tv Presidential Debates 1980 Presidential Debate - Jimmy Carter Ronald... CSPAN October 27, 2020 8:01pm-9:39pm EDT
crisis. then from 1984, the second and final debate between incumbent president juan reagan, and former vice president walter mondale. watch tonight, starting at 8 pm eastern. and enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on c-span 3. >> in the 1980 election, president jimmy cormorant, former california governor ronald reagan, debated once. the debate took place in cleveland, ohio. one week before election day.
>> good evening, next tuesday is election day, before i go to the polls voters have to understand the issues, and know the candidates positions. tonight, voters will have the opportunity to see and hear the major party candidates for the presidency state their views on issues that affect us all. the lead of women voters is proud to present this presidential debate. our moderator, miss howard k. smith. >> thank you mrs. hainan filled. the lead of women voters is pleased to welcome to the cleveland ohio convention center music call, president jimmy carter of the democratic parted for reelection to the presidency. and governor ronald reagan from california, the republican party's candidates for the presidency. the candidates will debate questions on domestic, economic,
foreign piracy -- policy and security issues. to questions are going to be posed by a panel of distinguished journalist who are here with me. they are marvin stone, at a tour of u.s. news and world report. harry ellis national correspondent other christian -- . william hilliard assistant managing editor to the reporter to oregonian. barbara walters correspondent abc news. the ground rules for this it was agreed by you gentlemen, are these each panelist down here will ask a question, the same question, to each of the two candidates. after the two candidates have answered, the panelists will ask follow-up questions to try and sharpen the answers. the candidates will then have an opportunity each to make a rebuttal. that will constitute the first half of the debate. and i will stick the rules for the second half, later on. so these are the rules, the candidates are not allowed it to bring prepared notes to the
podium but they are allowed to make notes during the debates. if the candidates exceed the allowed time agreed on, i will reluctantly but certainly interrupt them. we asked the convention center audience here to abide by one ground rule. please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. now, based on the toss of the coin, governor reagan what response to the first question, from marvin stone. >> governor, as you are well aware,, the question of warren piece has emerged as a central issue in this campaign. and they give and take of recent weeks, president carter has been criticized for responding way too aggressive soviet impulses for insufficient buildup of our foreign forces. in a paralysis of dealing with afghanistan and iran. you have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action, to deal with foreign crises. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the issues --
uses of american military power? >> i don't know what the differences might be, because i don't know why mr. carter's policies are. i do know what he said about mine. and i'm here to tell you that i believe, with all my heart, that our first priority must be world peace. and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else is failed. and then only, with regard to our national security. now, i believe, also that this meeting, this mission force possibility for keeping the peace, which i believe is a responsibility repeal peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the free world because we are the only ones that can do. it therefore the burden to maintain the piece falls on us. and to maintain that peace requires strength.
america has never gotten into a war because we were too strong. we can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last three and a hub here. under the foreign policies of this administration, and mr. carter, until we were faced its time with a crisis, and good management in preserving that piece requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. i have seen for wires in my lifetime, i am a father of sons, i have a grandson. i don't ever want to see another generation of young americans believe the law -- bullied their lives into sandy beach heads in the pacific, or jungles in asia, or bloody feels, battlefields, of europe. >> mr. stone, do you have a follow-up question? >> yes.
governor, we've been hearing that the defense buildup you would associate yourself with would cause tens of billions of dollars more than is now contemplated. assuming the american people are ready to bear this cost, they nevertheless keep asking the following question, how do you reconcile huge increases in military out plays, with your promise of substantial tax cuts? and balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year, ran more than 60 million dollars in the red. >> mr. stone, i have submitted economic plan that i have worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country. all of them approve it. and they believe that over a five-year projection, this plan can permit the extra spending foreign needed refurbishing of our defense-ing posture. it can provide for a balanced project by 1983, if not
earlier. and that we can't afford a long with the cost that i have proposed with spending, we can afford and probably mainly, because mr. carter's economic policy has built into the next five years, and gone beyond that. a tax increase that will be taking 86 billion dollars more, and next year out of the people's pockets, then was taken this year. and my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that 86 billion dollar increase. i'm only reducing the amount of the increase. in other words what i'm talking about is not putting government back to get less government than we've been getting, but simply cutting the increase in spending. >> the same question now goes to president, carter which alike to have the question repeated? >> yes. president carter, the question on one piece, central issue in this campaign. you've been criticized in the given take for responding late
to aggressive soviet impulses for insufficient buildup of our armed forces, in a paralysis of dealing with afghanistan and iran. governor reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle military action to deal with a foreign crises, such as i mention. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? >> mr. stone, i had to make thousands of decisions since i've been president, serving in the oval office. and with each one of those decisions to affect the future of my country, i have learned in the process i think i'm a much wiser and more experienced man, that i was, when i debated four years ago, against president ford. i've also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. someone said that for every problem there is a simple answer. it would be neat and plausible
