1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter - 10/28/80

Good evening, I'm Ruth Hinerfeld from the League of Women Voters educational fund. Next Tuesday is election day before we go to the polls. Voters want to understand the issues and know the

candidate

s' positions. Tonight voters will have the opportunity to see and hear

candidate

s from the major parties. for the presidency Express your views on issues that affect us all The League of Women Voters is proud to host this

president

ial

debate

our moderator is Howard K Smith Thank you Ms. Hinerfeld The League of Women Voters is pleased to Welcome to the Convention Center Cleveland Ohio Music Hall Chairman Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party's candidate for re-election to the presidency, and Governor Ronald Reagan of California, the Republican Party's candidate for

president

, the candidates will

debate

domestic economic foreign policy questions and national security issues, questions will be raised. by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me, they are Marvin Stone, US News and World Report editor Harry Ellis Christian Science monitor national correspondent William Hilard assistant editor-in-chief of the Portland Oregonian Barbara Walters ABC correspondent News the ground rules for this, as agreed upon by you gentlemen, each panelist down here will ask a question, the same question to each of the two candidates, after the two candidates have answered, one panelist will ask follow-up questions to try to refine the answers, the candidates will then have an opportunity for each to make a rebuttal which will constitute the first half of the debate and I will set the rules for the second half later, in addition to some other rules, candidates cannot bring prepared notes to the podium, but they can take notes.

During the debate, if the candidates exceed the agreed upon allotted time, I will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. We ask the convention center audience to respect one basic rule. Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate, which is now based on a coin toss. Governor Reagan will answer Governor Marvin Stone's first question, as you well know. The question of War and Peace has emerged as a central theme in this campaign in the give and take of recent weeks. President Carter has been criticized for responding late. to aggressive Soviet pushes for an insufficient buildup of our armed forces and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran, you have been criticized for being too quick to advocate the use of too much military force to deal with foreign crises, specifically , what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power?

I don't know what the differences might be because I don't know what Mr. Carter's policies are. I do know what he thinks about mine and I'm just here to tell you that. I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace and that the use of force is always and only a last resort when all else has failed and only as it relates to our national security. Now I also believe that this meeting of this Mission responsibility to preserve peace, which I believe is a peculiar responsibility of our country, that we cannot separate from our responsibility as leaders of the free world because we are the only ones who can do it and, therefore , the burden of maintaining peace falls on us. and to maintain that peace requires strength.

The United States has never entered a war because we were too strong. We can enter a war by letting events spiral out of control, as they have over the past three and a half years under this administration's foreign policy. of Mr. Carter until each time we face a crisis and good management to preserve peace requires that we monitor events and try to intercept them before they become a crisis, but I have seen four wars in my life. I am a father of children, I have a grandson, I never want to see another generation of young Americans bleed their lives out on the heads of Sandy Beach in the Pacific or in the rice burgers and jungles in Asia or in the bloody, muddy fields of the battlefields of Europe Mr.

Stone Do you have any follow-up questions for the

governor

? Yes, Governor, we have been hearing that the defense buildup that you would partner with would cost tens of billions of dollars more than what is now contemplated and assuming that the American government and the people are willing to bear this cost, but they continue asking the question: How to reconcile the huge increases in military spending with his promise of significant tax cuts and balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year just ended amounted to more than $60 billion? Mr. Piedra Roja, I have presented an economic plan that I have prepared in collaboration with several excellent economists in this country, all of whom approve of it and believe that, in a five-year projection, this plan can allow additional expenses for We need a renewal of our defensive posture that we can achieve a balanced budget by 1983, if not sooner, and that we can afford a long time with the cuts I have proposed in government spending, we can afford the tax cuts that I have opposed and probably mainly because Mr.

Carter's economic policy has incorporated over the next five years and beyond a tax increase that would take $86 billion more out of people's pockets next year than was taken this year, and my tax cut will not comes close to eliminating those $86 billion. increase I am only reducing the amount of the increase, in other words, what I am talking about is not making the government receive less money again than it has been receiving, but simply reducing the increase in spending. The same question now goes to the President. Carter, President Carter, would you like the question repeated? Yes, President Carter, the question of war and peace is a central issue in this campaign for which he has been criticized in the give and take for responding, uh, late to aggressive Soviet impulses, uh, for an insufficiency. buildup of our military and a paralysis in dealing with Afghanistan and Iran, Governor Reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being too quick to advocate using too much military action to deal with foreign crises like the ones I have mentioned.

Specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of American military power, Mr. Stone? I have had to make thousands of decisions since I have been president in the Oval Office and each of those decisions affects the future. I have learned about my country in the process. I believe that I am a much wiser and more experienced man than when I debated President Ford four years ago. I have also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions HL M said that for every problem there is a simple answer, it would be clear, plausible and incorrect.

The fact is that this nation in the eight years before my presidency had its own decline in military strength. In 7 out of 8 years, defense budget commitments fell by 37%. In all, since I took office, we have had a steady, methodical, but very effective, carefully planned increase in our commitment to defense, but what we have done is use that enormous power, prestige and military force of the United States To preserve peace we have not only maintained peace for our own country but we have been able to extend the benefits of peace to others in the Middle East we have successfully worked for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and we have united with Israel and Egypt In a common defense capability, this is a very good step forward for our national security and we will continue to do what we have done in the past.

I should also add that there are decisions that are made in the Oval Office. for every president that are profound in nature, there are always trouble spots in the world and how those trouble spots are addressed by a single president in that Oval Office directly affects our nation, the involvement of the United States and also our American interest, which It is a basic factor. decision that every sitting president must so often make, that is what I have tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace. Mr. Stone, do you have a follow-up or do you?

I would like to be a little more specific about military use. power and let's talk about an area for a moment under what circumstances you would use military forces to deal with, for example, a shutdown of Persian Gulf oil if that were to occur or to counter Russian expansion beyond Afghanistan into Iran or Pakistan. I asked this question. In light of accusations that we are woefully unprepared to project sustained power - and I emphasize the word sustained power in that part of the world - in my State of the Union address earlier this year I noted that any threat to stability of the security of the Persian Gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country in the past, we have not had an adequate military presence in that region, we now have two major aircraft carrier task forces, we have access to facilities in five areas different from that region and We have made it clear that, working with our allies and others, we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality that could disrupt trade with that crucial area of ​​the world, but in doing so we have ensured that we address this issue peacefully, without injecting US military. forces into combat, but letting the strength of our nation be felt in a beneficial way, I believe this has ensured that our interests will be protected in the Persian Gulf region as we have in the Middle East and around the world.

