with a healthy agriculture. I'm concerned about them. I have a record of fighting inflation. The bird Grassley law I'm now on the books required a balanced budget by 1981. I'm not a Johnny or Tommy come lately to the balanced budget movement I was there two years ago when it wasn't popular to be. I've been a leader as ranking Republican on the family farm Subcommittee ranking Republican on the Aging Committee co-chair of the balanced budget caucus of the house and regional whip. Of the. U.S. House of Representatives Republican

Party. I know Iowans because of my varied background I can serve Iowans because of my experience. There's a great difference between John Carver and me. He's for. Policies that lead to inflation. He's for policies that weaken our national defense. John Carver for the congressional pay raise that I have always fought since I've been in the Congress the United States because I believe that Congress ought to set an example. With those differences. I feel that I can serve the people of Iowa in the United States Senate the same way that I've served to me in as third district congressman and consequently ask for their support. Mr. Stoner you have two minutes for a final statement. Thank you. Eighty years ago. My father was a small paint contractor here in Iowa. His office was in the basement. He worked hard to make ends meet. It was a time when I was coming of age. He had on his letterhead the

words every transaction guaranteed. He always lived by that phrase and it helped him become successful. He died when I was 16 years of age. But he passed along to me a set of values that included that statement. Today I have signed a personal statement of performance which I hope each of you will write in Forth to our campaign headquarters. It is a creed which I expect to live by. As your next United States senator. During the next three weeks. I hope you will watch carefully this campaign and that you will choose to support me on June 3rd election day. I will do everything in my power to make you proud of that vote. Thank you Mr. Grassley and Mr. Stoner. And this concludes our debate between the candidates for the Republican nomination for election to the United States Senate from Iowa. On behalf of the debate sponsors the Iowa College Republicans and the University of Iowa College Republicans and on behalf of our newest panel tonight David Upson Norman

Sandler George mills and Steve hedges. I'm Gene Borg thanking you for joining us tonight. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Q. The Grassley stoner debate sponsored by the I-word College Republicans has been a public affairs presentation of the Iowa Public Broadcasting Network.