and wrong. the fact is, this nation in the eight years before he became president, had its own military strength. decreased, seven out of eight years the budget commitment for defense went down. 37% in all. since i've been in office, we've had a steady equivalent bland, methodical but very effective increase in our commitment for defense. but what we've done, is to use an enormous power and prestige and military strength of the united states, to preserve the peace. we've not only kept peace for our own country, but we've been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. in the middle east, we've worked for peace treaties between israel and egypt, successfully. and they have tied ourselves together with israel and egypt, in a common defense capability. this is a very good step for our nation's security, and we will continue to do as we've
done in the past. i might also add, that there are decisions to be made in the oval office, by every president, which are profound in nature. there are always trouble spots in the war. and how those trouble areas are addressed by the president alone in the oval office effects are nation directly. the involvement of the united states and also our american interests, that is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently, by every president that serves. that's what i've tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace. >> mr. stoned, you have a follow-up? >> yes, i would like to be a little more specific on the use of military power. and let's talk about one area for the moment. under with circumstances would use military forces to deal with, for example, the shut off of parisian or no golf? half that would occur. or counter russian expansion beyond afghanistan, either iran or afghanistan. i've asked this question with a
view of charges that we are woefully unprepared to project and sustain, and i emphasize the sustained power and that part of the world. >> mr. stone, in my state of the union address earlier this year, i pointed out that any threat to the stability, and security, of the persian golf would be a threat to the security of our country. in the past, we have not had an adequate military presence in that region. now we have two major carrier task forces, we have access to facilities in five different areas of that region. and we've made it very clear, working with our allies and, others that we are prepared to invest any foreseeable eventuality, which will come with a crucial area of the. world but in doing this, we have nature that we address this question peacefully. not injecting american 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 did in the middle east, and throughout the world. >> governor reagan, you have a minute to comment, or rebut. >> well yes i questioned the figure about the decline. and the defense spending under the two previous administrations, and the proceeding eight years to this administration. i would call to your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those eight years, which of course made a change in military spending, because returning from war to peace. i would also like to point out that republican presidents in those years faced with a democratic majority in both houses of the congress, found that their requests for the fend budget were very often cut. now, general fold -- forward left the five-year project and blend for military buildup to restore our defenses, and presidents carters administration reduced that by 38%. they got 60 ships out of the navy building program that had been proposed. and stopped the b one delayed
the cruise missiles, stop the production line, stop the -- or delayed the tridents submarines. and no he's hoping a military force can be delayed and places in the world, which makes me question his assault on whether i am the one to be quick to use divorce. >> president carter we have the last word on this question. >> well one is to control nuclear weapons, which i hope we will get to later on, because that is a most important, single issue in this campaign. another one is how to address troubled areas in the world. i think perpetually governor regan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas. when i, and my predecessors both democrats and republicans, have advocated resolving those troubles, and those difficult areas in the world, peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiation. in addition to that, the buildup of military forces is good for our country, because
you have to have military history in order to preserve the peace. but i will always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat. and the best soldier, is the one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. strength is imperative for peace, but the two most go hand in hand. >> thank, you gentlemen. the next question is from harry ellis, to president carter. >> mister president, when you are elected in 1976, the consumer price index stood out 4.8%. and it now stands out about -- more than 12%. perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond us -- beyond u.s. control. notably, the doubling of oil prices by opec last year. because the united states remain vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact we controlled?
if so, what measures would you pursue in a second term? >> again, it's important to put the situation into perspective. in 1974 we had a sole oil shock. where in the price of opaque oil raised to an extraordinary degree. we had an even worse oil shock in 1979. in 1974 we had the worst recession, the deepest and most penetrating recession since the second world war. the recession that resulted, this time, pelosi briefest we've had, since the second world war. in addition, we brought down inflation, earlier this year of the first quarter we did have a severe inflation pressure. brought about by the opec price increase. average about 18%, the first quarter of the year. the second quarter, we had dropped it down to about 13%. the most recent figures, the last three months, the law third quarter of the, year inflation rate of 7%.
still to high, but it illustrates very vividly, that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs, 9 million new jobs in the last three or three and a half years, , that the inflation rate is still urgent on us. i noticed a governor reagan recently nation there reagan -- proposal, with his running mate, george bush described as we do economics. and said that it would result in a 30% inflation rate. and, a non democratic publications, that said that this proposal, and i quote them, was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary prices which would destroy this nation. so our proposals are very sound, and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex at this country, to create tools for american workers, and at the same time, it would anti inflationary and nation. so with new jobs, to control
inflation, and the plan for the future was an energy policy as a foundation is a replying for the years ahead. >> mr. alice, do you have a follow-up question for mr. carter? >> yes, mr. carter you have mentioned their creation of 9 million new jobs at the same time the unemployment rate still hangs high. as does the inflation rate, now i wonder can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to try to bring down that inflation rate? and would it be an active leadership to tell the american people they are going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner lifestyle for sometime to come? >> yes. we have demanded that the american people sacrifice, and they've done very well. as a matter of fact we are importing today about one third less oil from overseas generally did just a year ago. we've had 25% reduction, since the first year was in office.