Governor Reagan, you have a minute to comment on our rebuttal, well, yes, I question the figure about the decline in defense spending under the previous two administrations in the 8 years before this administration. I would draw your attention to the fact that we were in a war that ended during those eight years that Of course, I made a change in military spending because of the transition from war to peace. I would also like to point out that Republican presidents in those years faced a Democratic majority and both houses of Congress found that their defense budget requests were very often cut. now Gerald Ford left a projected 5 year plan for a military buildup to restore our defenses and President Carter's administration reduced it by 38% eliminated 60 ships from the Navy construction program that had been proposed and stopped the B1 delayed the cruise missile stopped. the Minute Man missile production line stopped the Trident or delayed the Trident submarine and is now planning a mobile military force that can be sent to various locations around the world, which makes me question his attacks on whether I am the one who is fast. seek the use of force, President Carter, you have the final say on this issue.

Well, there are several elements of defense. One is nuclear weapons control, something I hope to address later because it is the most important issue of this campaign. Other. one is how to address troubled areas of the world. I think that Governor Reagan has typically advocated for the injection of military forces into troubled areas, when my predecessors and I, both Democrats and Republicans, have advocated for solving those problems and those different difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically and through negotiation, in addition to that, the buildup of military forces is good for our country because we have to have military force to preserve peace, but I will always remember that the best weapons are those that are never fired in combat. and the best soldier is the one who never has to give his life on the battlefield strength is imperative for peace but the two must go hand in hand thank you gentlemen the next question is from Harry Ellis to President Carter Mr.

President when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%; now stands at over 12%, perhaps most significantly, the country's broader underlying inflation rate has risen from 7% to 9%, now part of that is due to external factors outside the control of the United States, in particular . OPEC's doubling of oil prices last year because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation really be controlled? If so, what measures would you implement in a second term? Well, again, it is important to put the situation in perspective in 1974 we had the so-called oil crisis in which the price of OPEC oil increased to an extraordinary degree we had an even worse crisis in 1979 in 1974 we had the worst recession the recession deepest and most penetrating recession since the Second World War.

The result this time was the shortest we have had since the Second World War. Additionally, we reduced inflation earlier this year. In the first quarter we had very severe inflationary pressure caused by the OPEC price increase, which averaged around 18%. the first quarter of this year the secondquarter we had reduced it to around 133% the most recent figures the last 3 months of the third quarter of this year the inflation rate is 7% still too high but it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing a huge number of jobs 9 million new jobs in the last 3 and a half years that the inflationary threat remains urgent for us.

I noticed that Governor Reagan recently mentioned the Reagan km Roth proposal that his own running mate, George Bush, described as voodoo economics. and he said that it would result in a 30% inflation rate and the work week, which is not a democratic publication, he said that this Roth proposal and I quote them, I think was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures that would destroy this nation for that our proposals are very strong and have been very carefully considered to stimulate employment, improve the industrial complex of this country, create tools for American workers and at the same time they would be anti-inflationary in nature, so 9 would be added millions of new jobs to control inflation and plan. for the future with energy policy now intact as a basis is our plan for the next few years Mr.

Ellis, do you have a follow-up question from Mr. Carter? Yes, Mr. President, you have mentioned the creation of 9 million new jobs at the same time that the unemployment rate remains high as does the current inflation rate. I wonder if he could tell us what additional policies he would implement in a second Administration to try to reduce that inflation rate and it would be an act of leadership to tell the American people that they will have to make sacrifices to adopt a more efficient lifestyle for some time. Yes, we have demanded that the American people sacrifice and, in fact, they have done very well.

Today we import about a third less oil from abroad than just a year ago. We have had a 25% reduction since the first year I was in office. At the same time, as I said before, we have added about 9 million net new jobs. In that period of time, a record never before reached was reached and in addition the new energy policy has been based on two factors: one, conservation, which requires sacrifice, and the other, an increase in the production of American Energy, which this year is working very well with more coal than ever before in This year, more oil and gas wells were drilled than ever before in history.

The new economic revitalization program we have in mind that will be implemented next year would result in tax credits that would allow companies to invest in new tools and new factories to create even more wells. More new jobs, around a million in the next two years and we have also planned a youth employment program that would cover 600,000 youth jobs. This has already been approved. The House now has an excellent prospect of passing it in the Senate. Now the same question goes to the Governor. Governor Reagan, would you like the question repeated? Yes, please, Governor Reagan, over the past four years, the consumer price index has increased from 4.8% to currently more than 12%, and perhaps most significantly, the nation's broader underlying inflation rate has increased by 7%. at 9% now, some of that has been due to external factors outside the control of the United States and, in particular, the more than doubling of OPEC oil prices last year, which leads me to ask if, Given that the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, inflation can indeed be controlled if so, specifically, what measures would you implement, Mr.

Ellis? I think this idea that has been generated here in our country that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore is uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it is completely spurious and it is dangerous to say this to people. people when Mr. Carter became president inflation was 4.8%, as you said, President Gerald Ford had reduced it by half and now it is 12.7%. President Carter has also talked about the new jobs created while we are always with Normal growth in our country and increasing population increases the number of jobs, but that cannot hide the fact that today there are 8 million men and women without work in the United States and 2 million of them lost their jobs in the last few years alone.

For months Mr. Carter had also promised that he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight inflation, and yet his

1980

economic message stated that we would reduce productivity and increase the national product and increase unemployment in order to control inflation, because in January at the beginning of the year it was more than 18% since then he blamed the people for inflation on OPEC he blamed the Federal Reserve system he blamed the lack of productivity of the American people then he accused the people of living too well and uh that we must share the scarcity we must sacrifice and get used to living with less we do not have inflation because people live too well we have inflation because the government the government is living too well and the last statement just a few days ago was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending.

I see my time is running out. I'll have to narrow this down real quick. Yes, inflation can be overcome by increasing productivity and decreasing cost. of the government to the point where we have balanced budgets and we are no longer spending money on printing presses flooding the market with it because the government is spending more than it takes in and my economic plan demands that the president's economic plan calls for raising taxes to the point that we ultimately take so much money from people that we can balance the budget that way, but we will have a very poor nation and a very unstable economy if we continue that path.

Mr. Ellis, yes, you have focused. on cutting public spending in what you just said about your own policies, you have also said that you would increase defense spending specifically, where would you cut public spending if you increased defense spending and also cut taxes so that presumably the Federal revenues will be reduced well? Most people, when they think about cutting government spending, think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or eliminating something, some service that the government is supposed to perform. I think, in fact, there is enough extravagance and fat in the government, er, one of the secretaries. of HW under Mr.

Carter testified that he thought there was $7 billion in fraud and waste in welfare and the medical programs associated with it. The General Accounting Office estimated that there are probably tens of billions of dollars being lost in fraud alone and have added that the waste adds even more to the fact that we have a program for a gradual reduction in government spending based on these theories and now I have a working group that has been working on where those cuts could be made. I'm sure it can be done and it will reduce inflation because I did it in California and inflation went below the national average in California when we gave money back to the people and reduced government spending.