at the same time, as i said earlier, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that period of time, a record never before achieved. also, the new energy policy has been predicated on two factors. one, conservation which are very sacrifice, and the other one increase of production in american in the jury which is going along very well. more this year than ever before in history. as i think you economic revitalization program that we have in mind, which will be implemented next year, would result in tax credits, which would lead business it to investing utility factories, to create even more new jobs. it about 1 million in the next two years. and we also have plan a youth employment program, which would encompass 600,000 jobs for young people. this is already passing house, and it has a great prospect to pass the senate. >> now, the same question goes to governor reagan. governor reagan which like to have the question repeated? governor reagan during the past
four years the consumer price index has risen from 4.8% to currently over 12%, and perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader underlying rate of inflation has gone up from seven to 9%. now a part of that has been due to external factors beyond u.s. control, and notably, the more than doubling of the price of the opaque oil last year. which leads me to ask whether since the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled, if so, specifically what measures would you pursue? >> i think this idea that that has been spawn in our country that inflation somehow came upon us like a blake, and their forwards uncontrollable, and no it can do anything about, it is entirely spurious and it's dangerous to say this to the people. when mr. crammer -- carter became president inflation was 4.8%, as you said,
and it has been cut into by president gerald ford. it is now running at 12.7%. president carter also had spoken of the new jobs created, while we always with a normal growth in our country and increase in, increased number of jobs. but that can't hide the fact that there are 8 million men and women out of work in america today. and 2 million of laws -- those lost her jobs in the last few months. mr. carter had also promise that he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation -- inflation. and yet his 1980 economic stated that we would reduce productively across the national product and increase unemployment in order to get a handle on inflation, because in january at the beginning of the air was more than 18%. since then he has blamed the people for inflation, opaque, he's blamed the federal resource system, he has blamed the lack of productivity, the american people, he has been accused people of living too well and that we must share in
scar city, it sacrifice, i could use to a good. we have inflation because the government is leaving too well. and the last statement just a few days ago with the speech to the effect that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending. i see my time running out here, i'll have to get this done very fast. yes you can lick inflation by increasing productivity, and by decreasing the cost of -- we have balanced budget, in who are no longer printing press money. because the government is spending more than it takes. and my economic plan calls for that. the presidency economic trends calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people, that weekend balanced a budget in that way. but we will have a very poor nation. and a very on sound economy, if we follow that bat. >> follow-up, mr. ellis? >> yes, you have centered on
cutting government spending in what you have just said about your own policies. you have also said that you would increase defense spending, specifically, where would you cut government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes, so that presumably federal revenues which shrink? >> while. most people when they think about cutting government spending they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs, or wiping out something, some service are government is supposed to perform. i believe that there is enough extravagance and fact in government, as a matter of fact, one of the secretaries of age he w. under mr. corner testified he thought there were 7 million dollars worth of fraud and waste and welfare. and in the medical program associated with it. we've had the general accounting office estimate that there are's probably tens of billions of dollars that has
lost in fraud alone, and that is a waste fact adds even more to. that we have a program for graduate reduction of government spending. based on these theories. and i have a task force now that has been working on where those costs could be made. i am confident that it can be done, and that it will reduce inflation, because i did it in california. and the inflation went down below the national average in california, when we return money to the people, and reduced government spending. >> president carter? >> governor reagan's proposal, it's one of the most highly inflationary ideas that ever has been presented to the american public. he would actually have to cut government spending by at least 130 billion dollars in order to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. i noticed his task force is working for his future plans, had some of those ideas revealed in the war street journal this week. one of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage.
in several times this year, governor reagan has said that the major cause of the unemployment is the minimum wage. this is a heartless kind of approach, to the working families of our country. which is typical of many republicans leaders in the past. but i think it's been accentuated under governor reagan. in california, i'm surprised governor reagan brought this up, he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that state, under his administration. he more than doubled state spending, while he was governor, 100 and 22% increase. and had between a 20 and 30% increase in the number of employees. >> sorry to interrupt. it's governor reagan, has the last word on this question. >> the figures that the president has just used about california is a distortion of the situation there. because while i was governor of california our spending in california increased at least
per capita in spending for georgia when mr. carter was governor of georgia, in the same for years. the size of government increased only one 60 in california of what it increased in proportion to population in georgia. and the idea that my tax cut proposal is inflationary i would like to ask the press for why is it inflationary to let the people keep more of their money and spend it the way they like? and it isn't inflationary to let him take that money and spend it the way he wants? >> i wished a question need not be rhetorical but it must be because we run out of time on that. now, the third question to governor reagan, from william hilliard. >> yes governor reagan, the decliner cities has been -- . strange religions, fall inequality of public education, the resistance of poverty, in the rich nations and a decline in the services to the public.
the signs seem to point to a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the city's what specifically would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend? >> i have been talking to a number of congressman who have much the same idea that i have. and that is that in the intercity areas, that in cooperation with local government, and with national government, and using tax incentives and cooperation with the private sector, that we have development zones, let the local entity, the city declare this particular area based on the standards of the percentage of people on welfare, unemployment, and so forth in that area. and then through tax incentives induced a creation of businesses providing jobs, and so forth in those areas. the elements of government through these tax incentives, for example the business that would not have for a period of
time an increase in the property tax reflecting its development of the unused property that he was making. what in the be any loss to the city because the city isn't getting any checks from that now. and it would simply be a delay. and on the other hand, many of the people that would then be given jobs, or awards of the government, and it wouldn't have -- heard to give them a tax incentive. because that would be costing government anything either. i think there are things to do in this regard. and attitude in the south bronx, in the exact spot that president carter sued in 1977, you have to see it to believe, it looks like a bombed out city. skeletons of buildings, windows smashed down, painted on one of them on kept promises, on another despair. and this was the spot out which president carter had promised that he was going to bring in a fast program to rebuild this department. this area. there are whole blocks of land
that are left there. just bulldozed down flat. and nothing has been done, and they are now charging to take tourists through there to see this terrible isolation. i talked to him and just briefly they are, who asked me want to be question, do i have reason to hope that i can sunday take care of my family again, nothing has been done? >> follow-up, mr. -- ? >> yes governor reagan. blacks and other non whites are increasing in a numbers in our cities. many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from the lights, that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. there is racial confrontations in, schools jobs, and in housing. there is non white seek to reap the benefits of free society. what do you think it's a nation's future as a multi racial society? >> i believe in it, i am eternally optimistic. and i happen to believe that we've made great promise -- progress from the days where i was young in this country
didn't even know it had a racial problem. i know those things can grow out of despair in an intercity. when there is hopelessness at home, lack of work and so forth, but i believe that all of us together, and i believe the presidency is what teddy roosevelt said it was, it's a bully pulpit. i think that something can be done from there because a goal for all of us should be that one day things will be done neither because of or in spite of any of the differences between us. ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be. that we will have total, equal opportunity for all people. i would do everything i could in my power to bring that about. >> would you repeat the question for president carter? >> president carter, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rising crime, strained race relations, the following quality of education, the persistence of inequality in
the cities. the signs seem to point to a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities, but specifically what you do the next four years to reverse this trend. >> thank you. when i was campaigning in 1976, everywhere i went the mayors and local officials were in despair about the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our nation. >> we initiated a very fine urban renewal program that worked with the mayors and governors and other interested officials. this has been a very successful effort. it is one of the main reasons we have had such an increase in the number of people employed. 9 million people put to work since i have been in office. 1. 3 million of those has been among black americans and another million among those that speak spanish. we are now planning to continue
the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid transit, mass transit. under the windfall property tax we expect to spend 43 billion dollars in the next ten years to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. we are also pursuing housing programs, we have a 73% increase in the allotment of our federal funds for improved education. these are the kinds of efforts on a joint basis with community leaders, particularly in minority areas of the central cities that have been deteriorating so rapidly in the past it is very important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens i have brought into the top levels of office and administrative offices of the executive branch -- into the judicial system, highly qualified black and spanish citizens and women that had in the past been excluded. i noticed that when governor reagan said that as a young man
there was no problem of racial problems in our country. those that suffer from discrimination from race or sex certainly knew that we had a problem. we have come a long way towards correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go. >> president carter, i would like to repeat the same follow-up question to you. >> >> blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in number in our cities. many of them feel they are facing hostility from white that keeps them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. what is your assessment? as a future in our multi racial society. >> ours is a nation of refugees, a nation of immigrants, almost all of our citizens came here from other lands. it now, they have hopes which are being realized for a better
life, preserving their ethnic commitments, their family structures, the religious beliefs, preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries which still pulling themself in a very coherent society to gives our nations strength. in the past, those minority groups have been excluded from the participation in affairs of the government. since i've been president, i've appointed twice as many black federal judges as all previous presidents of the history of this country. i have done the same thing appointment of women and spanish speaking americans. we have involvement administration of government and feel like they belong to the societal structure that makes decisions in the judiciary and executive branches. it's a very important commitment that i'm trying to realize and continue to do so in the future. >> governor reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal.