The proposal of President Carter, Governor Reagan, Rean km Roth. proposal is one of the highest inflationary ideas ever presented to the American public. In reality, he would have to cut government spending by at least $130 billion to balance a budget under this ridiculous proposal. I noticed that his task force is working to Some of his ideas for his future plans were revealed in the Wall Street Journal this week. One of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage and several times this year Governor Reagan has said that the main cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. This type of approach to our country's working families is typical of many Republican leaders in the past, but I think it has been accentuated under Governor Reagan in California.

I'm surprised Governor Reagan mentioned this: he had the three largest tax increases in history. That state under his administration more than doubled state spending while he was

governor

, an increase of 122%, and had a 20 to 30% increase in the number of employees. Sorry to interrupt California, thank you sir, Governor Reagan has the final say on this issue. Yes, the numbers the president just used about California are a distortion of the situation there because while I was governor of California, our spending in California increased less per capita than spending in Georgia, while Mr. Carter was governor of Georgia in the same period. years the size of government increased only one-sixteenth in California what it increased in proportion to the population in Georgia and the idea that my tax cut proposal is inflationary.

I would like to ask the president why it is inflationary to allow people to keep more of their money. money and spend it how they would like and it is not inflationary to allow them to take that money and spend it how they want. I wish that question didn't have to be rhetorical, but it has to be because we're running out of time for that now. William Helard's third question to Governor Reagan: Yes, Governor Reagan, the decline of our cities has been accelerated by the continued rise of crime, strained race relations, the decline in the quality of public education, the persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation and a decline in public services - the signs seem to point towards a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in cities.

What would you specifically do in the next four years to reverse this trend? I have been talking to several congressmen who have the same idea as me and that is that in the inner city areas, in cooperation with the local government and with the national government and using tax incentives and with cooperation with the private sector, we have development zones that allow the local entity the city declares this particular area based on the standards of the percentage of people receiving social assistance unemployed, etc., in that area and then, through tax incentives, induces the creation of businesses that provide jobs, etc., in those areas, the elements of the government through these tax incentives.

For example, a business that would not have over a period of time an increase in property tax reflecting its development of the unused property it was doing would be no loss to the city because the city does not receive any tax from that. Now and then there would just be a delay and, on the other hand, many of the people who would then be given jobs are currently wards of the government and it wouldn't hurt to give them a tax incentive because, um, that wouldn't cost you something to the government. I think there are things to do in this regard.

I was in the South Bronx, in the same place where President Carter was in 1977. You have to see it to believe it. It looks like a bombed city. Large emaciated skeletons. of buildings Broken windows painted on one of them careless promises on another Despair and this was the place where President Carter had promised that he was going to implement a vast program to rebuild this department there are whole blocks or this area there are whole blocks of land that They were left bare uh just tear them down and nothing has been done and now they are charging to take tourists there to see this terrible desolation.

I spoke briefly with a man who asked me a simple question: Do I have a reason to do this? I hope to one day be able to take care of my family again. Nothing has been done. Continue with Mr. Haard. Yes, Governor Reagan. Blacks and other non-whites are increasing in numbers in our cities. Many of them feel that they face hostility from whites that prevents them from doing so. Since they join the economic mainstream of our society there is racial confrontation in schools, employment and housing, as non-whites seek to reap the benefits of a free society.

What do you think is the future of the nation as a multiracial society? I believe in it. I am eternally optimistic and believe we have made great strides since the days when I was young and when this country didn't even know it had a race problem. I know those things can come from desperation in an inner city. when there is hopelessness at home, lack of work and so on, but I believe that all of us together and I believe that the presidency is what Teddy Roosevelt said it was, it is a bully pulpit and I believe that something can be done from there because the objective of All of us should be that one day things will be done neither because of nor in spite of the differences between us, ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be, that we will have complete equality of opportunity for all people and I would do everything possible.

I could, in my power, accomplish that Mr. Hilard, could you repeat his question to President Carter, President Carter? The decline of our cities has been accelerated by the continued rise in crime. The tense racial relations. Thedecline in the quality of public education. The persistence of abnormal situations. Poverty in a rich nation and a decline in public services, the signs seem to point towards a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. What would you specifically do in the next four years to reverse this trend? Thank you. Sir, when I was campaigning in 1976, everywhere I went, mayors and local officials were despairing over the rapid deterioration of our nation's central cities.

We launched an excellent urban renewal program working with mayors, governors and other interested officials. successful effort, that is one of the main reasons we have had such an increase in the number of people employed of the 9 million people who have worked in new jobs since I took office, 1.3 million of them have been among Black Americans and another million Spanish speakers now plan to continue the revitalization program with increased mass rapid transit commitments under the windfall tax. We expect to spend about $43 billion dollars over the next 10 years to rebuild our country's transportation systems. We are also carrying out Housing Programs.

We have had a 73% increase in the allocation of federal funds to improve education. These are the types of efforts worked together with community leaders, particularly in the minority areas of the central cities, which had been deteriorating so rapidly in the past, it is very important to us that this is done with full citizen participation. minorities. I took it to the highest levels of government, to the White House, to the administrative offices of the executive branch, to the judicial system. qualified black and Spanish citizens and women who had been excluded in the past. I noticed that Governor Reagan said that when he was younger there was no knowledge of a race problem in this country, those who suffered discrimination based on race or sex certainly knew we had a race problem, we have come a long way to correct these problems, but we still have a long way to go.

Follow-up question Yes, President Carter. I would like to repeat the same follow-up to you, blacks and other non-whites. are increasing in number in our cities, many of them feel that they face white hostility that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. There is racial confrontation in schools, over employment and housing, as non-whites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. What is your assessment of nations as a future in multiracial society? ours is a nation of refugees a nation of immigrants almost all of our citizens came here from other lands and now have hopes that are coming true for a better life preserving their ethnic commitments their family structures their religious beliefs preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries but still forming together in a very coherent society that gives our nation its strength in the past those minority groups have often been excluded from participation in Government Affairs since I have been president I have appointed for example more than twice as many black federal judges as all previous presidents in the history of this country.

I have done the same in the appointment of women and also of Spaniards. -Speaking Americans to involve them in the administration of the government and a feeling that they belong to the social structure that makes decisions in the judiciary and in the executive branch is a very important commitment that I am trying to fulfill and will continue to do so in the future. Governor Reagan, you have a minute to rebut, yes, the president talks about government programs and they have their place, but as governor, when I was on that end of the line and I received some of these grants for government programs, I saw that many of them were a dead end.

They were public employment for these people who really want to go out into the private labor market where there are jobs with a future now the president spoke a moment ago that I was against the minimum wage I wish he had been with me when I sat with a group of black teenagers who told me They talked about their unemployment problems and that it was the minimum wage that had destroyed the jobs that they could get before and, in fact, every time it is increased, you will find that there is an increase in minority unemployment among young people and that is why I have been in favor of a separate minimum for them regarding the great progress that has been made with this government's spending the black unemployment rate in Detroit Michigan is 56% President Carter, you have the last word on this issue, well, It is obvious that we still have a long way to go to fully incorporate minority groups into the mainstream of American life.

We have made good progress and I have no doubt that the commitment to a minimum unemployment compensation wage welfare national health insurance those types of commitments that have characterized the Democratic Party since ancient history in the political life of this country are a very important element of the future in all of those elements Governor Reagan has repeatedly spoken against them, which to me shows a great insensitivity to giving disadvantaged families a better opportunity in life, this to me is a very important difference between him and me in this election, and I think the American people will judge accordingly, I have no doubt that in the central core cities with the new commitment to an energy policy with the possibility of revitalizing homes and making them more fuel efficient with the possibility of a synthetic fuel program solar energy this will give us an additional opportunity for jobs that will pay rich dividends, thank you gentlemen now for the Fourth question from Barbara Walters to President Carter Mr.

President, the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in Iran. I realize this is a sensitive area, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. Other countries have policies that determine how Israel will respond, for example, it considers hostages as soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists in the future Mr. President, the country has a right to know if it has a policy to address terrorism wherever it occurs and what We have learned from this experience in Iran that it could cause us to do things differently if this or something similar happens again.

One of the plagues of this world is a threat and activities of terrorists at one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of Iran. In the Western world we committed to cracking down on terrorism. The hijacking of planes was one of the elements of that commitment. There is no doubt that in recent years we have seen in recent months additional acts of violence against Jews and France and of course against those living in Israel by the PLO and other terrorist organizations, ultimately the terrorist threat More serious is if one of those radical nations that believe in terrorism as a policy had atomic weapons.

Both I and all of my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the spread of nuclear weapons in countries like Libya and Iraq, we have even alienated some of our closest trading partners because we have insisted on controlling the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries when Governor Reagan was asked about that, he made a very disturbing comment. that non-proliferation or controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not our business and when he was recently asked specifically about Iraq he said there is nothing we can do about it, this ultimate terrorist threat is the scariest of all and is part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds, Miss Walters, a follow up, yes, as we discuss policy if Iran had not taken American hostages, I suppose to preserve our neutrality we would have stopped the flow of spare parts and war vital. materials once the Iraq-Iran war broke out we are now offering to lift the ban on such goods if they let our people return home.

We will maintain our position of neutrality in the Iran and Iraq war we have no plans to sell additional material or goods to Iran that may be of a warlike nature when I made the decision to stop all trade with Iran as a result of the taking of our hostages I announced then and I have consistently maintained since then that if the hostages are rented safely, we will hand over the items that Iran owns, that they have bought and paid for, and that the frozen Iranian assets would be released, that has been a consistent policy. I intend to carry out, could I repeat the question now to Governor Reagan, please, M.

Walters? Yes, Governor, the eyes of the country tonight remain on the hostages in Iran with the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism. Beyond this current crisis, there are other countries that have policies that determine how Israel will respond, for example, it considers hostages as soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists in the future. The country has a right to know if it has a policy to address terrorism. wherever it might happen and what we've done I learned from this experience in Iran that might cause us to do things differently if this or something similar happened again Barbara, you've asked that question twice.

I think you should have at least one answer. What I've been accused of lately. of having a secret plan regarding the hostages, now this comes from an answer that I have given at least 50 times during this campaign to the press and that is that the question would be: Do you have any idea what you would do if you went there and I said, well, yeah, and I think anyone who's looking for this position, as well as other people, have probably thought to themselves, what's up with this? What's up with that? These are ideas of what I would think if I were in that position and had access to information where I would know all the options that were open to me I have never answered the question however second the one that says well tell me what some of those ideas are first I nothing would be afraid of being able to say something that was currently ongoing or in negotiations and therefore exposing it and endangering the hostages and sometimes I think some of my ideas might involve quiet diplomacy where you don't say in advance or tell anyone what you are thinking of doing.

It is difficult to answer because in the current situation no one wants to say anything that could inadvertently delay in any way the return of those hostages, if there is a possibility of them returning home soon or that could cause harm to what I think a Once they are safe here with their families and the tragedy is over and we have endured this humiliation for just missing one week of the year, then I think it is time that we have a full investigation into the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, for What have they been there for so long and when they return home, what did we have to do to achieve it.

Arrangements were made and I would suggest that Congress should conduct such an investigation in the future. In the meantime, I will continue to pray for them to come home. Follow-up question. Well, I would like to say that neither candidate specifically answered the question of a specific policy to address terrorism, but I will ask Governor Reagan a different follow-up question. He had suggested that there would be no Iranian crisis if you had been president because we would have given stronger support to the Shah, but Iran is a country of 37 million people who are resisting a government they considered dictatorial.

My question is not whether Shaw's regime was preferable to the Ayatollah, but whether the United States has the power or the right to try to determine what form of government each country will have and whether we support unpopular regimes whose main merit is that they are friendly to United States, the degree of The unpopularity of a regime when the choice is total authoritarianism, uh, totalitarianism, I should say, uh, in the alternative government makes one wonder if it is helping the people and we have been guilty of that because someone did not exactly meet our Human Rights standards, even though they were an ally of ours, instead of patiently trying to persuade them to change their ways, in several cases we have helped a revolutionary overthrow that results in total totalitarianism for those people and I think this is a kind of hypocritical policy when at the same time we maintain a relationship with the only nation in the world where there are no human rights at all, the Soviet Union, now there was a second phase in the Iranian issue in which we had something to do with that and that was that we received adequate warning that there was a threat to our Embassy and we could have done what other embassies did: strengthen our security there or withdraw ourpersonnel before the kidnapping and takeover took place.

Governor, I'm sorry, I must interrupt. Uh, President Carter, you have one minute to rebut. I did not hear any comments from Governor Reagan about what he would do to stop or reduce terrorism in the future. What the Western allies did decide to do is stop all commercial flights. flights to any nation involved in terrorism or hijacking or harboring hijackers; Second, we all pledged, as did all of my predecessors in the Oval Office, to not allow the spread of nuclear weapons to a terrorist nation or any other nation that does so. not currently have such weapons or explosive capabilities not to make any sales of material or weapons to a nation that is involved in terrorist activities and, finally, not to deal with the PLO until the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist and recognizes the UN resolution 242.

As a foundation for peace in the Middle East, these are some of the things our nation is committed to and we will continue these commitments. Governor Reagan, you have the final say on that question. Yes, I have no problem with the things that have been done. because I think it is time for the civilized countries of the world to make it clear that there is no place in the entire world for terrorism, that there will be no negotiations with terrorists of any kind and, although I have a final word here, I would like to correct a statement erroneousness of the facts on the part of the presidents.

I have never made the statement you suggested about nuclear proliferation and nuclear proliferation or attempting to stop it would be an important part of my policy, thank you gentlemen, that is the first half of the debate. Now the rules for the second half are pretty simple, they only get more complicated when I explain them. In the second half, the panelists with me will not have follow-up questions, instead, after the panelists have asked a question, the candidates will have responded to each of the candidates. You will have two opportunities to follow up the question to rebut or simply comment on your opponent's statement.