the president talks of government programs, and they have their place. but as governor, when i was receiving some of these government programs, i saw that so many of them were dead and, public employment for these people who really want to get out into the private job market where there were jobs for the future. the president spoke a moment ago that i was against the minimum wage. i wish he could have been with me when i sat with a group of teenagers who were black and who were telling me about their unemployment problems. they said that it was the minimum wage that has done away with the jobs that the jobs that they could once get. therefore, i have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. in regards to the great progress that has been made with government spending, the rate of unemployment for african-americans in michigan is 56%. >> >> president carter, you >>
it is obvious we still have a long way to go incorporating minority groups into the mainstream of american life >> we have made good progress, and there is no doubt in my mind that the commitment to minimum wage and welfare programs are a -- very important element of the future. in all of those elements, governor reagan has consistently spoken out against them which shows to me a great black of -- which to me shows a great lack of care. this is a very important difference between me and him in this election. i think the american people will judge accordingly. there's no doubt in my mind that in downtown central cities with a new commitment on an energy policy, with a chance to
revitalize homes and make them more fuel efficient, or the chance for synthetic fuels program, solar power, this will give us additional opportunity for jobs that will pay rich dividends. >> now for the fourth question from barbara walter's to president carter. >> the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in iran. the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. other countries have policies that would determine how they will respond. israel considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. for the future, mr. president, the country has the right to know if you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen? what have we learned from this experience in iran that would cause us to do something differently if something similar happens again? >> one of the blades on this world is the threat and the
activities of terrorists. at one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and other leaders committed ourselves to defend against acts of terrorism. there is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against jews in france, and against those that live in a result of high by members of other terrorist organizations. one of the biggest threat is that if one of those radical nations should have atomic weapons. both i and all my predecessors have a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons and countries like libya or iraq. we have alienated some of our
closest trade partners because we insist -- when governor reagan has been asked about that, he makes a disturbing comment that nonproliferation and the control of a spread of nuclear weapons is none of our business. and when he was asked specifically about iraq, he said there is nothing we can do about it. this ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all and it is part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds. >> miss walter's, a follow-up? >> while we are discussing policy had iran not taken up american hostages, i would've assumed that we would stop the flow of vital war materials with a war broke between iraq and iran. now you are offering to lift the band on such good if they let her people come home.
doesn't this war ward terrorism? and possibly antagonize nations that are friendly to us in the middle east? >> we will maintain our position of neutrality in iran and iraq war, we have no plans to sell additional material to iran that might be of a warlike niger. we when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran, as a result of taking a hostages, i now instead then and i have constancy maintained that if the hostages are relief safely that we would make delivery on those items which iran owns. they have bought and paid for them. also, that the frozen regime assets would be released. that has been a consistent policy, when i tend to carry out. >> would you repeat the question now for governor reagan? the >> yes, the eyes of the country are on the hostages in
iran. >> there are other countries that have policies that determine how they would respond to acts of terrorism. for the future, the country has the right to know if you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen? what have we learned from this experience in iran that would cause us to do something differently if something similar should happen again? >> barbara, you have asked that question twice and you deserve to have at least one answer to it. i have been accused lately of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. this comes from an answer i made at least 50 times during this campaign to the press. which is, the question would be have you any ideas on what we will do if you are there it. and i said, yes, i think anyone that is seeking this position as well as other people have fought to themselves, what
about this, what about that? these are just ideas that i would think of if i were in that position and had access to the information where i would know all options open to me. i've never answered the question that says, what are some of those ideas? first of all, i would be fearful that i would say something that was presently underway or in negotiations or expose it or individual hospital stages. sometimes i think some of my ideas are going to need quiet diplomacy where you do not say in advance what you are thinking of doing. your question is difficult to answer because in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay in any way the return of the hostages if there is a chance of them coming home soon or might cause them harm. once they are safely back here with their families and the
tragedy is over, we have enter this humiliation for lacking a week, it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning. why they have been there for so long? and when they come home, what did we have to do to bring that about? what arrangements were made? i would suggest that congress should hold such an investigation. in the meantime, i will continue praying they will come home. >> follow-up question. >> i would like to say that neither candidate answered specifically about a policy for dealing with terrorism. i will ask governor reagan a different question, you have suggested that there would be no iranian crisis if you've been presidents, we would've given firmer support. but iran is a country of 37 million people resisting a government they regard as dictatorial.
my question is not whether the regime was preferable to the ayatollah, but whether the united states has the power or right to determine what form of government any country should have? do we back unpopular regimes whose only merit is that they are friendly to the united states? >> the degree of unpopularity of a regime, when the choice is total authoritarianism, totalitarianism i should say, and the alternative governments makes one wonder whether you are being helpful to the people. we've been guilty of that. because someone doesn't meet our standards of human rights, even though they were an ally of ours, instead of trying patiently to persuade them to change their ways, we have in a number of instances aided a revolutionary overthrow which results incomplete totalitarianism instead of those people. this is a hypocritical policy, one and at the same time we are maintaining a détente with the
one nation in the world where there are no human rights in the world, the soviet union. there was a second phase and iranian affair which we had something to do with. and that was, we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy and there's could do whatever there do, strengthen our security or remove or a. personnel we before the kidnap took place. >> governor sorry i must interrupt president carter you have a minute for rebuttal. >> i didn't hear any comment from governor reagan about what he would do to stop or to reduce terrorism in the future. but the western allies did decide to do stop all air flight, commercial air flights to the nations involved in terrorism or the hijacking of terrorism, or the harboring of hijackers. secondly, we all committed ourselves as all of my predecessors in the oval office, not to permit the spread of nuclear weapons. to a terrorist nation or to any other nation that should not
have those weapons are capabilities for explosives. third not to make any sales of material or weapons to a nation which is involved in terrorist activities. and lastly, not to deal with the plo until at last the plo recognizes its right to exist at the un resolution to 42 for their resolution of middle east peace. these are free of the things to which our nation is committed. and we will continue with these commitment. >>, governor reagan you have the last word on that question. >> yes i have no cord whatsoever with the things that have been done,, because i believe it is high time that the civilized countries in the world made it plain that there is no room world ride for terrorism. there will be no negotiation with terrorists of any kind, and while i have a last word here, i would like to correct a missed statement of fact by the president. i have never made the statement that he suggested about nuclear playfully -- proliferation and nuclear
proliferation and the heart that he would make a major parts in the foreign policy of mine. >> thank you gentlemen, that is the first half of the debate. now the rules for the second half quite simple, there they are only complicated when i explained. them the second half of the panelists with me will have no follow-up questions. instead, after the panelists have asked a question, the candidates have answered each of the candidates will have two opportunities to follow up, to question, to rebut, or just to comment on his opponents statements. governor reagan will respond in this section to the first question, from marvin stone. >> governor reagan, arms control. the president said it was to single most important issue. both of you have expressed the desire, another nuclear arms race with russia, but by methods that are vastly different. do you suggested that we scrap some treaty already negotiated and intensify the buildup of american power to induce the
soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. >> yes. >> president carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the current treaty, on the grounds we can best hope to get. now both of you cannot be right. will you tell us why you think you are? >> yes. i think i'm right because i believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong america, and a strong economy. and then, as we build up our national security to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time, try to restrain the soviet buildup, which has been going for a rapid paced, and for quite some time. the salt two treaty was the result of negotiations and mr. carter's team entered into after he had asked the soviet union for a discussion of
actual reduction of nuclear strategic weapons. and as emissary he came home in 12 hours, with having heard a very definite no. but taking that one no from the soviet union we then went back into negotiations on their terms, because mr. carter had canceled the b one bomber, delight the annex, to lead the -- delay to cruise missiles, shut down the missile man, the missile production line, and whatever other things that might have been done. the soviet union side at the table knowing that we had growing four with unilateral considered -- concessions without any reciprocation from them whatsoever. now i have not blocked the salt two treaty, as carter suggests i have. it has been blocked by a senate in which it was democratic majority. indeed the senate committee ten to zero, with seven abstentions
against the salt salt-2 declared, and the clay was not in the national security safety. -- because a lot of the land passed by congress says we cannot accept the treaty in which we are not equal. and we are not equal in this treaty for one reason alone, our b-52 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons, they are backfire bombers which are not. >> governor i have to interrupt, to your time is up. same question now to president carter. >> he has. president carter, both of you have expressed a desire to end the nuclear arms race with russia. through vastly different methods. the governor suggests we scrap the salt-2 treaty which you negotiated in vienna, signed indiana, and intensify the buildup of american power to reduce the soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. you will, on the other hand, say you will again, try to
convince a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty, on the grounds it is the best we can hope to get from the russians. you cannot both be right, will you tell us why you think you are? >> yes i, will be glad to. inflation, unemployment the cities all very important issues. but they pale in insignificance in the life of a president, when compared to the control of nuclear weapon. have a president who has served in the oval office since harry truman, has been dedicated to the proposition of controlling nuclear weapons. ten go shade with the soviet union, balanced-controlled observable, and then reducing levels of atomic weaponry. there is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of governor reagan. he has never supported any of those arms controls agreements.