Governor Reagan will respond to Marvin Stone's first question in this section. Governor Reagan gun control. The president said it was the most important issue. Both. They have expressed a desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but by methods that are very different, you suggest that we scrap the salt treaty already negotiated and intensify the buildup of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty. one more time. favorable to us, yes, President Carter, on the other hand, says that he will try again to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify the present treaty on the basis that it is the best we can hope to get now, both of them cannot be right, could you tell us why What do you think? you are yes, I think I'm right because I think we have to have a consistent foreign policy, a strong America and a strong economy and then as we build our national security to restore our margin of safety, at the same time we try to curb the Soviet buildup that has been advancing at a rapid pace and for quite some time the Salt 2 treaty was the result of negotiations that Mr.

Carter's team initiated after having asked the Soviet Union for a discussion on actual reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. and his Emissary I think arrived home in 12 hours after having heard a very definite network, but he did not accept it. From the Soviet Union we then negotiated again on their terms because Mr. Carter had canceled the B1 bomber he delayed the MX he delayed the Tridon submarine delayed the cruise missile shut down the missileer the three the Minute Man missile production line and whatever else that could have been done, the Soviet Union came to the table knowing that we had moved forward with unilateral considerations or, uh , concessions without any reciprocity on their part.

Now I have not blocked the salt treaty 2 as Mr. Carter and Mr. Mondale suggest I have. has been blocked by a Senate in which there is a democratic majority, in fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 10 to zero with seven abstentions against the Salt 2 treaty and declared that it was not in the interest of the national security of the States United States, plus it is illegal. because the law of the land passed by Congress says that we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal and we are not equal in this treaty for one reason only our B52 bombers are considered strategic weapons your counterproductive bombers are not Governor I I have to interrupt him at that moment, time is up for that, but the same question now to President Carter.

Yes, President Carter. Both have expressed a desire to end the nuclear arms race with Russia, but through very different methods. The governor suggests that you scrap the salt treaty 2 that you negotiated in Vienna and signed in Vienna. intensify the buildup of American power to induce the Soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. You, on the other hand, say you will try again to convince a reluctant Congress to ratify it. this treaty on the basis that it is the best we can hope to get from the Russians. They cannot both be right. Could you tell us why you think they are?

Yes, I would love for inflation, unemployment, and cities to be very important issues, but The Life and Duties of a President pale into insignificance compared to nuclear weapons control. Every president who has served in the Oval Office since Harry Truman has dedicated himself to the proposal to control nuclear weapons in order to negotiate with the Soviet Union. Observable controlled balance. and then reducing atomic weapons levels, there is a disturbing pattern in Governor Reagan's attitude: he has never supported any of those arms control agreements, neither the limited nuclear test ban, nor the anti-ballistic missile treaty, nor the treaty. stock vadol negotiated with the Soviet Union by President Ford and now wants to throw away a treaty to control nuclear weapons on a balanced and equitable basis between us and the Soviet Union negotiated over a period of seven years by me and my two predecessors Republicans, the Senate. has not yet voted on the strategic arms limitation treaty, there have been preliminary skirmishes in the Senate committees but the treaty has never reached the Senate floor for either a debate or a vote, it is understandable that a senator in the preliminary debates could make an irresponsible statement or maybe a reckless statement, you have 99 other senators to correct that mistake if it's a mistake, but when a man who hopes to be president says, take this treaty, throw it away, don't vote, don't debate, don't explore the issues , do not finally take advantage of this long negotiation, which is something very dangerous and disturbing.

Governor Reagan, you have the opportunity to say yes. I would like to respond first of all to the Soviet Union if I have been critical of some. of the previous agreements is because we have been out-negotiated for quite some time and they have managed, despite all our attempts at arms limitation, to go ahead with the largest military build-up in human history and now suggest that Due Since two Republican presidents tried to pass the Salt Tre treaty that gets them on their side, I would like to say that President Ford, who was within 90% of a treaty that we could agree to when he left office, is emphatically in against this SALT treaty.

Treaty I would also like to point out that senators like Henry Jackson and Hulings of South Carolina are taking the lead in fighting this particular treaty. I'm not talking about scrapping it, I'm talking about bringing back the treaty and getting back to negotiations and I would say to the Soviet Union that we will sit down and negotiate with you for as long as it takes to not only have a legitimate arms limitation, but also a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither of us poses a threat to the other. That is not throwing away a treaty and opposing arms limitations.

President Carter, yes, Governor Reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements; He not only advocates the removal of the treaty from him and I don't know if these men he cites are against it. a treaty in its final form, but also defends the possibility, he said, has been a missing element in playing a trump card against the Soviet Union of a nuclear arms race and insisting on our own nation's nuclear superiority as a condition for negotiation in the future. with the Soviet Union, if President Bref said we would scrap this treaty negotiated under three American presidents over a seven-year period, we insist on nuclear superiority as a basis for future negotiations and believe that launching a nuclear arms race It is a good basis for future negotiations It is obvious that I, as president and all Americans, would reject such a proposal It would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race It would be very disruptive to the American people It would change the basic tone and commitment that our nation has been experienced since World War II under every Democratic and Republican president and would also be very worrying for our allies, all of whom support this nuclear weapons treaty, plus the adversarial relationship between us and the Soviet Union would undoubtedly deteriorate. very quickly in this The attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in his tone, although he said in a low voice.

Governor Reagan. I know the president is supposed to respond to me, but sometimes it's hard for me to connect what he says with what I've said or my positions. Sometimes we think he is like the witch doctor who gets angry when a good doctor comes along with a cure that will work. I have already made my point, Mr. President, regarding the negotiation, it does not require nuclear superiority on the part of the United States. States calling for a mutual reduction of these weapons, as I say, to the point that neither of us can pose a threat to the other and suggest that the Salt 2 treaty that your negotiators negotiated was just a continuation and built on all the efforts previous statements by two previous presidents is simply not true, it was a new negotiation because, as I say, President Ford was 10% away from having a solution that would be acceptable and I think our allies would be very happy to accept a fair solution. and a verifiable salt agreement President Carter, you have the final say on this issue.

I think that to close this discussion it would be best to put into perspective what we are talking about. I had a conversation with my daughter Amy the other day before coming here. When asked what the most important issue was, she said that she thought nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons control is a formidable force. Some of these weapons have 10 megatons of explosion if you put 50 tons of TNT in each of the railroad cars. we would have a carload of TNT, a trainload of TNT that would spread throughout this nation, that is a huge war explosion in a warhead, we have thousands of megaton equivalents or millions of tons of TNT warheads, the control of these Guns is the primary responsibility of a president and Rejecting this commitment from all presidents because of some small technicalities that can be corrected is a very dangerous approach.

Now we have to move on to another question from Harry Ellis to President Carter. Mr. President, as you have said, Americans through conservation are importing much less. Today, American dependence on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much greater today than at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and substantial quantities of Arab oil will be lost for some time. Can the United States develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without harming the environment? Will this process mean increasingly higher fuel bills for American families? I don't think there's any doubt that in the future the cost of oil is going to go up.

What I have as a basic commitment since I have been president is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It can only be done in two ways, one to conserve energy to stop wasting energy and second, to produce more American energy. We have been very successful in both cases. Now we have reduced the import of foreign oil in the last year. Only 1/3 of what we import. today 2 million barrels of oil less than the same day just a year ago, this commitment has been opening a very bright perspective for our nation in the future because with the windfall tax as a basis we now have the opportunity to use the taxes Americans.

Technology, American capacity and American natural resources to rapidly expand synthetic fuel production, yes, to rapidly expand solar energy production, yes, and also to produce conventional types of American energy, this year we will drill more oil and gas wells than any other year. In the historyWe will produce more coal this year than any year in history. We are exporting more coal this year than any year in history and we now have an opportunity with improved transportation systems, improved loading facilities at our ports and we see a very good opportunity. global international market to replace OPEC oil with American coal as a basic energy source, this exciting future will not only give us more energy security but will also open up enormous opportunities for Americans to live better lives and have millions of new jobs associated with this new and very dynamic industry now in Prospect because of a new energy policy that we have put in place, could you repeat the question now to Governor Reagan, Governor Reagan?

Americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than even a year ago, and yet dependence on Arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much greater today than during the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the Substantial loss of Arab oil could plunge the United States into depression. The question is whether the development of alternative energy sources to reduce this dependence can be done without harming the environment, and will it mean higher and higher fuel bills for American families? I'm not so sure that it means higher and higher fuel costs, but I do think that this nation has been portrayed for too long as people are energy poor when energy rich the coal that the president mentioned we do have and However 1/8 of our total coal resources are not being used at this time the mines are closed there are 22,000 miners out of work, most of this is due to regulations that interfere with its extraction or prevent its burning with our technology modern.

Yes, we can burn our coal, within the limits of the Clean Air Act. I think that as technology improves, we will be We can do even better with that, the other thing is that we have only leased and started exploring two percent of our outer continental shelf for oil, where everyone who is familiar with that fuel and that energy source believe that there are large reserves. Not yet found, in the last year our government has removed from multiple uses millions of acres of public lands that were once public lands subject to multiple use exploration for minerals, etc.

It is believed that probably 70% of the potential oil in the United States is probably hidden in those lands and no one is even allowed to go exploring to find out if it is there. This is particularly true of recent efforts to shut down some of Alaska's nuclear power. planned power plants in this country and let me add the word security, it must be done with maximum security, but 32 of them have given up and canceled their construction plans and again because government regulations and permits etc. make it necessary further. More than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the United States as it is to build one in Japan or Western Europe.

We have the sources here. We are rich in energy and coal is one of the great potentials. We have President Carter. His comment, yes, sir. I repeat, this year we have the opportunity that we will take advantage of to produce 800 million tons of coal, an unparalleled record in the history of our country. Governor Reagan says this is not a good achievement and blames regulations for restrictions on coal production. regulations that affect the life and health and safety of minors and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality of our water and our land, we cannot ignore those regulations.

We have an opportunity in the next 15 years by insisting on health and safety of workers in the mines and also preserve the same high standards of air and water pollution to triple the amount of coal we produce. Governor Reagan's approach to our energy policy, which has already proven effective, is to repeal or substantially change windfall tanks. return a significant portion of $227 billion to oil companies; eliminate the Department of Energy; short-circuit our synthetic fuels program; put minimal emphasis on solar energy; strongly emphasizing nuclear power plants as a major source of energy in the future wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give it to the major oil companies Governor Reagan, that is a misstatement, of course, of my position.

I simply believe that free enterprise can do a better job producing the things people need. then the government can the department of energy has a multi-billion dollar budget in excess of 10 billion dollars has not produced a liter of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the energy line and have Mr. Carter suggest that I want to eliminate safety laws and laws pertaining to clean water and clean air, etc. As Governor of California, I passed the toughest air pollution laws in the United States, the toughest air quality law ever passed in the United States, and created OSHA, an occupational safety and health organization. . employee protection agency before the federal government had one in place and to this day none of its decisions or rulings have been challenged, so I think some of those charges miss the point.

I am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary accusations. regulations that invade every facet of business and, indeed, much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary and that the government can do without, that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country and that They are contributing their share to inflation and I would like to see We will be a little freer as we once were President Carter, another chance to achieve this. In fact, the standard air pollution laws that were passed in California were passed over Governor Reagan's objections and this is a well-known fact recently as well. when someone suggested that the occupational safety and health law should be repealed, Governor Reagan responded amen.

Offshore drilling rights are an issue that Governor Reagan raises often, in fact, in his proposed land legislation for Alaska, 100% of all offshore land. would be open to exploration and 95% of all land in Alaska where minerals are suspected or believed to exist, with our 5-year plan for offshore land leasing we proposed drilling more land than has been drilled. open for drilling since this program began in 1954, so we are not putting restrictions on exploration in the United States, we are encouraging it in every way possible. Governor Reagan, you have the final say on this question. Yes, it is a well-known fact that I opposed the air. pollution laws in California the only thing I can think of is that the president must be suggesting the law that the federal government tried to impose on the state of California, not a law that would have made it impossible to drive a car within the city. limits of any city in California or have a place to locate it, if done against its regulations, it would have destroyed the economy of California and I must say that we had the support of Congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt by the Commission was Environmental.

Environmental Protection Agency, we still have the strictest air control or air pollution laws in the country, as for offshore oil, only 2% is now the minimum and is producing oil, the rest is if They will open the lands. In the next 5 years we are already 5 years behind in what we should be doing. There is now more oil in the wells that have been drilled than has been extracted in the 121 years that they have been drilled. Thank you Governor, thank you. You, Mr. President, the next question is for Governor Reagan, from William Hilard. Governor Reagan. Wage earners in this country, especially young people, are supporting a social security system that continues to drastically affect their income.

The system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old and is leading the country towards a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the increasing burden of the social security system? the social security system was based on a false premise regarding how quickly the number of workers would increase and how quickly the number of retirees would increase is actuarially unbalanced and this first became apparent about 16 years ago and some Of us were voicing warnings, but now there are trillions of dollars out of balance and the only response that has come so far is the largest tax increase in the history of our nation, the increase in the payroll tax for Social Security, which It will just put a band-aid on this and postpone doomsday by a few years at most.

What is needed is a study that I have proposed. by a task force to find experts to look at this whole problem to see how it can be reformed and made sound, but with the premise that no one currently dependent on Social Security will have the rug pulled out from under them and the money. We cannot scare their control like we have done with the threats and campaign rhetoric that has been developed in this campaign, our senior citizens leave them thinking that somehow they are in danger and that they will have nowhere to turn, they must continue to obtain those controls and I think the system can be put on a solid actuarial basis, but it's going to take some study and some work and not just pass a tax increase to let the burden or the ceiling fall on the next Administration.