the limited test ban, sold one, the anti ballistic missile treaty negotiated with the soviet union by president forward, and now he wants to throw into the wastebasket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on a balanced and equal bases between ourselves and the soviet union negotiated over a seven year period by myself and my two republican predecessors. the senate has not voted yet on the strategic arms limitation treaty. there have been preliminary -- in the committees of the senate. but the treaty has never come to the floor for either a debate, or a vote. hey -- it's understandable that in the preliminary debate it can make an irresponsible statement, or maybe an ill-advised statement. you've got 99 other soldiers to correct that mistake, you can
make a mistake. but when a man who hopes to be president says take this treaty, discarded, do not vote, do not debate do not explore the issues, do not -- finally kept the lies on the long negotiations, that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing. >> karina reagan, you have an opportunity to rebut that. >> yes, i'd like to respond very much. first of all the soviet union, if i have been critical of some of the previous agreements, it's because we have been out negotiating for quite a long time, and they have managed, in spite of all our attempts at arms limitation, to go forward with the biggest military buildup in the history of man. now i suggested two republican presidents try to falls -- past these treaties, that puts him on the side. i would like to say, president forward, who was within 90% of a treaty that we could be in
agreement with when he left office, is emphatically against this salt treaty. i would like to point also that senators like henry jackson, and holings, of south carolina, they are taking the lead in the fight. against this particular treaty. i am not talking about scrapping i am talking of taking the treaty back, and going back into negotiations. and i would say to the soviet union we will sit and negotiate with you, as long as it takes, to have not only legitimate arms limitation but to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither one of us represents a threat to the other. that is hardly throwing away a treaty, and being opposed to arms limitation. >> president carter? >> yes. governor reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements. he not only advocates scrapping of the treaty, and i don't know that these men that he quotes are against this treaty in this
final form. but he also advocates the possibility, he said it's been a missing element, of playing a trump card against the soviet union of a nuclear arms race. and insisting upon nuclear superiority, by our own nation, for negotiation in the future for the soviet union. if president of russia said we will scrap this treaty, negotiated on the free american president on their seven year period of time, we insist upon nuclear superiority, as a basis for future negotiations. and we believe that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good bases for a future negotiations. it's obvious that i as president and all americans would reject such a proposition. this would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. it would be very disturbing to american people, i would change the basic tone and commitment that our nation has experienced, ever since the second world war, with all of the presidents,
democratic and republican. i would also be very disturbing to our allies all of them, support this nuclear armed treaty. in addition to that, the relationship between yourselves and the soviet union would undoubtedly deteriorate very rapidly. this attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in his tone. although i said with a quiet voice. >> governor reagan? >> i don't know if the president is supposed to be replying to me but sometimes i have a hard time in connecting what he's saying with what i have said or with what my positions are. sometimes it's like the witch doctor that gets mad when a good doctor comes along with a cure that will work. my point i have made already, mister president, with regard to negotiating, it does not called for nuclear superiority in the part of the united states. it is calls for a mutual reduction of these weapons as i say to the point i neither of us can represent a threat. to the other.
and to suggest that the salt-2 treaty that your negotiators negotiated hoisted continuation based on all of the preceding efforts by two previous presidents is just not true. it was a new negotiation because, as i say, president forward was within 10% of having a solution that could be acceptable. and i think our allies would be very happy to go along with a fair and verifiable salt agreement. >> president carter, you have the last word on this. >> i'd like to close this discussion, it would be better to put it into perspective what we're talking about. i had a discussion with my daughter, amy the other day before i came here. tasker what the most important issue. as she said she thought nuclear weaponry. and the control of nuclear arms. this is a formidable force, some of these weapons have ten mega tones of explosion. if you put 50 tons of tnt in
each one of railroad cars, you would have a carload of tnt, a trainload of tnt stretching across this nation, that's one major war explosion in a warhead. we have thousands. equivalent of megaton, of million tons of tnt warheads. the control of these weapons is the single major responsibility of the president, and to cast down this commitment of all presidents because of some slight technicalities, as they can be corrected it's a very dangerous approach. >> we have to go to another question now, from harry ellis to president carter. >> mister president as you said, americans through conservation are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. yet, he was dependence on arab oil as a percentage of total
imports it's today much higher than it was at the time of the 1973 arab oil embargo. and for some time to come, the loss of substantial amount of arab oil could plunge the u.s. into a depression. now this means that a bridge must be built out of this dependence. can united states develop synthetic fuels, and other alternative energy sources,, without damage to the environment, and will this process mean steadily, higher fuel built for american family? >> i don't think there's any doubt. that in the future, the cost of oil is going to go up. what i've had is a basic commitment since i've been president. it's to reduce our dependence on foreign oil it can only be done in two ways. one, to conserve energy. to stop the waste of energy. and second, to produce more american energy. we've been very successful in both cases. we have now reduced the
importing of foreign oil, the last year alone by one third. we imported today 2 million barrels of oil less, then we did the same day just a year ago. this commitment has been opening up a very bright vista for a future. because with the windfall profits tax as a base, we now have an opportunity to use american technology and american ability and natural resources to expand rapidly the production of fuels. to expand solar energy. and to produce american energy. we will drill oil and gas wells this year, more than any in history, we will produce more cold this year than any other here in history. and we have an opportunity now with improved and improved loading facilities to see a very good opportunity on a world international market to
replace oil with coal as basic energy source. this exciting future will not only give us energy security but will also open up vast opportunities for americans to live a better life and to have millions of new jobs and be associated with this dynamic industry, because of the new energy policy that we put into effect. >> which repeat the question for governor reagan? >> americans through conservation are importing much less oil today than we were a year ago, yet u.s. reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was in 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 in order to
reduce this dependence can be done without damaging the environment and will it mean for american families steadily higher furor bills. >> i'm not so sure means steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long time to the people as being energy-poor when it is energy-rich. the coal that the president mentioned, yes, we have it and yet one-eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now. the mines are closed down, there are 22,000 miners out of work. most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it. with our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the clean air act. i think, as technology improves, we'll be able to do even better with that. the other thing is that we have only leased out, begun to explore 2% of our outer continental shelf for oil,
where it is believed, by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy, that there are vast supplies yet to be found. our government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were, well, they were public lands subject to multiple use exploration for minerals and so forth. it is believed that probably 70% of the potential oil in the united states is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. this is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of alaska. nuclear power. there were 36 power plants planned in this country. and let me add the word safety; it must be done with the utmost of safety. but 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because government regulations and
permits, and so forth, take--make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the united states as it does to build one in japan or in western europe. we have the sources here. we are energy rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have. mr. carter, your comment? >> to repeat myself, this year we have an opportunity which will realize to produce 800 million tons of coal. governor rick and says this is not a good achievement, and he blames restraints on the coal production on regulations, regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners, and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality our water and our land. we cannot cast aside these