Could you repeat it? Question for President Carter Yes, President Carter The wage earners of this country, especially the young, support a social security system that continues to drastically affect their incomes. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is leading the country towards a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young peso expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system, as long as as a Democratic president in the White House we have a strong and viable social security system, free from the threat of bankruptcy, although Governor Reagan He has changed his position lately on four different occasions.

He has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system that would, in fact, bankrupt him very quickly. I also noted in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that a preliminary report from its Advocates task force makes Social Security more sensible by reducing adjustments to Social Security for retirees to offset the impact of inflation, such approaches They are very dangerous for the safety, well-being and tranquility of retirees in this country and those in the future. retirement age, but no matter what is necessary in the future to keep Social Security strong, it must stay that way, and although there was a serious threat to the Social Security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when I became president, the action of the Democratic Congress that worked with me has been to put Social Security back on solid financial footing, that's one way to keep Governor Reagan well, that's just not true, like I said, it set back the actuarial imbalance, um, uh, falling on us for just a few years with that tax increase and I don't think we can keep raising taxes because the problem for young people today is that they are paying a lot more than they can expect to come out now again this statement that somehow way I wanted to destroy it and I simply changed my tone that I was in favor of voluntary Social Security what would mean its ruin Mr.

President the voluntary thing that I suggest suggested many years ago was that a young man was orphaned and was raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was not eligible for Social Security because she was not his mother and I suggested that if it is an insurance program, certainly the person paying should be able to name their own beneficiaries and that is the closest I have come. anything voluntary with Social Security I am too and committed to a social security program that will ensure these senior citizens of ours that they will continue to receive their money.

There are some changes I would like to make. I would like to make a change that discriminates in the regulations against a working wife who finds herself having to choose between her father's or her husband's benefits if he dies first or what she has paid, but does not recognize that she has also She has been paying for it herself and she is entitled to more and can currently get it. I would like to change that. President Carter's rebuttal now, these constant suggestions that the basic social security system must be changed cause concern and consternation among our country's agents.

It is obvious that we shouldcommit to them that Social Security benefits should not be taxed and that this would not be a peremptory change in the standards by which Social Security payments are made to retirees; We also need to continue to index Social Security payments so that if inflation increases, Social Security payments would increase one notch to allow the purchasing power of the Social Security check to continue intact. In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important in providing a modicum of help to seniors with retention. of health benefits In fact, Governor Reagan began his political career campaigning in this nation against Medicare, we now have the opportunity to move toward national health insurance with an emphasis on disease prevention and an emphasis on outpatient care, not hospital care, with an emphasis on Hospital Cost Containment to keep the cost of hospital care low for those who are sick.

An emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so if a family is at risk of being wiped out financially due to a very high medical bill, then insurance would help. pay for it these are the type of elements of national health insurance important to the American people Governor Reagan again typically is against such a proposal Governor there you have it again when I opposed Medicare there was another piece of legislation facing the same issue before Congress I happen to be in favor of the other law and thought it would be better for seniors and provide better care than what was ultimately passed.

I was not opposed to the principle of providing them with care. I was opposed to a law. unlike another, there's something else about social security, of course, that doesn't come from the payroll tax, it comes from the general fund and something needs to be done about it. I think it's embarrassing that the Social Security Disability Insurance Fund finds a check. They go every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crimes or mental illness and receive Social Security disability checks every month while a state institution covers all their needs and care.

President Carter, you have the final say on this issue. I think this debate over Social Security and Medicare, national health insurance, typifies as vividly as any other issue tonight the basic historical differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, illusions about basic changes in the minimum wage are another and the deplorable comments that Governor Reagan has made about unemployment compensation, these commitments that the Democratic Party has historically made to the Working Families of this nation have been extremely important for growth of their height and a better quality of life for them. I recently noticed that Governor Reagan frequently quotes Democratic presidents in his acceptance speech;

Otherwise, I've never heard a

presidential

candidate who is a Republican quote a Republican president, but when they take office they try to govern like Republicans, so it's good for the American people to remember that. There is a clear basic historical difference between Governor Rean and me on these crucial issues, as well as between the two parties we represent. Thank you, Mr. President, Governor Reagan, now we turn to another question, a question addressed to President Carter by Barbara Walters. Thank you, you've addressed some of the most important issues tonight, but the most important issue on the minds of American voters is your ability to lead this country.

When many voters walk into that booth a week from now, they will vote based on their instincts about you, the men you have already given us. your reasons why people should vote for you now, could you tell us for this your last question why they shouldn't vote for your opponent? Why could his presidency be detrimental to the nation? greatest weakness Robert is reluctant as I am to say anything critical about Governor Reagan. I'll try to answer his question. First of all, it is a historical perspective that I just described. This is a race between a mainstream Democrat in my party, as exemplified. for the actions I have taken in the Oval Office over the last four years in contrast to Governor Reagan, who in most cases typifies his party, but in some cases there is a radical departure on his part from the Aenar heritage and others, the most important.

The crucial difference in this election campaign, in my opinion, is the focus on nuclear arms control and the United States to control or not control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations that currently do not have them, particularly the terrorist nations, the United States. that Governor Reagan has been an example in many difficult times since he ran for president, I think since 1968, by injecting American military forces into places like North Korea to impose a blockade around Cuba this year or, in some cases, by projecting American forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of Ecuador on the west coast of South America, this is typical of its long-standing incarnation of using American power not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best tested by its actual use, obviously. no president wants war, and I certainly don't think Governor Reagan, if he were president, would want war, but a president in the Oval Office has to make a judgment almost daily about how to wield our country's enormous power for peace at all times. through diplomacy or carelessly in a belligerent manner that has exemplified your attitudes in the past Barbara, could you repeat the question to Governor Reagan?

Yes, thank you, knowing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of his opponent. Can I ask why people shouldn't do it? vote for your opponent why his presidency could be detrimental to the nation and having examined both the record of his opponent and the man himself, could you tell us what his greatest weakness is? Well, Barbara, I think there is a fundamental difference and I think it has been evident in most of the answers that Mr. Carter has given tonight that he looks for the solution to anything as another opportunity for a federal government program. .

I believe that the federal government has usurped powers and autonomy, autonomy and authority that it has imposed at the state and local level. about people's individual freedoms and that there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves if they were given a chance or by the levels of government that we are closest to now as to why it should be and not should be when he was a candidate in 1976, President Carter invented something he called the misery index, he added the unemployment rate and the inflation rate and at that time it came up to 12.5 under President Ford and he said no man that size the misery index had the right to seek re-election to the presidency today by his own decision the misery index is over 20% and I think this should suggest something but um when I've quoted a Democratic president like the president says he was a Democrat I said a lot of nonsense in those days, but the president I quoted had made a promise a Democratic promise and I quoted it because it was never fulfilled and today you would discover that that promise is at the very heart of what Republicanism represents in this country today and it is why That's why I believe there will be millions of Democrats who will vote with us this time because they also want that promise to be fulfilled.