regulations. we have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. governor reagan's approach to our energy policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal, or to change substantially, the windfall profits tax, to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil companies, to do away with the department of energy, to short-circuit our synthetic fuels program, to put a minimal emphasis on solar power, to emphasize strongly nuclear power plants as a major source of energy in the future. he wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. >> that is a misstatement of my position i just happen to believe that free enterprise can do a better job producing
the things that people need than government can, the department of energy is a multi million dollar budget in excess of 10 million dollars and it hasn't produced anything in the line of energy and for mr. carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth, as governor of california, i took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the united states, the strictest air quality law that has even been adopted in the united states. and we created an osha, an occupational safety and health agency, for the protection of employees before the federal government had one in place. and to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. so, i think some of those charges are missing the point. i am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that
invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary, that government can do without, that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country, and that are contributing their part to inflation. and i would like to see us a little more free, as we once were. >> president carter, another crack at that? >> sure, as a matter of fact the air pollution standard laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan, and this is a very well known fact. also, we certainly, when someone suggested that the occupational safety and health act should be abolished, governor raided responded, amen. the offshore drilling rights is a question that governor reagan raises often. as a matter of fact, in the proposal for the alaska lands
legislation, 100% of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95% of all the alaska lands, where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. we have, with our five-year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. so we're not putting restraints on american exploration, we're encouraging it in every way we can. >> governor reagan, who have the last word on this question. >> if it is well known fact that i opposed air pollution laws in california, the only thing i can possibly think of is the president must be suggesting the law that the federal government try to impose on the state of california -- not a law, but regulations that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any california city, or to have a place to put it if you did drive it against their
regulations. it would have destroyed the economy of california and, i must say, we had the support of congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the environmental protection agency. we still have the strictest air control, or air pollution laws in the country. as for offshore oiling, only 2% now is so leased and is producing oil. the rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next five years or so, we're already five years behind in what we should be doing. there is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled, than has been taken out in 121 years that they've been drilled. >> the next question goes to governor reagan. >> wage earners in this country are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income
drastically. the system is fostering of struggle between the young and old. it is drifting the country towards a polarization between these two groups, how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever increasing burden of the social security system? >> the social security system was based on false premise. with regard to how fast number of workers would increase and how fast number of retirees would increase. it is actuarially out of balance. this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history, the payroll tax increase for social security which will only put a band-aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. what is needed is a study that i have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made
actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on social security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. >> we cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens, leave them thinking that in some way, they're endangered and they would have no place to turn. they must continue to get those checks, and i believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. but it's going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the load or the roof fall in on the next administration. >> would you repeat that question for president carter? >> yes, president carter, wage earners in this country especially the young are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fraught between a struggle between young and old
and instructing the country towards polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young age warner expect to bear at the ever increasing burden of the social security system? >> as long as there is a democratic president in the white house, we will have a strong and viable social security system, free of the threat of bankruptcy. although governor reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making social security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. i noticed also in the "wall street journal" early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making social security more sound by reducing the adjustment in social security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. these kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. but, no matter what it takes in
the future to keep social security sound, it must be kept 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 working with me has been to put social security back on a sound financial basis. that is the way it will stay. >> governor reagan? >> well, that just isn't true. because as i said, they delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and i don't believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. >> now, again this statement that somehow, i wanted to destroy it and i just changed my tune, that i am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it. mr. president, the voluntary thing that i suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned
and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for social security insurance because she was not his mother. and i suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. that is the closest i have ever come to anything voluntary with social security. i, too, am pledged to a social security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. there are some changes that i would like to make. i would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her father's or her husband's benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in, but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. i'd like to change that.
>> president carter's rebuttal now. >> this constant's suggestions that the basic social security system should be changed does cause concern and consternation among the aged of our country. it is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that social security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which social security payments are made to retired people. we also need to continue to index social security payments, so that if inflation rises, the social security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of a social security check continue
intact. in the past, the relationship between social security and medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. governor reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care, an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the american people. >> there you go again. there is another piece of legislation before the congress, i happen to favor the other piece of legislation and thought it would be better for
the senior citizens and provide better care for the one that was passed. i was not opposing the principle of care for them, i was opposing one piece of legislation shun versus another. there is something else about social security, it doesn't come out of the payroll tax but it comes out of the general fund. something should be done about that, i think it is disgraceful that this is ability -- it finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institution for crime or for mental illness and they are receiving disability checks from social security every month while a state institution provides for all their needs and care. >> president carter, you have the last word on this one. >> i think this debate on social security, medicare, national health insurance, typifies as vividly as any other subject tonight, the
basic historical differences between the democrats and the republicans, that illusions two basic changes in the minimum wage is another. and the governor's comments about unemployment compensation. these commitments the democratic party has made to the working americans has been extremely important to -- and it better quality of life for them. i have noticed recently that governor reagan frequently quotes democratic presidents. i have never heard a candidate for president who is a republican quote a republican president. but when they get an office, they try to govern like republicans. it's good for the american people to remember there is a very sharp historical difference on these crucial issues and the two parties we represent. >> thank you, governor reagan we go to another question.
>> you have addressed some of the major issues tonight but the biggest issue in the mind of american voters is yourselves your ability to lead this country. when many voters go into that booth just a week from today, they will be voting their gut instinct about you men. you have already given us your reasons why people should vote for you, now would you please tell us for this your final question, why they should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation and, having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness. >> barbara, reluctance i am to say anything critical about governor reagan, i will try to answer questions. first of all, as a historical perspective that i just described. this is a contest between a democrat in the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the
actions that i have taken in the oval office the last four years, as contrasted with governor reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of eisenhower and others. the most important crucial difference in this election campaign, in my judgment, is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the inclination to control or not to control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations who don't presently have it, particularly terrorist nations. the inclination that governor reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he has been running for president, i think since 1968, to inject american military forces in places like north korea, to put a blockade around cuba this year, or in some instances, to project american forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of ecuador on the
west coast of south america. this is typical of his long-standing inclination, on the use of american power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. obviously, no president wants war, and i certainly do not believe that governor reagan, if he were president, would want war, but a president in the oval office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how to exercise the enormous power of our country for peace, through diplomacy, or in a careless way, in a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past.
>> would you repeat the question for the governor. >> of course, realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of her opponent, may ask why people should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation and having examine both your opponents records and the man himself, could you tell us his greatest weakness? >> i think there's fundamental difference that has been very evident in the answers that mr. carter has given tonight that he seeks a solution to anything is another opportunity for federal government program. >> i happen to believe that the federal government has usurped powers of autonomy and authority that belong back at the state and local level. it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people, 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 were closer to them. now, as to why i should be and he shouldn't be, when he was a candidate in 1976, president carter invented a thing he called the misery index.
he added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5 under president ford. he said that no man with that size misery index has a right to seek reelection to the presidency. today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%, and i think this must suggest something. but, when i had quoted a democratic president, as the president says, i was a democrat. i said many foolish things back in those days. but the president that i quoted had made a promise, a democratic promise, and i quoted him because it was never kept. and today, you would find that that promise is at the very heart of what republicanism represents in this country
today. that's why i believe there are going to be millions of democrats that are going to vote with us this time around, because they too want that promise kept. it was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people. >> president carter? >> i mentioned the radical departure of governor reagan from the principle or ideas of historical perspective is on his party. i don't think that can be better illustrated than in the case of guaranteeing women equal rights under the constitution of our nation. for 40 years, the republican party platforms called for guaranteeing women 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 his new republican party have departed from this commitment, a very severe blow to the opportunity for women to finally correct discrimination under which they have suffered.
when a man and a women do the same amount of work, a man gets paid $1.00, a women only gets paid 59 cents. and the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for women by the federal government or by the state governments. that is all it says a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the democratic party, and which is a very important commitment of mine, as contrasted with governor reagan's radical departure from the long-standing policies of his own party. mr. >> governor reagan? >> yes, mister president once again i happen to be against the amendments because i think this amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. i am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for four years, and not one single state, and most of them have a majority of democratic legislators, has added to the
ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. >> while i was governor, more than eight years ago, i found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of california law, and i had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. i believe that if in all these years that we have spent trying to get the amendment, that we had spent as much time correcting these laws, as we did in california and we were the first to do it. if i were president, i would also now take a look at the hundreds of federal regulations which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. i would have someone ride herd on those regulations, and we would start eliminating those discriminations in the federal government against women. president carter?
>> i am a southerner, and i share the basic beliefs of my region that annexed excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of american citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. one of the commitments that i made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. we've been remarkably successful, with the help of a democratic congress. we have deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions. we're now working on the communications industry. in addition to that, i believe that this element of discrimination is something that the south has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected. not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people that have to work for a living, because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, since the long depression years, and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. we have made remarkable
success. it is part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress. so, my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the oval office, convinces me that what i have just described is a proper course for the future. >> governor reagan, yours is the last word. >> well, my last word is again to say that, we are talking it was very simple amendment in women's rights. and i make it plain again, i am for women's rights. but i would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that that so-called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to them. those would all, could all be challenged by men. and the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. i thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on. but, if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, i'm the only fellow who ever ran for
this job who was six times president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. >> gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. president carter, your first. >> first of all i'd like to thank the league of women voters for making this debate possible. i think it's been a very constructive debate and i hope it's helped to acquaint the american people with the sharp differences between myself and governor reagan. also, i want to thank the people of cleveland and ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. i've been president now for almost four years. i've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation, and i've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way. and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. as i've studied the record
between myself and governor reagan, i've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. i think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. i consider myself in the mainstream of my party. i consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of presidents who served before me. the united states must be a nation strong. the united states must be a nation secure. we must have a society that's just and fair. and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. i believe that, since i've been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. in each case, i alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. i've done that with moderation,
with care, with thoughtfulness, sometimes consulting experts. but, i've learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. and the final judgment about the future of the nation -- war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern -- has to be made by the man in the oval office. it's a lonely job, but with the involvement of the american people in the process, with an open government, the job is a very gratifying one. the american people now are facing, next tuesday, a lonely decision. those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. and i think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. if one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, john kennedy would never have been president of this nation. and if a few more people had
gone to the polls and voted in 1968, hubert humphrey would have been president, richard nixon would not. there is a partnership involved. our nation, to stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. i ask the american people to join me in this partnership. governor reagan? >> yes, i would like to add my words of thanks to the ladies of the league of women voters for making these debates possible. i'm sorry that we couldn't persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. but still, it's good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. next tuesday is election day. next tuesday, all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a >> decision.
i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? and if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, i think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i could suggest another choice that you have.
this country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in. we do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. we talk about the unemployment lines. if all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from new york city to los angeles, california. all of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. i have not had the experience the president has had in holding that office, but i think in being governor of california, the most populous state in the union, if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world, i, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. i know that the economic program that i have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today.
i know because we did it there. we cut the cost, the increased cost of government, in half over the eight years. we returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits, and cuts to our people. we, as i have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. and i know that we did give back 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 take government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that i know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years, the league of women voters has been committed to citizen participation of americans in political and governmental affairs. the most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen who goes to
the presidents, have a little paperback and hardcover and e-book. from public affairs. presents biographies of every president inspired by conversations with noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. look in 1984, president reagan debated his democratic challenger, former vice presen