It was a promise of less government, less taxes and more freedom for the people. President Carter, yes, I mention Governor Reagan's radical departure from the principles, ideals or historical perspective of his own party. I don't think this can be better illustrated than in the case of guaranteeing women equal rights under our nation's constitution. For 40 years, Republican Party platforms called for guaranteeing women's equal rights with a constitutional amendment. Six predecessors of mine who served in the Oval Office called for this guarantee of women's rights. Governor Reagan and the new Republican Party have walked away from this commitment, a severe blow. to the opportunity for women to finally correct the discrimination they have suffered when a man and a woman do the same amount of work, a man is paid one dollar, a woman is only paid 59 cents, and the Equal Rights Amendment It only says that equal rights will not be abridged for women by the federal government or by the state government, that is all it says, a simple guarantee of equal opportunity that characterizes the Democratic Party and that is a very important commitment to me compared to Governor Reagan's radical departure from the long-standing policies of his own party Governor Reagan Yes, Mr.

President, I am once again against the amendment because I believe the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and will put it in the hands of unelected judges. I am in favor of equality. rights and although you have been in office for 4 years and no state and most of them have a majority of democratic legislators has contributed to the ratification or voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment while I was governor more than eight years ago years, I found 14 separate cases where women were discriminated against in the body of California law and I had passed and enacted 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you just mentioned, equal pay, etc., I think If in all these years that we have spent trying to get the amendment that we have spent as much time correcting these laws as we did in California and that we were the first to do it if I were president, now I would also take a look at the hundreds of federal laws regulations that discriminate against women and that continue while everyone seeks an amendment.

I would have someone include it in those regulations and we would begin to eliminate those discriminations in the federal government against women. President Carter, yes, Howard, I am a Southerner and I share the basic beliefs of my region about excessive government interference in the private affairs of American citizens and also in the private affairs of the free enterprise system. One of the commitments I made was to deregulate the main industries in this country. We have had remarkable success with the help of the Democratic Congress. We have deregulated the airline industry, the railroad industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions now work in the communications industry, on top of that, I think this element of discrimination is something that the South has seen very vividly. like a plague in our region of the country that has now been corrected not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people who have to work to earn a living because we have been trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps since the long years of the Depression and leading a complete struggle and useful life in the Affairs of your country we have achieved remarkable success is part of my Conscience and my commitment to continue this progress that is why my Heritage as a Southerner my experience in the Oval Office convinces me that what I have done to describe is an appropriate course for the future Governor, yours is the last word, well, my last word is again to say that we were talking about this very simple amendment on women's rights and I once again make it clear that I am in favor of women's rights, but I would like to draw people's attention to the fact that the so-called Simple Amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that belong by law to women while respecting the physical differences between the two sexes Labor laws that protect them from doing things that would be physically harmful to them could all be challenged by men and the same would be true regarding combat service in the military and so on.

I thought it was a topic we were supposed to be on, but we're talking about how much we think about workers and so on. I am the only man who ever ran for this position who was six times president of his own union and still has life membership in that union. Gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement President Carter, you are the first, first of all I would like to thank the League of Women Voters for making this debate possible. I think it has been a very constructive debate and I hope it has helped familiarize the American people with the sharp differences between Governor Reagan and I.

I also want to thank the people of Cleveland and Ohio for being such a hospitable host during these last hours of my life. I've been around for almost four years. I have had to make thousands of decisions and each of those decisions has been a learning process. I have seen the strength of my nation and I have seen the crisis tentatively approaching and I have had to deal with those crises to the best of my ability. I have studied the history between Governor Reagan and myself. I have been impressedthe marked differences that exist between us. I believe that the outcome of this debate indicates that that fact is true.

I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself mainstream. mainstream even from the bipartisan list of presidents who served before me America must be a strong nation America must be a secure nation we must have a society that is just and equitable and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace to create a peaceful world I believe that since I have been in office there have been six or eight areas of combat evolving in other parts of the world, in each case I have had to determine only the interest of my country and the degree of participation of In my country it I have done it with moderation, with care, with consideration, sometimes consulting experts, but I have learned in these last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the decision is very close, the experts are likely to be divided. almost 50/50 and the final judgment on the future of a national war participation in peace reluctance consideration care consideration concern must be done by the man in the Oval Office it is a lonely job but with the participation of the American people in the process with For an open government, the work is very rewarding, the American people now face a lonely decision next Tuesday.

Those who hear my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country and I think they should remember that one vote can make a difference. much difference if one vote had changed the electoral district in 1960 John Kennedy would never have been president of his nation and if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968 Hubber Humphrey would have been president Richard Nixon wouldn't there be an association? involved and our nation stay strong stay at peace raise high the flag of human rights set an example to the rest of the world let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in all nations is my plan for the future I ask the American people Please join me in this association.

Governor Reagan. Yes, I would also like to add my words of thanks to the ladies of the League of Women Voters for making these debates possible. I'm sorry we couldn't. persuade the third candidate to present himself so that he can also be seen in these debates, but it is still good that at least once the three of us have been heard by the people of this country, next Tuesday is election day. Next Tuesday you all go to the polls, you will stand at the polling place and make a decision. I think that when you make that decision it would be good for you to ask yourself if you are better off than you were four years ago.

Is it easier for you to go? and buy things in stores that 4 years ago. Is there more or less unemployment in the country than four years ago? Is the United States as respected around the world as it was? Do you feel our security is as secure as we are? as strong as we were four years ago and if you answer all those questions yes, why, then I think your choice is very obvious as to who you're going to vote for, if you don't agree, if you don't believe that this path that we're on I've been on for the last four years is what you would like us to continue for the next four, then could you suggest another option that you have, this country does not have to be in the way it is, we do not have to go down continue sharing the shortage with the country getting worse With unemployment growing we talk about the unemployment lines if all the unemployed today were in a single line allowing 2 feet for each of them that line would reach from New York From the city to Los Angeles California all this can be cured and everything can be sort out.

I have not had the experience that the president has had in occupying that position, but I believe that as governor of California, the most populous state in the Union, if it were a nation, it would be the seventh economic power in the world. I also had some moments of loneliness and decisions to make. I know that the economic program I have proposed for this nation in the coming years can solve many of the problems that afflict it. today I know that because we did it there we reduced the cost the increase in the cost of government the increase in half over the eight years we returned $5.7 billion in tax refunds, credits and cuts to our people, as I said before, we fell below the average national in inflation when we did that and I know that we returned authority and autonomy to the people.

I would like to have a crusade today and I would like to lead that crusade with your help and it would be one to get the government off the backs of the great people of this country and Turn You Loose again to do those things that I know they can do so well because they did them and they made this country great, thank you gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years the League of Women Voters has been committed to citizenship education and the effective participation of Americans in government and political affairs, the most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen going to the polls and voting on behalf of the League of Women Voters.

Now I would like to thank the President. Carter and Governor Rean